I agree that we all hear it, but soemtimes not much seems to be happening. I mean I am hopeful, many architects are turning the very idea of green design in its head. Many of the leaders of design today, actively engage passive and natural systems. Morphosis, etc...
I don't really understand why you would say that it is slack argument with loose language? I am being direct. I think we can all agree there is a problem, and well our profession is many times smack in the middle of it. A whole body of work (design, theory, etc...) has come out on the subject just within the last five years. I am paraphrasing from like 3 or 4 books I have read. THis is not the right place to get ultra-specific (no one in this site truly ever is, no mater what the subject is).
Anyway, as the field begins to find out that we should be working with natural systems, re-becoming natives, and using "sustainable" methods, I think we will be "advancing"
I think green principles are a legitimate, architect led direction for change. I steer away from the politics outlined above - I prefer to focus on the pragmatics of change.
Here is a possible direction. This appeared in the Archinects News section a few days ago and I only just got around to reading it.
It is interesting to note that we have had the technology to do this for quite some time [or forever] via daylighting applications in Max etc, etc. Why is it only now someone using this feature in a critical way?
didnt get the impression that it was very 'green'. its sweet in a monastic sort of way following the trail of light. the article understandably glosses over the wow factor, but , also understanbly, doesnt shed much light. then again green is both a technology, an aesthetic (whether that fact be liked or not) and, especially for us removed from the physical experience of that building, a language. the latter is immediately sounded in the text surrounding, or being in lieu, of the building. light for its sake, light as ploy and play, doesnt strike me as making green. green people do not harass light for its own self-referential sake, there is almost this deliberated dumbness surrounding green that wants against these other solipsistic introversions. that is unless we call all interesting buildings that offer a modicum of environmental comfort green. if so, we might as well drop all positive linguistic attributes like good, intelligent, comfortable, cosy, interesting...and just say green. there are green people and there are purple people, i am purple (where the purple people go - i think she refers to phonecians).
t'CDwh - purple ? how's that ? is that like the purple states in the US which are a bit conservative and a bit liberal.
good points all.
'the latter is immediately sounded in the text surrounding, or being in lieu, of the building' what does that mean ?
You making an interesting point that those who wear green on their sleeves (as a mode of 'advanced') do indeed use hyperbolic rhetoric ('...good, intelligent, comfortable, cosy, interesting...') which seems to imply that the non-green-on-sleeves buildings don't or can't possess these qualities. It's a way of limiting the issue of what's 'good' to the green rhetoric which is super disingenuous. Worse, by making green an exclusive club in this way, the greens inadvertently make 'being green' impossible for all but the most pure. I somebody makes a crap building but they use a friendlier carpet than they might otherwise, isn't some green better than full-on green ?
lots of offices are making efforts to use green products without broadcasting the fact. I think I read that the new seattle public library does pretty well in this regard and of course morphosis manages to care about green things without getting a woody about it.
My point of view is this, the architectural knowledge is detainee in their own ones dead frontiers, the other disciplines advance their frontiers every day.
There is not in the architecture a strong body of theoretical, or a concerted body of thinking minds focused on the architectural evolution, and more, the architecture had created their own one own man, I call it the "Hommo arquitectonicus"
read some part of my essay : http://architecturaland.blogspot.com/
thenewold-I have been out of school for a while do freelance for people that feel like I do, and want to start my own practice but am thinking abou going fro my MArch first.
Why do you want to undercut my statements with personal attacks? If I were still in school would that make my argument any less important, oh wise one?
Morphosis, Foster and etc... Are proud of the work they are doing. I guess I have a woody, but not over green design. I don't think I even used the word, or sustainability.
Im done by the way, Im not going to continue posting if all you are going to do is dismiss it from the beginning, god knows I have better forums to speak out, and better things to do such as good design that works with natural systems instead of against.
And I guess the question is do you want your great great chldren to live a little or a lot? We can't afford to not have structures be as YOU call it "full green".
we're just chatting here. you can take it how you like. I like your participation. also, whether or not you respond, I'm quite sure you'll read this anyhow so here goes...
don't be silly that I or anyone else would like buildings to be less than full-on green in terms of their harmlessness. the point was that the absolute standard of fully green is rarely possible today. the incremental steps in the right direction (nice carpets and the like) are good and are a doing a great deal more than blanket rhetorical statements about what 'we' can and can't afford. additionally, such an absolutist stance, preaching to choir, only gets clients who are already like minded. getting converts to the cause requires a great deal more humility, pragmatism, and compromise than you seem to be willing to allow.
This discussion of environmental impact is totally relevant to this thread about whether or not archiecture is 'advancing' or has 'advanced'. By most measures, green thinking is gaining a real foothold and so it can be considered objective progress. I'm glad you brought this up.
In other words, I want what you want, but I believe the absolutist stance-taking is just so much noise to the rest of the world.
Don't go, Mel. It's only a discussion. It's not personal.
My feeling is that Morphosis and Foster are doing good architecture not only because it's 'green', but because they integrate 'greenness' with all the other concerns of good building.
you'all are right. Im saying he same thing, good design is good design. I just happen to think that GREAT design engages social, political, and natural systems as well.
I am proud because I think our prefession holds the key to many of the solutions and for "advancement" for society as a whole. And there are many people out there working hard to get there.
But lots otheres still don't get it, and I think the premise of this thread is proof. Modernism was not an advancement of any kind (as many others already pointed out). These are things that even "Bobby" Venturi has been saying for a long while. They took the soul out of architecture, that was a step waaaaay backwards.
Small steps are needed, but we cannot fool ourselves by complaining that it is too expensive, not feasible, whine, whine, whine. The simple truth is that it isn't.
I think that at the end of the day we are all on the same page, and I for one, cannot wait to see the stuff that will happen in the next 20-30 years, Im sure we will "regress" enough to progress as a profession, society.
'the latter is immediately sounded in the text surrounding, or being in lieu, of the building' what does that mean ?
it means that for readers who have no physical experience of the building discussed, the journalism of green is distinctively recognized. there is a standard language , say a green language, that transliterates and takes place in lieu of the non-experienced building. this is why i say that 'green' is a language as well as an aesthetic and a technology. standard jargon and standard points of view. inclusive and exclusive. it might very well be the case that there are lots of buildings that are (and have been designed to be) environmentally sustainable and comfortable but nevertheless are not described as being green because either:
1-they do not fit within the cliches of green (aesthetic)
2-the architect did not choose to make green prominent in the statement (or interview or presentation) of intent because either
a- s/he is the silent type (very possible, why not, must we all be talkers)
b-s/he deems it unimportant in terms of presentation but necessary in terms of outcome and chose to foreground other facets (cultural) behind the design
'You making an interesting point that those who wear green on their sleeves (as a mode of 'advanced') do indeed use hyperbolic rhetoric ('...good, intelligent, comfortable, cosy, interesting...') which seems to imply that the non-green-on-sleeves buildings don't or can't possess these qualities.'
no, that wasnt the point. bluntly, it is far better and less dogmatic to tell me a building is 'good' because of so and so, that it is cosy..that it is interesting because of this and that...than to call it 'green'. i mean exactly the opposite of what you took as being what i meant, namely that these are far less hyperbolic (i hardly care about them sounding common place, in the relevant context they have a meaning) than 'green'. that might even add vitality by breaking up the homogenous lump that is green and letting language speak with more variety and life. 'green' then , as a language, might find it much easier to integrate with other languages without assuming that it is the ultimate umbrella that justifies everything beneath it.
also, after saying that wasn't the point and you meant opposite and so on, you've gone and expanded on exactly what i was trying to get at.... that the language and preferences of the green-on-sleeve folks is a closed system and it shouldn't be.
if that's not what you meant again, I sincerely appologize for being unable to read between all lines and penetrate the god-like density of the cellardoor obscurispeak. cheers.
which brings to mind...the questioning of the architect's role...
are they really necessary? has anybody read jonathan hill's "actions of architecture"?
I think that some of your have lot of reason, but the architecture continuous falling down to game of appearances. did you read to Neil Leich " the anaesthetics of architecture" MIT Press 1999 ?
Leach thinks that the architecture is moving into a world of fetishes shapes with a narcotic message in a clear allusion to the manipulation through the image. He believe that today there is an stage of fashion for the architecture and with it vision He reinforced the idea of the fetishism of the architectural creators, also He assumes that the architect wants to continue being a dictator and that the seduction supported by the aesthetics is the last refuge of the architecture.
Ok, I do appreciate soem things that Corb and Mies did. Although more Corb than Mies, Mies's buildings are just, not my style.
Corb, I like his art more than his buildings, he was an egomaniac, taking the praise for the Ministry of Education and the UN building WHEN HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FINAL DESIGN!!!
I like Ronchamp, and Chandigarh a lot. It hink i like the humanistic grand scale of both. You can tell that it is post-war, more existential than any of his previous buildings. kahns buildings have basically the same feel, but I like his less, I think that his scale is off sometimes. He is not bad.
Out of the modernists I think it is better to look at Neimeyer, Aalto, Franky Wright, schindler. Their work was more connected to the natural systems of the world.
consider auto manufacturers' market share during the 30's through 50's.
(in the USA) don't most construction dollars pay for mcmansions? so wouldn't we expect a packard, studebaker, GM, chrysler, ford to grab the predominant share of a "minimally pluralistic" market? (home depot, lowes, walmart, sears, best buy,,,,)
I am wondering if you can dig deeper into your intuition on the 'single' material form of architecture? So are you saying that if all that is available to me is a thin sheet of some metal X, humans trained in the way of architecture would still be able to come up with myriad representations of it?
I think this is quite interesting. If we expand the category of this ''thin sheet of some metal X'' to common materials found in traditional societies, say, clay, earth, wood, stone, etc, one could come up with nearly very different representations of what constitutes a dwelling and what constitutes a religious or important structure.
I am personally interested in the Cameroon Teleks. Wood is considered scarce in this region so the scaffolding is never removed-it is part of the building used constantly for maintenance.
What I mean is that I suspect architecture is how something is done.
If a bunch of architects were given even a single material (lets stick with tinfoil), and asked to construct, they would begin to imagine how that material could be used: is it folded, screwed up, pinned down, stacked up, used in sheets, blocks, rolls... And how would these decisions begin to be made? For me, that's the question of architecture.
Architecture is a cultural endeavour. But it differs from art in that it blends the something we have to do [create shelter, remodel the landscape] with something we dont have to do [apply meaning, differentiate, manipulate, and 'improve'].
One half is mechanics, the other half is art. The discovery in the mechanics half is easy to track. The discovery in the art side is harder to gauge. But importantly, neither are distinct or mutually exclusive.
Perhaps rather than a half-half relationship between mechanics and art, architecture is a what-how relationship? Mechanics is what you do. Art is how you do it.
I think someone wrote a lttle about this earlier in this thread but the most interesting thing to me about this question of advancement in architecture since Modernism is the process of defining advancement. To discuss advancement or progress requires a discussion of ethics (which were discussed briefly earlier). Advancement is more than just change, advancement has value attached. In order to advance you have a negative value associated with the state left behind and a positive value associated with the state lying ahead. So it seems to me one has to lay out where they believe Modernism was deficient (or "wrong"), and then ask if the profession is making positive changes in those areas (or doing things "right").
A task I am much too tired to engage in right now, but my hope is this may start the thread up again...Anyone?
I, too wish that I was awake while this thread was hot and steamy. Advancement invariably reflects upon the past.
Though less relevant, I particularly liked the comment about us being monkeys with newer toys. This is an interestsing era in which we're able to witness a freeze-frame of homo-sapiens mangled together, and we like to believe that we have the future of the world in our hands, but I bet every other specie in the animal kingdom thinks so too. Men are marginally more violent and destructive in nature that is all.
Advancement does have to be agreed upon. However, the basis of what is advancement is less important than having a debate about whether there is advancement.
An simple example; we now know smoking kills. We didnt use to. Alot of people still smoke. Thus there is an advancement in knowledge that potentially leads to a better outcome. but whether that path is followed is up to the individual. I dont think we will see a reversal in the opinion "smoking is bad, dont do it", thus as a net result, we are more advanced than we were.
I'm not looking for more efficient ways of manufacturing glass, or passive solar heating systems. I am looking for qualitative advancement in the way we construct and use architecture.
I dont think there is any. Then again. as advancement is the result of survey and research, maybe it means there is not enough going on.
One possible direction is in the psyiological effect of colours, shapes, forms, materials, dimensions...
I believe that architecture is in a form of stasis. Nothing has changed, there is no advancement, we may know all we need to know about architecture as a practice of creating habitable spaces.
There are no new buildings or forms, only fashion. There is nothing of substance going on.
There is no physiological architecture. There is no architecture that responds to the idea that the material world is the result of a kind of solipsism. There is no architecture drug.
Sustainability is merely the assembledge of technologies and practices. In architecture, it is a Toyota Prius - essentially the same thing as any other ordinary Toyota except for its engines and drivetrain.
Advancement in Architecture
I agree that we all hear it, but soemtimes not much seems to be happening. I mean I am hopeful, many architects are turning the very idea of green design in its head. Many of the leaders of design today, actively engage passive and natural systems. Morphosis, etc...
I don't really understand why you would say that it is slack argument with loose language? I am being direct. I think we can all agree there is a problem, and well our profession is many times smack in the middle of it. A whole body of work (design, theory, etc...) has come out on the subject just within the last five years. I am paraphrasing from like 3 or 4 books I have read. THis is not the right place to get ultra-specific (no one in this site truly ever is, no mater what the subject is).
Anyway, as the field begins to find out that we should be working with natural systems, re-becoming natives, and using "sustainable" methods, I think we will be "advancing"
I think green principles are a legitimate, architect led direction for change. I steer away from the politics outlined above - I prefer to focus on the pragmatics of change.
Here is a possible direction. This appeared in the Archinects News section a few days ago and I only just got around to reading it.
It is interesting to note that we have had the technology to do this for quite some time [or forever] via daylighting applications in Max etc, etc. Why is it only now someone using this feature in a critical way?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/critic/feature/0,1169,1636257,00.html
mel -
out of curiosity, are you still in school ?
didnt get the impression that it was very 'green'. its sweet in a monastic sort of way following the trail of light. the article understandably glosses over the wow factor, but , also understanbly, doesnt shed much light. then again green is both a technology, an aesthetic (whether that fact be liked or not) and, especially for us removed from the physical experience of that building, a language. the latter is immediately sounded in the text surrounding, or being in lieu, of the building. light for its sake, light as ploy and play, doesnt strike me as making green. green people do not harass light for its own self-referential sake, there is almost this deliberated dumbness surrounding green that wants against these other solipsistic introversions. that is unless we call all interesting buildings that offer a modicum of environmental comfort green. if so, we might as well drop all positive linguistic attributes like good, intelligent, comfortable, cosy, interesting...and just say green. there are green people and there are purple people, i am purple (where the purple people go - i think she refers to phonecians).
t'CDwh - purple ? how's that ? is that like the purple states in the US which are a bit conservative and a bit liberal.
good points all.
'the latter is immediately sounded in the text surrounding, or being in lieu, of the building' what does that mean ?
You making an interesting point that those who wear green on their sleeves (as a mode of 'advanced') do indeed use hyperbolic rhetoric ('...good, intelligent, comfortable, cosy, interesting...') which seems to imply that the non-green-on-sleeves buildings don't or can't possess these qualities. It's a way of limiting the issue of what's 'good' to the green rhetoric which is super disingenuous. Worse, by making green an exclusive club in this way, the greens inadvertently make 'being green' impossible for all but the most pure. I somebody makes a crap building but they use a friendlier carpet than they might otherwise, isn't some green better than full-on green ?
lots of offices are making efforts to use green products without broadcasting the fact. I think I read that the new seattle public library does pretty well in this regard and of course morphosis manages to care about green things without getting a woody about it.
rather, isn't some green better than no green at all ? oops...
My point of view is this, the architectural knowledge is detainee in their own ones dead frontiers, the other disciplines advance their frontiers every day.
There is not in the architecture a strong body of theoretical, or a concerted body of thinking minds focused on the architectural evolution, and more, the architecture had created their own one own man, I call it the "Hommo arquitectonicus"
read some part of my essay : http://architecturaland.blogspot.com/
thenewold-I have been out of school for a while do freelance for people that feel like I do, and want to start my own practice but am thinking abou going fro my MArch first.
Why do you want to undercut my statements with personal attacks? If I were still in school would that make my argument any less important, oh wise one?
Morphosis, Foster and etc... Are proud of the work they are doing. I guess I have a woody, but not over green design. I don't think I even used the word, or sustainability.
Im done by the way, Im not going to continue posting if all you are going to do is dismiss it from the beginning, god knows I have better forums to speak out, and better things to do such as good design that works with natural systems instead of against.
And I guess the question is do you want your great great chldren to live a little or a lot? We can't afford to not have structures be as YOU call it "full green".
now Im done, over and out!
mel -
we're just chatting here. you can take it how you like. I like your participation. also, whether or not you respond, I'm quite sure you'll read this anyhow so here goes...
don't be silly that I or anyone else would like buildings to be less than full-on green in terms of their harmlessness. the point was that the absolute standard of fully green is rarely possible today. the incremental steps in the right direction (nice carpets and the like) are good and are a doing a great deal more than blanket rhetorical statements about what 'we' can and can't afford. additionally, such an absolutist stance, preaching to choir, only gets clients who are already like minded. getting converts to the cause requires a great deal more humility, pragmatism, and compromise than you seem to be willing to allow.
This discussion of environmental impact is totally relevant to this thread about whether or not archiecture is 'advancing' or has 'advanced'. By most measures, green thinking is gaining a real foothold and so it can be considered objective progress. I'm glad you brought this up.
In other words, I want what you want, but I believe the absolutist stance-taking is just so much noise to the rest of the world.
Don't go, Mel. It's only a discussion. It's not personal.
My feeling is that Morphosis and Foster are doing good architecture not only because it's 'green', but because they integrate 'greenness' with all the other concerns of good building.
you'all are right. Im saying he same thing, good design is good design. I just happen to think that GREAT design engages social, political, and natural systems as well.
I am proud because I think our prefession holds the key to many of the solutions and for "advancement" for society as a whole. And there are many people out there working hard to get there.
But lots otheres still don't get it, and I think the premise of this thread is proof. Modernism was not an advancement of any kind (as many others already pointed out). These are things that even "Bobby" Venturi has been saying for a long while. They took the soul out of architecture, that was a step waaaaay backwards.
Small steps are needed, but we cannot fool ourselves by complaining that it is too expensive, not feasible, whine, whine, whine. The simple truth is that it isn't.
I think that at the end of the day we are all on the same page, and I for one, cannot wait to see the stuff that will happen in the next 20-30 years, Im sure we will "regress" enough to progress as a profession, society.
'the latter is immediately sounded in the text surrounding, or being in lieu, of the building' what does that mean ?
it means that for readers who have no physical experience of the building discussed, the journalism of green is distinctively recognized. there is a standard language , say a green language, that transliterates and takes place in lieu of the non-experienced building. this is why i say that 'green' is a language as well as an aesthetic and a technology. standard jargon and standard points of view. inclusive and exclusive. it might very well be the case that there are lots of buildings that are (and have been designed to be) environmentally sustainable and comfortable but nevertheless are not described as being green because either:
1-they do not fit within the cliches of green (aesthetic)
2-the architect did not choose to make green prominent in the statement (or interview or presentation) of intent because either
a- s/he is the silent type (very possible, why not, must we all be talkers)
b-s/he deems it unimportant in terms of presentation but necessary in terms of outcome and chose to foreground other facets (cultural) behind the design
'You making an interesting point that those who wear green on their sleeves (as a mode of 'advanced') do indeed use hyperbolic rhetoric ('...good, intelligent, comfortable, cosy, interesting...') which seems to imply that the non-green-on-sleeves buildings don't or can't possess these qualities.'
no, that wasnt the point. bluntly, it is far better and less dogmatic to tell me a building is 'good' because of so and so, that it is cosy..that it is interesting because of this and that...than to call it 'green'. i mean exactly the opposite of what you took as being what i meant, namely that these are far less hyperbolic (i hardly care about them sounding common place, in the relevant context they have a meaning) than 'green'. that might even add vitality by breaking up the homogenous lump that is green and letting language speak with more variety and life. 'green' then , as a language, might find it much easier to integrate with other languages without assuming that it is the ultimate umbrella that justifies everything beneath it.
I extrapolated another thing then. so so sorry.
also, after saying that wasn't the point and you meant opposite and so on, you've gone and expanded on exactly what i was trying to get at.... that the language and preferences of the green-on-sleeve folks is a closed system and it shouldn't be.
if that's not what you meant again, I sincerely appologize for being unable to read between all lines and penetrate the god-like density of the cellardoor obscurispeak. cheers.
I do think the cellardoor whore is doing alot better without his dictation software. I am glad her computer crashed :)
which brings to mind...the questioning of the architect's role...
are they really necessary? has anybody read jonathan hill's "actions of architecture"?
I think that some of your have lot of reason, but the architecture continuous falling down to game of appearances. did you read to Neil Leich " the anaesthetics of architecture" MIT Press 1999 ?
no, tell us about the books.....
Leach thinks that the architecture is moving into a world of fetishes shapes with a narcotic message in a clear allusion to the manipulation through the image. He believe that today there is an stage of fashion for the architecture and with it vision He reinforced the idea of the fetishism of the architectural creators, also He assumes that the architect wants to continue being a dictator and that the seduction supported by the aesthetics is the last refuge of the architecture.
I entirely disagree that with your wholesale rejection of modernism,mel.
Can you really discount the work and skill of Corb, Mies, Scharoun, Kahn as worthless? Do you find nothing to appreciate there?
agfa, must you rain on my parade?!?!
Ok, I do appreciate soem things that Corb and Mies did. Although more Corb than Mies, Mies's buildings are just, not my style.
Corb, I like his art more than his buildings, he was an egomaniac, taking the praise for the Ministry of Education and the UN building WHEN HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FINAL DESIGN!!!
I like Ronchamp, and Chandigarh a lot. It hink i like the humanistic grand scale of both. You can tell that it is post-war, more existential than any of his previous buildings. kahns buildings have basically the same feel, but I like his less, I think that his scale is off sometimes. He is not bad.
Out of the modernists I think it is better to look at Neimeyer, Aalto, Franky Wright, schindler. Their work was more connected to the natural systems of the world.
fortunately Le Corbusier can´t make more damage to the architecture .... anymore
posted above: the auto industry comparison.
consider auto manufacturers' market share during the 30's through 50's.
(in the USA) don't most construction dollars pay for mcmansions? so wouldn't we expect a packard, studebaker, GM, chrysler, ford to grab the predominant share of a "minimally pluralistic" market? (home depot, lowes, walmart, sears, best buy,,,,)
I consider architecture to be a cultural endeavour.
If tinfoil was the only material available, architecture would still be possible.
agfa8x,
I am wondering if you can dig deeper into your intuition on the 'single' material form of architecture? So are you saying that if all that is available to me is a thin sheet of some metal X, humans trained in the way of architecture would still be able to come up with myriad representations of it?
I think this is quite interesting. If we expand the category of this ''thin sheet of some metal X'' to common materials found in traditional societies, say, clay, earth, wood, stone, etc, one could come up with nearly very different representations of what constitutes a dwelling and what constitutes a religious or important structure.
I am personally interested in the Cameroon Teleks. Wood is considered scarce in this region so the scaffolding is never removed-it is part of the building used constantly for maintenance.
What I mean is that I suspect architecture is how something is done.
If a bunch of architects were given even a single material (lets stick with tinfoil), and asked to construct, they would begin to imagine how that material could be used: is it folded, screwed up, pinned down, stacked up, used in sheets, blocks, rolls... And how would these decisions begin to be made? For me, that's the question of architecture.
I agree with agfa8x.
Architecture is a cultural endeavour. But it differs from art in that it blends the something we have to do [create shelter, remodel the landscape] with something we dont have to do [apply meaning, differentiate, manipulate, and 'improve'].
One half is mechanics, the other half is art. The discovery in the mechanics half is easy to track. The discovery in the art side is harder to gauge. But importantly, neither are distinct or mutually exclusive.
Perhaps rather than a half-half relationship between mechanics and art, architecture is a what-how relationship? Mechanics is what you do. Art is how you do it.
yeah, a little too friendly. that feeling of all those eyes watching me while i eat gives me the creeps.
so now you know why i must MASH MASH MASH!
http://www.istockphoto.com/imageindex/372/1/372166/
I think someone wrote a lttle about this earlier in this thread but the most interesting thing to me about this question of advancement in architecture since Modernism is the process of defining advancement. To discuss advancement or progress requires a discussion of ethics (which were discussed briefly earlier). Advancement is more than just change, advancement has value attached. In order to advance you have a negative value associated with the state left behind and a positive value associated with the state lying ahead. So it seems to me one has to lay out where they believe Modernism was deficient (or "wrong"), and then ask if the profession is making positive changes in those areas (or doing things "right").
A task I am much too tired to engage in right now, but my hope is this may start the thread up again...Anyone?
progress is soooo 20th century...yawn
I, too wish that I was awake while this thread was hot and steamy. Advancement invariably reflects upon the past.
Though less relevant, I particularly liked the comment about us being monkeys with newer toys. This is an interestsing era in which we're able to witness a freeze-frame of homo-sapiens mangled together, and we like to believe that we have the future of the world in our hands, but I bet every other specie in the animal kingdom thinks so too. Men are marginally more violent and destructive in nature that is all.
Advancement does have to be agreed upon. However, the basis of what is advancement is less important than having a debate about whether there is advancement.
An simple example; we now know smoking kills. We didnt use to. Alot of people still smoke. Thus there is an advancement in knowledge that potentially leads to a better outcome. but whether that path is followed is up to the individual. I dont think we will see a reversal in the opinion "smoking is bad, dont do it", thus as a net result, we are more advanced than we were.
I'm not looking for more efficient ways of manufacturing glass, or passive solar heating systems. I am looking for qualitative advancement in the way we construct and use architecture.
I dont think there is any. Then again. as advancement is the result of survey and research, maybe it means there is not enough going on.
One possible direction is in the psyiological effect of colours, shapes, forms, materials, dimensions...
Hump.
I believe that architecture is in a form of stasis. Nothing has changed, there is no advancement, we may know all we need to know about architecture as a practice of creating habitable spaces.
There are no new buildings or forms, only fashion. There is nothing of substance going on.
There is no physiological architecture. There is no architecture that responds to the idea that the material world is the result of a kind of solipsism. There is no architecture drug.
Sustainability is merely the assembledge of technologies and practices. In architecture, it is a Toyota Prius - essentially the same thing as any other ordinary Toyota except for its engines and drivetrain.
Am I right or wrong?
...but only to the extent that a rembrandt is exactly the same a matisse.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.