Purposelessness? Blasphemy.
I found it interesting that in class we discussed the purpose of some architectural pieces is to have no purpose (ie a folie) when, based on everything we have been taught as designers, everything intrinsically has a purpose. We are taught that if something does not serve a programmatic purpose, it should not be included. So to defend our reasoning, we are taught to constantly look for ways to connect to histories, site conditions, forms and a multitude of other things to our design decisions. So, if you can’t include something that doesn't have a purpose, but everything you design must have a purpose, is there really such a thing as purposelessness in architecture?
I think you bring up an interesting question in asking if architecture can really exist without a purpose? I think the autonomous architecture we were shown, despite seemingly not having a purpose, does in fact have one. That purpose is to simply exist as a pure form, like a follie, which can be beneficial to society in the form of art for example. From my perspective, however, there is a threshold of scale where it becomes an issue when their required investments become greater than the benefit they may provide. It especially becomes problematic when buildings and specifically large scale projects share this idea because they cannot truly exist autonomously. They cannot be disconnected from the fact that they necessitate the will of a lot of people involved, potentially huge amounts of financial investment, valuable real estate, and extensive resources to realize. I agree buildings are a form of art but if their only purpose is to exist, is that a waste of human potential, resources, time, and energy that could be instead spent towards achieving something with a greater purpose? I think some of the failed projects we were shown like the Vessel in New York City is a prime example.
ReplyDeleteI did my blog post on this topic as well. My view is that it is impossible to design something with "no purpose," especially something "architectural." Try as we might to design something "solely for the sake of design" and "without purpose," when we create, "an exploration of the possibilities of design" becomes its purpose for existing by default. To claim that something can only be truly "architectural" if it serves no purpose or is "useless" is a direct contradiction to the architect's code. Architecture can not be "useless" or "without purpose" while simultaneously fulfilling the tenants of the architect's code. And if it does not at least attempt to satisfy those tenants, is it fair to call it "architectural?"
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with this. However, with certain architects they make design choices simply for aesthetic reasons. I personally don't view that as architecture, but some people do. I definitely think that in order for something to be considered architecture instead of art, it needs to have purpose. This is a big reason I am so critical of Zaha Hadid because her designs often come across as art pieces rather than architecture.
ReplyDelete