Who makes up the tree?
In Giancarlo De Carlo's Architectures Public, he looks into the credibility of architecture and how it has been lost. De Carlo points to the initial, cause of the incredibility of architecture when it "took an elite position on the side of the client rather than on the side of the user" valuing profits and end game over long-lasting goals. With the incredibility of architecture being laid out, De Carlo believes that it is more valuable to "analyze the phenomenon in its trunk [rather] than in its branches." To this, I ask, who is the trunk and who are the branches? A few lines of thought I have thought follows:
1- Academia is the trunk, and we as students are the branches.
2- History is the trunk, and the built environment is the branches.
3- The elite is the trunk, and the influenced (consumers) are the branches.
Which of these is the most valid makeup of the tree, if any? Are there several trees to which De Carlo could be referring? Are there other tree makeups that you all can think of?
An example of the third tree can be seen through Pruitt Igoe. This housing was influenced by Modern housing but ultimately failed because it was not designed with its user in mind but rather was designed for a client.
Academia as a trunk is an interesting perspective. I think that if academia is the trunk then the profession is most likely the roots since it feeds information that develops the curriculum. However with things beyond the present profession I definitely see your point.
ReplyDeleteI believe one layout of the tree could be the base knowledge as the trunk and then professionals as the branches. I came to this conclusion from where he says we look at the branches but not the trunk. The professionals, the branches, did their version of architecture, and people have designed based on them (whether through copying or critiquing) instead of finding their own path. While we can learn from one another, we also need to go back to our roots (or trunk) and reevaluate and determine what architecture is for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIt is this time period where I think academia verged away strongly from practice - where no precedents had to be named, or studied, and suddenly all genius design came from within and is completely new. So I'd rule out the first option definitely.
ReplyDeleteI'd say the 2nd option is the most capturing of what I understand from the reading. Le Corbusier and others coined the blocky, one-size-fits-all architecture and Giancarlo De Carlo is at the first split of the trunk - looking back onto the history of (Corbusiism?) and encouraging more branches to grow, acknowledging the past framework of modern architecture but each branch is trying to get closer to a utopian modernism built upon Corbusian framework.