Below is a collection of various comments that I have received.
Collectively, they form the basis of a worldview which is totally antagonistic to even the mere suggestion that wholeness has anything to do with architecture:
When I first thought about writing something to published on the Internet, across the "social media" landscape, I had anticipated some blowback. I had read and heard stories about how pernicious and childish people could be. I had seen the consequences of putting your identity out there. Creating, indirectly, a forum for others to tell you how bad your thoughts are, how pointless your endeavors, how meaningless your voice. Nevertheless, I went on because I had a purpose that I believed in and thought was important to carry out. And so, I tried to branch out on a variety of websites in order to simply express my thoughts. I didn't have high hopes or expectations.
It is remarkable to see, that on this website, which supposedly is about making architecture "more connected and open-minded", that so many individuals - architects, teachers, professionals, and many others - choose to present themselves to the world in such a cruel fashion.
Certainly, not everyone does this.
But the few who do go to elaborate lengths. It seems they have substituted a therapist for me. They found a subject on which to completely unload their suppressed vitriol. They act as if I had summoned Hades himself to unlock the gates of the Underworld. I knew there was a price to pay for speaking up, for simply laying out my thoughts. I didn't think it would become this ugly so quickly.
It is interesting to note a few choice words in the comments above: moralize, fairy tales, rebel, pseudo-belief, impersonal. It is fascinating to hear these used to describe a worldview which is essentially talking about a common sense way of building. Making decisions as one goes along, adapting them to the situation, gradually going from small to large and large to small, all while keeping the whole thing in direct view. The process of wholeness could not be simpler. It could not have anything less to do with fairy tales. And yet people still feel compelled to make cruel responses not towards me, but towards the mere suggestion of bringing this up. The mere idea some person would try to investigate this (a waste of time in their view) is abominable. Trust me, I've heard it all before.
How is it that investigating wholeness in this way, in a public forum, turn into a hostile act? Perhaps I should have insulted the President of the AIA in order to get people really going.
The fact is that I don't really need to moralize. Even if I did, it certainly wouldn't matter.
What does matter is this: these kinds of descriptions regarding wholeness is indicative of the presence of a deep-seated reaction against taking seriously the proposition that contemporary building practices are damaging to the Earth. Design has gone off the rails. But everyone pretends that everything is somehow okay. And, to defend this, there is a plethora of literature out there that will support this view because anytime someone questions a power system, the system's defenders strike back.
In a more whole and living world, this is not what happens. What happens is that people are truly free, not just in some abstract legal sense, but it a very authentic way. Why? Because the built environment is made in such a way that makes them feel connected to it as if they themselves own it. Furthermore, this feeling is shared. It is a philosophy of community, not selfishness. This is a dangerous road to tread for professionals and students because it makes them feel as if they can't explore their creativity in practice or in school. Of course they can. They are simply responsible, however, for making buildings that actually improve the quality of life rather than detract from it.
Until people are willing to embrace the prospect of wholeness as being a serious subject of inquiry, this kind of mechanistic language will proceed without end. Now that I know how deep the mechanistic worldview goes, I am more resolved than ever to shed light on the current state of architecture.
Below is an image of real freedom and real wholeness that was rendered possible, in part, by the architecture.
Image Credit: http://cityphile.com/photo/nyhavn/ | Photo by Will Sherman
This document is a collection of thoughts, ideas, sketches, and observations of a young architecture student living in the 21st century. It is intended to serve as a resource and vehicle for personal connections that extend beyond virtual domains. The main subject of this blog is an inquiry into the elusive nature of wholeness. The purpose is to identify wholeness-making building methodologies and examples of 'whole architecture' throughout history.
13 Comments
i think it will be good for you to continue this exploration - and to keep it a public discussion as you explore. i hope you can weather the critiques, because they'll come and you'll (likely) have earned them. your first couple of entries are trying to get at something important but, as has been pointed out, you've thrown some words around carelessly without defining them well enough. i don't take that as an opportunity to be dismissive of what you're after so much as an indication that finding ways to define these words will be your task.
alexander is pretty prescriptive, and his own work is often an unfortunate byproduct of his inability to make his words match up with successful projects. in my opinion venturi has/had the same problem. but, sure, his work can be a guide, as long as you take care in its application.
using an urban street (above) as an example shows a completely different urge. a streetscape built up over generations, for different purposes, and by different people, is a difficult model for an overall architectural approach. easy to admire, sure, but certainly never approached with 'wholeness' or any kind of holistic goal in mind.
i think there are examples that could be jumping off points and i'll be interested to see what else you find. for me there is a time in the early 20thC that i find intriguing: the period just before le c, gropius, mies, et al blasted through into architectural consciousness, when architects like behrens and lewerentz, hoffmann, olbrich, and tessenow were finding their way to a modernism that grew out of the traditions in which they were immersed. with the modern juggernaut, a lot of the richness of what these architects were exploring was left behind. while i don't propose that we go back and start on that same trajectory, i've always thought there is a lot to learn from the evolutions they were exploring.
in sum, i don't think you know what 'wholeness' is yet, or what it can be in the 21stC when our needs, desires, and the pressures of economic and political realities are so contradictory. you've been understandably defensive in this and previous posts, but i think you've rejected some criticism that could help in your exploration. knee-jerk fighting back is not going to help; it only convinces us that you may think you already know the answers and that there's a lack of intellectual curiosity.
is this a manifesto? or a precis? i'll be curious to see what you learn.
Many years ago when I started architecture school, I ran into this kind of cynical anger that seems to pervade a lot of architectural academia and beyond. I was attracted to architecture as a way of creating beauty. Imagine the reaction I got! Beauty is for intellectual sissys and midgets was the response. I saw many others like me begin to learn the archispeak that might spare them a thrashing during crit time, or better yet, ingratiate themselves with the powers that be. Instead of encouraging the sincere love of architecture to wherever it might lead, it was a meat market of intellectual posers. My point is, don't be discouraged. You'll run into a lot of crazy architects along the way, just remember, they too where hurt badly, so don't succumb to the cynisism so many use to shield themselves from the next a-hole with an axe to grind.
" Making decisions as one goes along, adapting them to the situation, gradually going from small to large and large to small, all while keeping the whole thing in direct view. The process of wholeness could not be simpler" I couldn't have said it better, yet this approach derided becasue if you didn't come up with a concept and then twisted the program to fit the concept, you are being intellectually lazy. Never mind that this stuffing a program into a predescribed historicist facade was one of the main things the early modernists rightly fought against. The only difference is the pre-modernist architects at least left us with beautiful facades (to say nothing of long lasting buildings) while the current modernist trend leaves only thick manuscripts to tell us why what we are looking at deserves admiration.
Your example of the street is very informative, because as the previous commentator wrote it is "a streetscape built up over generations, for different purposes, and by different people" yet it's a coherant whole. We've lost the ability to create streets like this simply becasue of our inability to both make "decisions as one goes along, adapting them to the situation" while looking at the whole and how it will all work together. Ideas such as compolition, restraint, and humility are all but lost today in academia, becasue we are all taught to be lone wolves. Please continue to persue your vision wherever it takes, and try not to loose your joy, becasue once it's gone, it's hard to find again.
Sorry you and perenialhole were born in the wrong century Thayer D.
required watching for any Alexander drone.
I know you don't care about my opinion, perrenialwhole, but I agree completely with Steven that I hope you'll keep this conversation going and weather through the challenging discussions it will engender. It's fun to be actually talking about architecture, even if everyone disagrees.
The world is changing fast, and people no longer buy into the inevitability of every new idea becasue it's new. The Rainessance began when man started questioning the prevailing orthodoxy as the priests dictated it. The same is happening to the modernist priests today and by your emotional reaction, it's clear there's going to be some pushback. Why has traditional architecture been on the rise since the 1970's? Why has organic farming made such a comeback? Becasue we don't automatically believe that the new is inevitably better. Just look at the environmental degredation all around. But reality was never a strong suit of modernists, who are romantics of the machine. My children play outside rather than wasting away behind a computer with flashing lights, not becasue I hate computers, but becasue modern science has prooven that it's unhealthy for their developing minds. Did you like the Stepford wives movie you're recommending?
I hate computers, but becasue modern science has prooven that it's unhealthy for their developing mind
knew that one was coming. what about all those kids that felt physical discomfort from being denied social interaction on their devices. think of the children, luddite.
You chopped off the first part of the sentence where I clearly said I don't hate computers, yet just like Fox News, you misquote me to suite your agenda. And then you have the nerve to call people with whom you disagree "Tea Partiers".
Since you believe in copying the past.
My children play outside rather than wasting away behind a computer with flashing lights, not becasue I hate computers, but becasue modern science has prooven that it's unhealthy for their developing minds.
I'll break it down for you.
distrust and suspicion of machinery = luddite
can almost smell a hate for the future/computers
PS stepford wives is not a good movie, good thing technologies like books and movies spread the word.
You're an interesting person psychologically.
Maybe we can get married and renew our vows in 20 years through a book deal just like Krier and Eisenman did.
I would propose the same for batman and the joker, but haven't seen dark knight pt 4 yet.
:)
Listen to Steven Ward. He makes some valid points. You may think that what you are saying is clear, but obviously it hasn't been for your readers. Honestly this post may be the most clearly you have expressed yourself yet. In my experience people will absolutely rip you if you try to be poetic and don't pull it off, and while it is tough to hear, they are somewhat justified. Also in my admittedly not so humble opinion there are people who are vastly more successful at both describing architecture poetically and building than Alexander. Kahn or Zumthor both are good examples, but if you study their writings you will notice that they take time building up a word like "wholeness" before using it.
I would tell this young man to keep moving forward instead of worrying that people "will absolutely rip you", becasue no one shouldattack you for stating your opinion unless they are insecure bullies. It's not that people will have to agree with you or that you shouldn't take constructive criticism like Mr. Swartz is offering. It's that any exploration of ideas deserves to be aired. Architecture schools tend to flaunt their creativity and openmindedness, yet the work they produce is remarkably similar, and it's exactly becasue of this bullying.
No matter what philosiphical underpinnings you ultimatley evolve and embrace, I would just remind you that in the end, it will be you're buildings users and passerbys whose feelings will matter the most, not your own. It's not that you should design to the lowest common denominator, but truly great architecture is that which is able to speak to multiple audiences, not just your academic or proffesional circle. It's true that there are many starchitects that are able to thrive due to strong salesmanship and marketing, but those slots are few and ultimatley force you to be someone you would immediatley recognize as phony if you where a 10 year old again. Stick to your guns, and be true to your self.