Elite Illusions
This week I want to discuss a portion of Giancarlo De Carlo's article, Architecture's Public - specifically about the architect's transformed role in society since the Modern Movement. De Carlo notes how architects for a long time were placed into an elitist role completely separate from the people that their architecture served, and embraced an ambiguous attitude on design, not identifying with art or technology but an abstract combination of both. I completely agree with his skeptical view on those we've always viewed as the "heroes" of architecture, like Le Corbusier or Zaha Hadid:
"It is true that a few 'heroes' had intentions and produced works beyond these limits, but always leaning out of their elite positions never stepping out to stand on the other side: the side of the people - those who use and bear architecture."
I'm not saying the new generation of architects needs to try and solve all of society's problems with their buildings, because that is impossible. But by claiming this outdated illusion of superiority and separating yourself from the very world you're attempting to build for a community of people is to neglect your own credibility as a designer. As someone who doesn't have an "elite" background or particular expectation when I dream up a piece of architecture, I am always drawn toward empathetic design which takes a stance of integrity rather than arrogant dismissal. De Carlo criticizes this problem better than I could have, although I'm optimistic it has the potential for change in the future:
"By distancing itself from the real context of society and its most concrete environmental needs, the elite attitude of the Modern Movement just accentuated the superfluity of architecture."
It is extremely important for an architect to be empathetic towards the users. Architects need to put their feet into the shoes of users and understand their needs and design accordingly. There is no textbook that states what a user wants. It differs with different clients. Also, culture has a deep impact on lifestyle and hence architecture. So an architect can't consider himself superior. It will only increase the gap between the user and himself, affecting the design.
ReplyDeleteNatalie, I appreciate your post and especially your draw towards empathetic design. De Carlo does a great job of explaining the historical development of the role of the architect and exposing how they have predominantly served as puppets of the ruling class. I am optimistic that architects have a more developed view of their role and impact on society today. My reasoning for this optimism is that there are far greater architects that come from non-elite backgrounds than in any other time in history. I rarely come across an architects website that does not have a statement on their commitment to the user. I am sure not all live up to those words. However, I think there are still very interesting questions to be asked about who architects serve today? Architects rarely have equity in a project. Often, the best they can do is advocate for the user to the people who are actually funding projects. Unless we take on the risk of funding projects, architects will always be serving a clients wishes. In that light, I think it is extremely important for architects to consider who they accept to work for. Here, I think there can be an entirely different discussion on where one draws the line between surviving as a business and having the ability to only work with clients who share those aspirations. It is an amazing achievement to be successful enough as a business so that you can be choosy with clients.
ReplyDelete