Designing Specific
The statement that architecture doesn't have to represent people's actions but can prepare frames for people's actions is an interesting one and one that I find myself trying to execute in design. Ironically, the more accommodating a space is for various actions, the more specific I think you must be. This is analogous to the discussion we had on participatory design, that it is actually more involved, not less so. To anticipate what people will do in a space requires you to get extremely specific about who those people are, what they want, and how they live; a certain degree of cultural competence is necessary to design a "blank slate" that, while primed for possibility, is appropriately layered and nuanced to support the lives of its inhabitants.
I find this whole topic very fascinating. I think if the building was well designed and visually interesting could promote artistic thinking. If the intent behind this design was to promote creativity, I think this intent could be met without allowing the users to disfigure the building but maybe just add their own touch or flare. This also made me think back to the movie we watched about the Getty museum for Eric's class and how Richard Meier was upset with the employees putting there "tacky decorations" in THEIR office space. The architect prepares this frame as you stated but at the end of the day the client, user, or public is able to do to its canvas whatever they please.
ReplyDeleteAnd design is a reaction. And the design process will continue once the building is inhabited. I find this somewhat liberating. The architect's job is not to provide a canvas, or blank slate, etc but to provide something that is worth reacting to. The architect must take a stance. Only then can the process continue.
ReplyDelete