Archinect
anchor

responsible architecture vs. creative masturbation

oxygenoverdose

This is something I've been mulling over for a long time in the process of deciding whether architecture is the right field for me.

I see great architecture everywhere, plastered all over design magazines, online and in my school. I find my studio challenging and interesting and, although I'm not too far along in my architectural education, I am continually amazed at the ideas and creativity of my fellow students and my professors. I find the design process itself fascinating and since I was a little kid I always had a strange fascination and attraction to the design of physical space (I must have redesigned my house a million times as a child).

But I define architecture as a SOCIAL profession, one that should have the best interests of the public at heart. I define architecture as the creating of environments for people, environments that allow us to live the best lives we can and fulfill our passions and desires.

Basically I hit a wall when I see massive, beautiful, inspired, awe-inspiring spaces that don't really help the people who need it or change he lives of people who could most benefit from good design. Zaha Hadid, Koolhaas and all the other Pritzker Prize winners may have beautiful, good ideas and may be incredibly talented...but should the talents of an architect be spent building monuments to wealth and style, individual buildings that capture the imaginations of thousands but in the end only serve to make a trip to an otherwise dreary museum in Bilbao more interesting? I'm not saying these starchitects are bad designers...but they seem to design a few good buildings that get used (or worse - visited) by only a few people (who are probably pretty well off to begin with).

Why isn't the design of housing for poor people more respected in this profession, or design for disaster victims? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think our physical environment can actually ameliorate efforts by economists, psychologists, social workers, lawyers and doctors to help solve the problems of society. Isn't this vastly more important than one architect's self-gratifying exercise in abstract notions of style or "vision" or aesthetics?

Why can't the striking creativity and beauty of truly good designers and groundbreaking visionaries be combined with a respect for REAL PROBLEMS people have? In general, is anyone trying to solve the important problems we face today through good design? Is anyone thinking about how the skills we learn as architects could be applied to helping solve social or environmental problems? Perhaps more importatly, is anyone trying to solve these problems in such a way that the design itself is held accountable - in other words, is anyone giving the design of a space real resonsibility in the process of making tht space solve some real problem people have?

The only examples I can think of are hospital design, affordable housing and architecture for humanity.

Sorry this is so log but this has been bothering me and I'd like to know what you think, or I'm just missing something huge.

 
Dec 25, 05 11:47 pm
archinthecity

I TOTALLY agree with you!!!!!

To my knowledge, architects have strayed away from thinking architecture could solve societies problems because of Pruitt Igo.

I know I have also read though......that the lesson from Pruitt Igo, should not be "architecture cannot solve socities problems" but that the lesson should be that architecture CAN solve societies problems if you do it right (and it wasn't done right in Pruitt).

From what I have seen, a lot of "good" architecture does nothing for average people and there are so many buildings i have been in that are all about "design" and fail to give me a decent way to find the stairs!!!!!!!! or the bathroom!!!!!!

For one aspect of architecture that can benefit society (and that also address this larger issue), I suggest the quick read "Suburban Nation"
which discusses real world things you can do (and examples of what has been done) to counter the destruction of the city caused by the suburbs.

Dec 26, 05 1:10 am  · 
 · 
archinthecity

btw, i resent the fact that you used the word "masturbation"

don't pull masturbation DOWN to that level!!!!
hehehe

Dec 26, 05 1:17 am  · 
 · 

might read "sprawl" by robert bruegman, just to be fair. lots of criticism against sprawl is (according to rob at least) written by people who want to keep the poor in their place. there is some truth to his claim, from what i have read...

the rural studio is an amazing example of architecture trying to be socially just. but i suspect most REAL problems aren't easy to address through architecture and are better tackled with political efforts...







Dec 26, 05 1:50 am  · 
 · 
oxygenoverdose

jump, i acknowledge that the roots of some systemic problems lie in areas outside of architecture...but do you really think that MOST problems fit into this category? I always thought that one of the strengths of architecture was in its ability to change the way people live day-to-day. or am i wrong in this...

also it seems that in general we notice architecture when it fails rather than succeeds, which it why pruit-igoe was such a big deal. but are there examples of social housing that succeeded in such a big way as pruit-igoe failed?

outside of the rural studio, does anyone know of any firms/projects/schools/organizations that do this kind of design

Dec 26, 05 2:21 am  · 
 · 
myriam

You sound like a CMU kid.

Yes, there are tons of good examples. I'll have to add some on here post-holly-days. Anyway, architecture attracts those with saviour complexes. (I'm no exception.) Many architects desire to have great social impact in their work--I would be surprised if those starchitect Pritzker winners don't! Some certainly succeed. A couple good places to start, of course, if you're interested personally, is Habitat for Humanity, the 1% Solution, and of course Architecture for Humanity, fostered along (birthed? Not familiar with the history) by an (more than one?) archinecter, Cameron Sinclair.

p.s. for the record... although it doesn't *specifically* aim to help the economically impoverished, Renzo Piano's Centre Pompidou is an excellent example of great public architecture by a Pritzker winner... as the only famous building I've had prolonged exposure to, I've got to stick up for it. Half of the building, the part tourists don't see, houses an enormous library, which is usually PACKED with students, citizens, puttering old people, etcetera... to the point where usually one must wait in line just to get in through security. It is wonderful, and I miss it terribly. Great big center for knowledge that all kinds of people use and it serves them admirably and beautifully, in my opinion.

okay, rant over.

Dec 26, 05 2:35 am  · 
 · 
Cameron

A small list.
Red Feather Development Group
Design Corp
various CDCs around the country*
many individual architects
one percent solution

check out the Structures for Inclusion conferences and the Global Studio

*we are helping start one in Biloxi and will be 'hiring' architects this spring to help with rebuilding work post-hurricane Katrina. There are also design fellowships in Sri Lanka, India and Tanzania.

-----

Jump, Architecture is a political act - whether you build or you don't is a political choice. Rather than wait for politicians to dictate how we should build we need to brake the boundaries and set the rules.

Dec 26, 05 2:36 am  · 
 · 

cameron,

yea i am sorta conflicted over that but i think there are degrees of political acts, and when it comes down to it architecture is not such a big one. at least not in most cases. the albert speers are a minority still, thank goodness.

i love great architecture but when i visit it i am most impressed by the stuff that easily accepts use and abuse, i suppose the stuff no one cares about like the spaces in the pompidou you wrote about, where daily use trumps design. i really love it that people can do that to great buildings, make them human, inhabit them, deconstruct all the pomp just by being there.

by far the most moving architecture i have visited is the self-built shacks that appear all over the so-called developing world. they aren't nice, maybe not safe, but they are also in many ways irelavent. only backdrops. the power of the places rests entirely in the people that make and use them. i am sure you know the kinds of places i am talking about. after seeing only a few places like that i have come to think that people make a bigger difference than buildings.

more importantly i think that you camreon have a greater effect than any building, and all the people who are helping you and the groups you listed above. it is really and truly impressive and i have a lot of respect for what you are doing.

but is it architecture?

Dec 26, 05 4:50 am  · 
 · 

wups, erased the end there.

i meant to ask if you see your work as architecture or as politics, or something else all together?

Dec 26, 05 7:03 am  · 
 · 

of course what cameron is nurturing is architecture. and architecture is nothing if not political.

the thing that oxygenoverdose describes is a commonly discussed one in the profession. why do zaha and rem and gehry do big-money cultural projects? because they have big-money clients that pay them to do these. why isn't there more affordable housing? because finding clients to pay to get it built is difficult. municipalities may have one or two housing initiatives going on at a time, meaning a few architects will be working on them while the others are working on health care, roadside commercial, or churches. most architects are not developers, i.e., they're not the ones initiating the projects they design.

this is not an excuse. many architects do offer probono services for housing initiatives, public design work, urban restorations work; they might also serve on building/grounds committees or boards of local preservation, housing, or humanitarian projects; or serve in non-architecture functions that still benefit a community's quality of life.

cameron's in a unique and enviable position, and he's worked hard to get there. architecture for humanity has become recognized and will continue to do great things. but i doubt cameron and his partners would have been able to build it without 1) a willingness to put in a lot of hours for no pay and 2) teaching positions or other non-practice jobs to support them while they built it up.

the reason architecture is political is that architects don't often get to set its goals. from the outset of almost any project, we're part of a network of diverse interests with different agendas: clients (sometimes committees), users (where separate from the clients), local agencies/enforcement bodies, neighborhood groups, financial institutions, the construction industry (suppliers, contractors, CSI, etc)... our role becomes one of hand-holding, negotiating, teaching, listening/learning, and resisting the easy path as much as it is designing.

oxygenoverdose - architecture is a SOCIAL profession, as you have said. in that light, don't only look at good design/bad design or the single project. look at what architecture can do. do you not think that gehry's project in bilbao did some social/economic good for the city of bilbao? do you not think that zaha's CAC, as part of a cultural draw in an urban environment, did some good in bolstering downtown cincinnati? even less nicely designed projects, projects a no-compromises designer would see as sellouts, can be part of a larger social and economic strategy for raising up depressed areas. you just might not hear about them or notice them. all have their place - the quiet and the noisy projects.

Dec 26, 05 8:40 am  · 
 · 
mdler

if you can find a client who wants to save the world...

Dec 26, 05 8:51 am  · 
 · 
Sevin Yildiz

I must say that this post has been a very interesting coincidence for me. I am also an editor and an architect and for some time now, I am following these groups who work with a social responsibility.

When I was a student, I was pretty succesful in studio projects at school and I really enjoyed what I did but, I always felt that design had something missing in the way it was taught and thought.

I could clearly saw what was missing after I started my professional life ;"meaning". I felt very introverted with the office work i did in a very good architectural studio. After I started my current job, I started writing and interviewing about this social content of architecture, I even sent many emails to Cameron for an online interview but he was too busy I guesss:)

Anyway, what I would like to say is that designing with less and affordable holds a vital importance for countries dealing with crises of all types. I live in Istanbul and we experienced earthquakes i,n the past and we will face them in the future. The design practice here only serves the needs of certain income-level. It is even more sad when your country is one which had many conventional, affordable, sustainable building practices in the past. The gap between these practices and the design education in schools is very huge. The priorities of design has changed a lot.

we will face quite severe dilemmas with changing natural conditions of the earth and I am not sure if we, the architects, will be wise and well-prepared enough to deal with these. On my part, I believe, the way the architectural education structured has to be questioned .

Dec 26, 05 8:56 am  · 
 · 
5

Oxygen,

I think this is a very important discussion, but the title of the thread represents, I think, a very fundamental misunderstanding about what you call "creative masturbation" (and I'm suprised I'm the first to post a response to that). To discuss one example, the last few Pritzker winners have been, in some way, Deconstructivist architects, and their work goes far beyond the exterior beauty you talk about. Beauty alone would never have one anyone our field's (arguably) most coveted award. Hadid, Tschumi, Libeskind and others all are creating architecture that challenges its users to view their surroundings in a much more open and critical way; one that they believe mimics social realities. They saw modernism (the perfect and functional modernism) as a failure to prepare people for the complexities of the world we daily interact with, or a failure to represent these; they saw it as a wash. These new buildings encourage people not to be deterred by surpize or daunted by confusion. The idea behind this is that people will take this approach to their environment away with them into the world. To give an extreme example in order to illustrate a more subtle point, one could think of it as, "I never thought I could stop drinking, but, then again, I never thought a 'building' could look like that"--challenging people's long-held notions of reality by disturbing their standard of visual surroundings is what makes this kind of architecture so interesting and so socially poignant. Seen in that way, I think that the Pritzker prizes were well-awarded, and for more than just 'creative masturbation'. Even if the buildings fall down after ten years and leak after one (arguably fundamental failures of any kind of architecture), they will have a lasting impact on all who visited them, and on the field of architecture as a whole.

Dec 26, 05 10:29 am  · 
 · 
abracadabra

it is possible to design and build responsibly and there are many ideas and examples of how it is done.
rate of population increase, unbalanced distribution of wealth and wheat, lack of political representation are some of the real problems.
the people who are chasing the emergency help trucks, and gehry/kolhaas etc., are irrelevant to eachother.
people in need of healthy housing, given the land, the funds and thought how to, can generate their own builders and designs.
i agree with some who suggested educational changes. however this should include other schools along with architectural academies.

Dec 26, 05 10:40 am  · 
 · 
liberty bell

myriam: Anyway, architecture attracts those with saviour complexes. (I'm no exception.)

Bingo, I love this statement! I'm no exception either.

Personally, I found great satisfaction in doing projects for churches with community-outreach programs. They never had any money, and working with a committee is hair-pullingly frustrating, but seeing a social organization able to improve their ability to serve their community through an improved physical facility was incredibly rewarding.

Someone on this forum, in another discussion, mentioned that churches tend to be the organizations that are quietly on continuously improving the community through direct action such as soup kitchens, temporary housing for abused women, etc. These projects are almost always small-scale and minimal budget, but have an enormous impact in the lives of the people who use them. Rarely - rarely - are these projects "architecturally significant". I vaguely recall a San Francisco LGBT center that was very well-done.

Anyway, oxygen, keep asking yourself these questions. Architecture is a long profession, there is still time to make an impact in your 70's and 80's. Just keep learning.

Dec 26, 05 11:09 am  · 
 · 
Cameron

Steven - Believe it or not I worked as a CAD monkey for the first 4 years of AFH. Teaching has only been for the past year and a half but is done not to support AFH but to get more students involved in humanitarian design.

Sevin - You should have tracked me down in Istanbul last year!

---

I believe architecture is a much richer and broader than we, and certainly the design press, take credit for. There will always be room for the Pritzker prize winning architects but as Abra noted the increase in the need for architects is in long term improvements in housing for the widest number of people - 1:7 people live in slums, by 2030 it will be 1:3 - the population increase is happening in the developing world not here.

Dec 26, 05 11:34 am  · 
 · 

you're more of a masochist than i expected. good on ya.

Dec 26, 05 11:39 am  · 
 · 
vado retro

which reminds me where again is "Creative Masturbators of America" convention being held? i'm one of the keynote speakers.

Dec 26, 05 2:39 pm  · 
 · 
ElTomas

problem i think is that yes we do need social projects tha thelp the poor, needy, etc... but who is going to pay for this?

when it comes down to it, getting paid to design such project types i believe is hard. the reason architects have a job to begin with is that there are clients willing to shell out the dough for the idea. no clients no architecture. its sad, and its a dilema i believe every architect faces, at least the ones who give a damn...

im trying to get my office to do some pro bono work for an after school program for kids in the ghetto... sounds great, but in reality i doubt it will happen...

the sad reality is that architecture is a lucritave profession, and it serves as a symbol of social heirarchy.

great post, im intrested in reading further comments on this subject...

Dec 26, 05 2:48 pm  · 
 · 

oxygenoverdose OI completely agree with you. I think I wrote it before, but...
One of the least inspiring experiences I have EVER had is when I went to see a stephen holl house in Dallas. The owners were nice enough to let us in, but besiudes that they were complete assholes. The first thing the guy says when we walk in is that architects pay lip service to "sustainable ideals" (socially and environmentally) but good architecture will never be produced under those conditions.
These people where both children of oil magnates, and they collect signature buildings (they had maya lynn renderings ready for a house in colorado) simply for the fun of it. From that moment on Stephen Holl to me aint nothing but a whore, and his design wasnt even all that good.
Afterwards I was disgusted with the profession, it took me a while to recover. Am I just a rich man's prostitute? Am I spending sleepless nights so one day people can show off their wealth and power with my work?
Thankfully I work for a firm that shares my values and we dont do trophy architecture for the bourgeois. I think even if I was working ofr a starchitect f=doing that crap I would find my work life unfulfilling. I dont get paid much, and work hard, but I enjoy it becuase I at least believe we are doing work worth doing.

Dec 26, 05 2:54 pm  · 
 · 
mdler

vado,

i still rock the two handed twist (aka 'startin a fire in the woods') method

Dec 26, 05 3:02 pm  · 
 · 
digger
the sad reality is that architecture is a lucritave profession, and it serves as a symbol of social heirarchy

ElThomas ... whatcha smoking, man ?

i think the sad reality is that for a small few clients with big bucks to spend on luxury or prestige, architecture can begin to approach an art form. for the large many architects, this isn't so lucrative a profession

for the vast majority of builidings designed by architects, we're talking mostly about keeping the rain out and the air-conditioning in, with some reasonable functionality thrown in along the way

i wish we could stop spending so much time here chewing over the famous few architects who get all the ink (and fancy commissions) and concentrate more on raising the average quality level of architecture across the board ... just a 5% betterment would dramatically improve the quality of life in our communities.

Dec 26, 05 3:05 pm  · 
 · 
liberty bell
...concentrate more on raising the average quality level of architecture across the board ... just a 5% betterment would dramatically improve the quality of life in our communities.

Agreed, digger. There is a townhouse complex in Indy at the corner of two major 4 lane roads. The building is developer crap - brick face on front facade only, snap-in mullions, gratuitous gables, etc. But the worst part is the site planning: the townhomes all face Meridian Street, the busiest street in the city, with their front doors not 15' from the curb, and the traffic light at the intersection flashing right into their front windows all night long. And the front doors are practically unused as everyone aprks in the back and walks in through their garage. If this place had just had a slightly more intelligent - i.e. responsive - site plan, even with developer materials, it would have been a tremendously better project. As it is now the corner units are perpetually for sale. Bad design in this case = bad business.

Dec 26, 05 3:22 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

the two handed twist will be featured in a roundtable discussion about old school techniques that are experiencing a comeback!

Dec 26, 05 4:04 pm  · 
 · 
alex_ian

I am facing my fifth and last year in school (in germany) and i have been chewing on this forever. First of all, I came from a natural/self building background, so the cultural shock when starting architectural school was enormous, but well, i think it helped. What I found for an answer for this was Janny Rodermond in "Fresh Facts": "Designers cannot avoid asking the question of which version of reality they support with their designs.", referring to the growing conflicts between all kinds of different versions of reality, east-west, rich-poor, neoliberal-social, whatever...
The Centre Pompidou shouts out clearly what kind of society it supports...
Anyhow, I know I have to make my living somehow, and I probably won´t be able to make it on explicitely social projects, but nevertheless will be my vision of society projected thru my design, or else i´d feel corrupt...

I´d recommend looking up Lacaton&Vassal for the way they build and KorteknieStuhlmacher for their P.A.R.A.S.I.T.E. Concept...

Dec 26, 05 5:21 pm  · 
 · 
oxygenoverdose

wow thanks guys for the great responses. It's nice to know other people are thinking about this too!

alex_ian, would you mind if i asked you some questions about school in germany? (not necessarily related to this thread)

Dec 26, 05 6:09 pm  · 
 · 

is bad design anti-social?

i think lb summed it up best in her repsonse in the middle above somewhere, that the meaningful social acts are small and not usually architectural.

i absolutely believe that architecture has a place in making the slums more liveable in 3rd world countries, just as they had a role in london's slum-fixing-up phase ( surprisingly not that long ago ). but before that can happen there has to be political and/or social will. an architect can take part in that phase but that is more about being human than being an architect (some would say they are impossibly separate entities ).

one of the things that sticks in my head is a story about shigeru ban and the church he built for residents in a temp village in kobe after the earthquake. it was a beautiful building, but the residents/survivors apparently were seriously pissed at him when he suggested building it; in the end they refused to help construct it as they had other priorities than making a monument to shigeru ban and the ban-man had to get his students/staff to help him do it against the people's wishes. then it was published and he was duly aggrandised. well done mr. ban.

to be fair shigeru's project was also supposedly well received by the folk who used it after awhile and all was forgiven. also i should say i do believe that shigeru is a truly kind fella with a heart in the right place and everything...

I cannot remember where i read that story ( and parts of it might be remembered incorrectly ), but even if it were a complete fancy, the thing is that that is exactly the kind of thing that happens when architects try to help; the project becomes a primarily selfish act; worse it becomes about the ARCHITECTURE and not the humanity. sometimes it is better to put the human hat on first and leave the architect hat in the office.

just a thought...

Dec 27, 05 10:45 am  · 
 · 

nicely put jump,
but i disagree
the point is that I believe that architecture itself has a role to play in the humanitarian effort. So it is a but the ARCHITECTURE itself. I guess Im coming form a point of view where I think that architecture IMPROVES the quality of life of whoever uses it. and I believe that increasingly good ARCHITECTURE and DESIGN are becoming a human right.
I dont think you can take the humanitarian and architecture harts out of each other. In the Shigeru Ban example you gave sounds like the problems is that he was building a temple when there where other needs. It seems liek hte design wasnt the problem, but htat he tried to imposed what he felt was needed into a population, if you try to do that even in wealthy susburb you will not be received well.
good conversation though....

Dec 27, 05 11:05 am  · 
 · 
Fish

You may be confusing what is published about architecture and what is the actual profession of architecture. Many architects work to better their community. Doing so should be one of the most basic aspects of what you are taught about the profession.

I work in an office where the majority of the architects are actively involved with some sort of volunteer program to that end. In our work we make design decisions which are better for everyone, not just the person with the fat wallet. I really don't think this kind of attitude about architecture is unusual at all - it is what we all do.

Now, what you see in books and magazines are rare examples of extraordinary commissions. If you think everyone does gagillion dollar concert halls week after week you are in for a rude awakening. The kind of architecture you are espousing is typically humble and rarely heavily marketed. But it's what we do because we care.

What do you aspire to do? You should have no trouble finding a work setting that does responsible design. Just don't expect every project to land on the cover. What lands on the cover is almost without fail very expensive, provocative and unusual. Truth is, most of the people we want to help (at the disadvantaged end of the spectrum) aren't looking for and can't afford those things. I don't mean to say they don't benefit from provocative design, but often other needs get in the way. Our struggle is to provide good design to everyone. Some architects are more successful than others. Good luck to you.

Dec 27, 05 1:30 pm  · 
 · 

that was beautiful, fish.

Dec 27, 05 1:35 pm  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

Steve W. wrote that "the reason architecture is political is that architects don't often get to set its goals...." I'd say that's definitely not the reason (see the following quote). I'd also disagree with Jump, because I actually do think that all architecture is political (ditto).

I recently read the Raphael S. interview "Deconstructing Recidivism" (with Bryan Finoki) -- nice interview, BTW. Although Raphael's premise is all but nonsense, he is spot on with the following quote about architecture and its inherent, inescapable political power:

"Of course architecture is political, in at least two important ways. For one, the control of space determines some very basic aspects of who gets to do what, which is what politics and power is about. Property ownership, land value, public and private circulation—these are all things that architecture is intimately shaped by and which are at the core of many political struggles. And then the symbolic value of architecture is politically very powerful. The messages that buildings send about who is in charge, who is welcome somewhere, how one should behave; these are political messages. Architecture only seems de-politicized because most practitioners choose not to look at things this way, but these effects exist whether or not they are intentionally deployed..."

I could not agree more.

Dec 27, 05 3:40 pm  · 
 · 

rj-

good quote, and one i agree with while standing by my original statement. note that he's talking about the forces "that architecture is intimately shaped by", i.e., agendas beyond those of the architect.

his second part, "buildings send [messages] about who is in charge, who is welcome somewhere, how one should behave..." again reinforces the idea that architecture is part of a web of political relathionships.

as he says, these things happen whether they are the intention of the architect or not. the program, the planning, control points, the funding, the management of a building...all these are things which politicize the product of an architect's work. if the architect ignores his/her political role, (s)he accedes to those other forces. instead, (s)he can take responsibility for the political reading of what is produced and work accordingly.

Dec 27, 05 4:39 pm  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

Steven -- I'm not sure if we are close to agreeing or a good way apart!

For me it still sounds like you are more talking about the front end, that is, the beauracracy that you say hinders an architect's processes -- more like the denial of creative freedom or the lack of commissions and opportunities due to a let of networking skills and contacts.

I'm thinking Rahpael is talking about something quite a bit more basic and elemental on the OTHER end of the process, that being the innate political power of form itself -- the experience of the building itself -- whether it's Speer's work, the Parthenon, or the grocery store.

Dec 27, 05 5:01 pm  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

Or I may be needing about 100 aspirin.

Dec 27, 05 5:06 pm  · 
 · 

who's driving the experience of the grocery store...the building itself? the architect?

i'm guessing that my neighborhood kroger is a brick-and-dryvit big box with steel truss joists and metal deck because kroger says it is. its cutesy little storefront-scaled details at the sidewalk are because the neighborhood made them conform to misguided design guidelines. the displays inside are placed by the various product vendors. what aspect of my experience might be part of the architects' idea of the power of form?

depending on the project, the architects have varying degrees of discretion regarding the form the project might take.

speer was under the thumb of the fuhrer in large part. one of the only projects about which he was truly proud was the grounds for an early political rally with light cannons shooting straight up into the air. (i think this was in rienfensthal's film.) the other things were driven by hitler and reflected HIS will-to-power more than anything speer was projecting.

the rems and the zahas have more discretion. this is why we are more likely to admire the power of their formal gestures - because we know that THIS is the architects' intention coming through.

Dec 27, 05 5:17 pm  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

"...who's driving the experience of the grocery store...the building itself? the architect?..." Ah, very John Dewey of you, Steven -- You're a smart cat, but I think you're just too firmly stuck in ARCHITECT mode where the formal meaning of the experience of a building is concerned.
We all tend to get so utterly preoccupied with the PROCESS of getting a building built -- the constraints, the not enough freedom, the influence of the clients, codes, consultants, schedules, and on and on and on... Yet the real thing is the building. Just the building.
We as architects look at a building and want to know how it got that way, but is that the experience of the building? Speer's buildings were tools of an evil regime, but for what we are talking about, they are great examples -- incredible presence, spirit, and meaning. They themselves are the experience, regardless of how they got that way. If Hitler himself pulled an all-nighter and helped render up a few schematics, so what? The buildings, when finished, separate themselves from the process of their own creation. The buildings themselves are the experience -- strong / weak, sublime / superficial...
The power -- or lack thereof -- of a building, our topic being political power, lies within the built form itself -- the object, not the artist. Dewey describes that a symphony is it's own stand-alone experience, regardless of whether the composer labored for years through an intensely bitter struggle against all odds or whether he crapped it out effortlessly in five minutes. The Rem and Zaha examples.... indeed, perhaps they have almost endless discretion compared with Speer... yet they are judged without regard to any of that. Also interesting -- which, really, are the more powerful? How did THAT happen, hmm?
It ultimately doesn't matter if an architect had many or few opportunites, a lot of freedom or a little, overbearing client influence or very facilitating, was beaten daily or fed grapes... The process, at a point, is neither an explanation nor an excuse for the end product.
The building stands alone.

Dec 27, 05 9:53 pm  · 
 · 

but the thing is that almost everything that speer did for the fuhrer is gone, and most of his design was crap anyway. he ultimately had not that big an effect. he helped kill millions no doubt but it was the people doing that not the buildings.

i don't quite buy the idea that architecture is political by default. it is the classic marxist stance and has validity as a way of seeing the world, but i still think architects are doing something more subtle and complex, and to be blunt also less important.

sure a church says something about god and power, but when the church is converted in to a series of high-end lofts or a bed and breakfast where is god? wasn't he in the architecture? does the political power leave when the dining room moves in? or is it the ACT of building that is political, and not the architecture itself?

in the broad sense all human life is political, but that kind of definition is too fuzzy to be useful. like the idea of utopia where all people live by the motto "do no harm". it is too easy to manipulate and a very slippery fish.

i have faith in people and their ability to make lemonade out of lemons. and little faith in architects to make anything so powerful as the dictators/idealists would hope. it is not that buildings can't be amazing and can't change lives, but the view that architecture is capable of enforcing a social structure is not realistic. the last 100 hundred years has shown this to be a false assumption without any room for ambiguity. we don't have that power.

now george bush and jerry falwell and cameron sinclair, they do have the power to affect lives. we all do, as people.

Dec 27, 05 10:26 pm  · 
 · 
Cameron

First time I've ever seen an archinect thread that I've been included alongside Falwell, Bush, Hitler, Speer, Rem and Zaha. That is a dinner party I do not wish to attend. Especially if there is a game of twister afterwards.

Dec 27, 05 11:36 pm  · 
 · 
Helsinki

Jump, architecture in your "church" example is speaking of power and politics very loudly - about changing values and priorities. The overall ideas, when talking about political architecture, is to my understanding, that
1)all architecture is political, it speaks of power relations like any other physical reality
2)architects rarely create power, they work under it, wittingly or not, (if not under the Führer's thumb, then under the "invisible hand" or some similar impersonal current)

So, the fact that architecture is intensely about power, doesn't automatically make the architect powerful. Furthermore the "original" architectural propositions of novel organizations, creating new relationships of power and control have always been first imagined in a conventional formal language - authored architecture has usually come along later.

Dec 28, 05 3:08 am  · 
 · 

but you are the sane one in the lot cameron, so its ok....;-)

i guess that is my point helsinki. architects aren't in power, at least not AS architects. if we want to achieve the things that power allows we have to take part at that level.

as for all architecture being political i still gotta say my home is more about daily life than politics, and my tool shed is just a tool shed. i mean, not everything is meaningful.

Dec 28, 05 5:37 am  · 
 · 
Helsinki

Yeah, architects are not in power, and many architects seem to be fascinated by the seeming omnipotence and actual impotence of the profession (Koolhaas for one). Anyway, as things are usually governed by forces bigger than ourselves, the people in power are rarely actually in power themselves.

And your home might be an archietctural text putting you "in your place" in the vast network of power relations, while giving you a chance in participating in the game... The shed... I don't know. Maybe the safe sphere where the prevailing powers can safely let us express our "independence" and "individuality"... ?

there's a relatively good book called everyday architecture or something (edited by Deborah Berke), one of many that deal with the meanings and politics of our "non-meaningful" places. Highly recommended.

Dec 28, 05 7:45 am  · 
 · 
alex_ian

Well, in that hitler-speer-who´s-projecting-who i wouldn´t be that quick...without speer´s absolute dedication to his own power, the war would probably have ended a couple of years earlier...
I think there are cases were architects are only selling themselves to unjust causes, but it can just as well be that architects are selling unjust causes to clients... privatised, controlled "public" space is what worries me most, and this can be done by architects w/o conscience, which is bad, or w/o being conscious of the issue, which i think is worse, or b/c they are convinced this is the right thing...

Dec 28, 05 9:37 am  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

...this is getting funny -- I thought Helsinki's post was driving MY point, Jump... I can't say it better than the Raphael quote (although, again, what a source for that quote -- I disagreed with most everything else the guy said).
I also disagree with most everything you've posted here, Jump -- beginning with your premise that political awareness in practice equates to the "classic Marxist stance" to your sort of "Hey, it's just a building" ideas about "non-meaningful" places. I wouldn't even be sure where to start to convince you otherwise, but I'm equally sure that you don't want me to try anyway!
The power of architecture -- political and otherwise -- lies in the architecture as it exists at the moment of the experience. For my argument, we could substitute the word 'BEAUTY' for 'POLITICS' and have the exact same conversation. Is a building more or less beautiful depending upon the PROCESS an architect went through?
The problem with your argument, Jump, is that you truly believe that the process IS the architecture -- it's not. The process can be many things -- political, for example -- but once that building is done -- it's irrelevant to the architecture. Whether the architect wields power during the process, or not, just doesn't matter.
Maybe this point is hard for some to swallow, but I don't really see why. We as architects care a lot about the PROCESS and how to do it better so that we can ultimately create a great building. HOWEVER...when it's finished, man, the thing is on its own. You can't stand along side of it explaining your intended effect to its visitors.

Dec 28, 05 9:56 am  · 
 · 

i'll agree with you to a point, rim joist. but i think it's a little irresponsible to remove 'the moment of experience' from 1) the cultural, political, and economic pressures that influenced its realization, and 2) the same pressures that affect the perception of the building by the visitor at the 'moment of experience'.

we don't experience the villa savoye the way it was experienced in the '30s. our attitudes about cars are different. our attitudes about ocean liners are different. and we've experienced the postmodern. likewise, we don't experience wagner in the way that mies did, or jackson pollock the way that warhol did.

the building is NOT just the building. it's wrapped together with the perceptions of all who were involved in its making and in its life as a building.

example for the 1st part: is the 1987 barcelona pavilion the same as the original? doesn't it matter that over 50 years passed between the demolition of one and the reconstruction? doesn't it matter that the original was intentionally temporary and therefore warranted its lack of program and the new one is permanent and only useful as a tourist attraction and photoshoot location? doesn't its meaning change somewhat based on this context? or are we to ignore everything but the being there?

example for the 2nd part: my experience of eero saarinen's church in columbus indiana involved the dynamics of the visit being with a soon-to-be-former girlfriend and an organ tuner playing 'toccata and fugue in g' while we walked around. it also involved knowing who saarinen was, who eliel was, and why their buildings were grouped with the buildings of dozens of other nationally/internationally known architects in this small city. today my own experience would be different. does that mean the building is different? better or worse as an experience?
is the building's meaning its own or the one i project onto it because of my collected experiences over the course of my life?

if you believe that it's all the building and the visceral qualities of the material artifact only, i think you almost set yourself up for believing in a heroic architecture that must offer a unique experience. by removing all other influences from the equation how can you arrive at any sort of critical practice? how can it have any power if you take away all of its cultural signifiers?

Dec 28, 05 2:26 pm  · 
 · 
liberty bell

Wow, Steven, well-said. I'm not sure where I stand in relation to any of the views being presented in this thread, but it is a great discussion.

I keep going back to the fact that Pruitt Igoe - or any other low-income tower block housing - is pretty much formally identical to any high-income tower block housing. In Philly, tower block "project" housing is currently being replaced by low-rise attached townhouses - formally identical to any suburban apartment complex housing. Frankly, I'm not sure the neighborhoods are significantly better for the formal change.

In these cases, I don't see that the built environment has all that much impact.

Dec 28, 05 2:45 pm  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

I will say this, Steven -- you and I are talking on the same topic... Again, John Dewey laid some of this same stuff out long before we ever thought of it: the artist - object - observer spectrum...and wherein does the meaning lie...? It IS a good discussion topic, and one worth struggling with...

I'm far less infatuated with what the architect went through to bring a building into being, than I am with the building itself. I've never denied that the architect must study and know the PROCESS, or no good buildings can ever happen, but I don't believe that, in the best architecture, the viewer need be privy to it. I'm thinking that the less explaining required, the better the architecture.

Your quote: "...likewise, we don't experience wagner in the way that mies did, or jackson pollock the way that warhol did..." This quote raises an important issue for me. I think there are primary and secondary facets of an experience....that is, more important and less important...or, the very essence of an experience versus the less significant minutae. And Steven, I'll readily admit this: you have in fact exposed me on the idea of the 'heroic'. This criticism is so interesting to me, because this is a time where art is praised for being autobiographical to the point of sheer self-indulgence. In a wacky way, this is the Reality TV approach...let's know everything about this "fantastic" person life so we can better appreciate what they do. Yes, an architect works under many highly specific influences and pressures, but doesn't the very best architecture EXCEED all of those? Isn't it true that you immediately KNOW when you've stepped inside a building that somehow accomplished this, that somehow punched its way out of the paper sack of specific momentary constraints and now stands above them? So I WILL, in fact, argue that the highest level of meaning is one that is universal, human, and therefore timeless -- and therefore accessible to all at any time without the need for 'cultural signifiers'.




Dec 28, 05 4:10 pm  · 
 · 

i agree with 'the less explaining required, the better the architecture'. i'll even agree that it is possible to recognize an architecture that transcends it context and circumstances.

i disagree, though, with your conclusion: that the highest level of meaning is one that is universal, human, and therefore timeless -- and therefore accessible to all at any time without the need for 'cultural signifiers'.

i don't think you recognize the transcendent architecture through instinct but through conditioning, knowledge, and individual experience. if you could, we would all love the same things. instead, those who have studied architecture like ronchamp and my mother thinks it looks like a melting sandcastle (and she doesn't think this is a good thing).

the knowledge that 'specific momentary constraints' existed to be be transcended adds richness too the experience of a place.

and as soon as you say "isn't it true that you immediately KNOW when you've stepped inside a building that somehow accomplished this, that somehow punched its way out of the paper sack of specific momentary constraints and now stands above them?" you've acknowledged context and a personal cultural imprint that allows you to make the distinction between THIS place and places you've experienced before.

and a final note: i don't think great architecture has to be universal or timeless. the international style attempted to be universal, but i prefer the local/specific that springs from its place. the godawful colonial, tudor, or gothic claptrap springing up in every suburb in the us is an attempt to access something timeless, when in fact it's tired. give me the temporal/trendy anyday; just make it recyclable.

Dec 28, 05 4:53 pm  · 
 · 

oh, and you're experiencing things through a filter of cultural signifiers whether or not you acknowledge them, want them, or need them.

Dec 28, 05 4:55 pm  · 
 · 
this

, just posted to the news, has some passages of relevance to this discussion.

"I walk out the door and see policy manifested in 3 dimensions."

Dec 28, 05 5:11 pm  · 
 · 
LightMyFire66

Community and privacy;: Toward a new architecture of humanism (1963) (Please read in context) by Serge Chermayeff

I'm currently reading this book that comments from varying directions (physical space use, community planning, how to achieve privacy and still retain modern functionality) on some of the items you guys have been discussing. I think "contextualism" is not being taught at many of the big architecture schools. I agree with Steven that time, education, experience and many other factors contribute to a person's ability to appreciate or understand, interest or lack thereof and affectation by 'architecture" or the built environment in general. This is similar to anything else, whether it is hiking, mountain biking, or in fact any kind of exercise or activity at all; even reading; you are totally influenced, whether you like it or not, by your experience, relative outlook, how and where you grew up, and many other factors. I cannot possibly (really!) be in the mind of Corbu, Mies, or Frank Lloyd Wright for example, and be influenced by what made them design a particular building. I am out of context by living in another time, a time when 6 billion people are on track to overrun our planet and all its resources--sadly, a time when perhaps we need an H5N1 or whatever the bird flu virus is to save us from ourselves. Apologize for the downward spiral. Anyway, back to relevant thoughts, probably any book by Andres Duany or James Howard Kunstler will be helpful as well. Just remember, many of the builders and developers who are "borrowing" ideas from these people to make better "master planned communities" are falling short, way short, and we will end up with may "masturbated communties", that lack any full sensual, sexual, visual, or living pleasure. Instead of dwelling on the clusterfuck our leaders (ignorant, selfish leaders) are helping our world become, perhaps, in the interest of time, it would be better to volunteer or mentor 1 child in whatever you can help with, whether it be poetry, music, art, literature, even architecture (God save us). Happy New Year to all.

Dec 28, 05 6:21 pm  · 
 · 

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.

  • ×Search in: