Ramblings on Architecture

1-19-2024

I find myself disagreeing with most of the sentiments being echoed by Tafuri in the readings and lecture. So much of the discussion is around the social aspect of architecture, almost suggesting that the sole value in architecture is one of the public sector and its relation to groups of people, removing us as designers from the individual, the smallest unit of measurement within society and ultimately the thing that shapes it. 

Manfredo Tafuri is particularly egregious in this regard stating, “Utopias don’t exist anymore. Engaged architecture, which I tried to make politically and socially involved, is over.” How would Tafuri even know what a utopia is, whether in his time or before? He grew up in Mussolini controlled Italy and lived there during the rebuild post war, with his ideals being based in marxism which actively rejects the individual in favor of groups. Granted my opinions of him are based on a handful of quotes and will require more reading later, but I find his opinions in poor taste.

This idea that utopias existed in the first place is incorrect, in the public realm. It is impossible to satisfy all the needs of every individual within a group through a piece of architecture, as individuals have unique needs and interests that cannot be satisfied through a singular structure meant to engage groups; maybe for some specific people it will, but not everyone, therefore eliminating the idea of perfection within society. It is possible to create individual utopias for people that are integrated within a social fabric designed to support those individual utopian lifestyles, but not the other way around, but this is almost always ignored. I’m sure we could make the argument that this is due to capital, which Tafuri would eagerly pounce on as capitalism, however we should see any form of solution to his ideas within a marxist society, which we do not.

I lament in the fact that the discussion of architecture is centered around group talk and social engagement. This incessant need to satisfy groups, i.e. things without opinions, vs individuals, people with opinions, is out of touch with who we design for, keyword who, as groups are not a person but a thing. The poisoning of architecture being taught and discussed only as something that designs for groups of people has alienated us to the general public, (a group, isn’t that ironic). We have self-anointed ourselves as white collar professionals through misguided ideals and will continue to act as a wedge that widens the gap between social classes until we decide people are important again. These continual social experiments in large scale architecture need to be balanced out with thoughtful design for individuals once more so we can reestablish that trust with them.

This came across more as a Tafuri slander piece which was not my intent, but who cares if something isn’t socially involved? It’s ok if something doesn’t take everyone into account for once. With cities we have to be more cognizant on these things, but even when architecture isn’t designed with politics or social aspects involved, it will ultimately have one of those things attached to it.  People strive to tie meaning to objects and there will be something tied to architecture regardless. So even his whining that “it’s over” is incorrect because someone would find a way to attach meaning to it in the future.