Losing the "Why" in Architecture
After today's class focussing on Rem Koolhaas's projects, a question that kept coming up for me was why? Rem Koolhaas's rise to fame in a time of booming capitalism and new technologies allowed for these extreme ideas to formulate but shouldn't these ideas be rooted in reason? (I mean, I don't think we randomly decide to switch our left and right shoes some mornings.) Capitalism and technology is very reason/need-based. Popular technology is purely based on demand- thinking to put a computer in someone's pocket solved many inconveniences (not problems,) but nonetheless was so innovative to how we see technology today. Businesses generally avoid risk unless the payoff is tremendous, so my question is: have the ideas presented by Koolhaas and others of this time really paid off? Have we re-invented ways of designing buildings that solve problems and inconveniences by losing the why?
Jon, I totally agree with your thoughts. It doesn't make sense to me to unnecessarily create complex structures and designs without reason. I can understand the experimentation of architecture. But it can't be without justification or just to prove oneself 'unconventional'!
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Not everything requires a concrete reason for its existence. Consider Rem Koolhaas's decision to place the substantial book storage at the top level of the public library—an unconventional choice that stirred reactions. Perhaps provoking a response was his intention. To engage in the absurd, elicit reactions, and prompt deeper contemplation, challenging the notion that every action must have a clear rationale. It breaks the boundaries of acceptability and encourages us to reconsider our perspectives on architecture.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your question and line of reasoning Jon but I disagree with your assertion that these projects are random, without meaning, and without market demand. It is very important to consider who the client is, when asking why someone may be willing to pay the extra costs for an innovative building designed by Koolhaas. For example, a state entity of the Chinese government may not share the same motivation as a private developer in NYC. That reasoning may be to make a statement with radical form (the CCTV Building you included) or a project that wants to explore new possibilities of program and the creation of a unique experience at meeting point where various unrelated functions intersect. I may not always find myself in agreement with the justification for their creation or the success of their end result. However, I believe there is still an intention to Koolhaas's projects that goes beyond "proving oneself as unconventional" as Divya said.
DeleteI feel like it could be argued that wanting to create something new is a reason in and of itself to experiment with architecture. When first using a new material, for example, it is not always obvious what problems it can solve or what new things it can do until it is tested. Many period styles of architecture seem to come into being solely because a generation of architects got tired of it and wanted to do something different.
ReplyDeleteJon, your question "Have we re-invented ways of designing buildings that solve problems and inconveniences by losing the why?" is very thought-provoking because it could go either way. I don't think we have re-invented ways of designing buildings, but I think the reasonings behind those designs have definitely changed. I always think architects should consider who they are designing for, and that influences the why.
ReplyDelete