It is now the beginning of September; the most important week of a designer's life has arrived. Of course, I'm talking about Fashion Week.
Image Credit: http://www.sheknows.com/beauty-and-style/articles/949593/on-the-runway-vera-wang
This is a designer's Holy Week - a week to "celebrate" their contributions to society and to "high art". A time to display the fruits of their labor in their never-ending chase for the new, modern, and hip. Last season is over they tell us, get with the program or die tryin' (by which I mean get out of the business).
It should be no surprise as to why this week is so important. But it's not just important for fashion designers, it's also important for architects.
The historical and cultural intersection of fashion and architecture is undeniable and I will not attempt to revisit this in detail. What I would like to show is how the image of the runway models above serves as a visual metaphor for the current state of contemporary architecture: Tall, thin, fair-skinned women walking in a straight line into a dead end ( since they have to turn back once they get there) wearing very similar clothing without much differentiation. All of them expressionless, stoic, trying to ignore the piercing light and each one serving their purpose like tools in a garage. They are moving forward with no real place to go. Time is moving against them. Money, power, and fame are all on the line.
Consider this situation: Below is the image of the new addition to the Glasgow School of Art by Steven Holl. They are going to force the public to build it no matter what.
Image Credit: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/holls-glasgow-school-of-art-wins-go-ahead/8612175.article
As a piece of clothing, there is no question that this rendering of the proposed new building is totally "in season". It embodies all the things those young women embody in the runway picture - youth, hipness, boldness, and perhaps a hint of narcissism.
But as a building, as something which is lived in - daily - and cannot be as easily disposed of, it is dreadfully conformist. Notwithstanding the broader issue of wholeness with the Earth, this new building is actually, somehow, making the Glasgow School (a favorite modern building of mine) uglier. It is doing this in the same way a pair of new shoes make your pair of old shoes seem ugly and worn out. Simply putting a new building next to an old building is not good enough. Fashion may get away with this old-new switcheroo every fall, but architecture cannot.
In keeping with the runway image, take a look at another pair of "models" (i.e. buildings).
Image Credit: http://designcrave.com/2011-03-30/contemporary-architecture-architect-documentaries/
These models are part of the same collection. The designers: Herzog & De Meuron. They've each had their moment in the runway spotlight. They've each strutted their stuff. But without knowing the names of the architects or the buildings, there is no way to distinguish them from each other. They look the same despite very different formal qualities. They have the same kind of face. How is this possible in the age of such advanced rendering and parametric programs? It just seems like more, more, and more of the same kind of building, rendered a million different ways, contributing nothing truly new to society or "high art". How is it that these buildings stand out while, at the same time, conforming to a particular aesthetic?
Undifferentiated, new, hip, clean, sleek, trying to stand out - these are the revered qualities of the present architecture. It has become so woven into our culture that one cannot tell where architecture ends and fashion begins. Their respective products, buildings and clothes, are both equally forgettable once they are made and equally disposable once they have been worn into. Clearly, this is an unsustainable perspective. It indirectly encourages waste because so long as the next new thing is just around the corner, there is no point in getting too attached to what you have now. Hence the denial of history, culture, and identity. Hence the branding of human feelings as "nostalgic" and wholeness as "nonsense". When we make buildings like this, we become tools. Tools making tools.
I, and a majority of students, architects, and academics, reject this revolving-door architecture.
To end, I will show a modern building that can be a guiding vision for buildings in our time. An architecture of wholeness.
Image Credit: http://avntravel.com/home/introduce-travel-in-glasgow-united-kingdom.html
Surprise! Mackintosh was on to something here. There are big windows, a similar materiel palette and color, a playful, yet differentiated facade. There is a humanity about this building that the Holl design simply does not convey. Its not trying to state, in some grand techno-savvy fashion, an esoteric metaphor or intellectual construct. It is simply trying to be a good place. Its just about making good architecture and making it well. That may seem childish to some, but it's really the most common sense thing a person could do. This is what wholeness is all about.
( I chose this building because I sometimes wonder what Mr. Holl and company think about when they look across the street and see this building. Clearly, they wanted to do something new and bold. But for that, they should have hit the runway and not the drafting board.)
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.
80 Comments
you know what - I changed my mind.
Don't try to articulate yourselves. Don't learn how to make declarative statements or how to structure an argument or back up your claims or how to think architecturally. Keep working to antagonize through innuendo, praising some vague goal over the horizon, the one preferably behind us. Otherwise, this might actually turn into a debate or a conversation where I'd perhaps discover you might have something really interesting to say.
Cuz then I'd have to hang myself.
@ theperennialhole,
I was reading this new book called Deconstructivist Architecture, by Philip Johnson, on the spread of building technology and philosophy and came upon this interesting paragraph that reminded me of your arguments. Although the point could be made for others, It seems pertinent to the examples you chose.
"Deconstructivism, although inspired by psychoanalysis and constructivism, is an "urban architecture." It was intrinsically part of the street. It defined space, whereas neoclassical buildings, especially in America, became hoarded objects to be restored or freestanding classical villas for cultural conservatives. The leaky roofs and european counterfeit molding separated the mid-twentieth-century anonymous (and sometimes McMansion) building from its context., symbolically as well as physically and when combined with the faux-old of duplicate classicism, further alienated people and nature from architecture. The buildings of neoclassical architecture, as hoarded objects, became shaped like sculpture, and form became decoration. ...perhaps, what is needed today is a return to the philosophy of deconstruction and CATIA software, wherein the building was part of the greater whole, societal interests were greater than those of the individual, and craft was primary."
"daring to question the rules of academia.." Like they try in Notre Dame? ROFL GOFL
No matter how much the world changes, the faux-old tries again and again like a bad hang-over we are better off forgetting.
Just as in the 80's the debate is in circles going nowhere.... only questioning "how slow should architecture be?"
It's a way to distract culture from looking forward. Shameful.
Vile Child,
"And I found the majority of it to be without content or substance. So I asked for some clarifications. Unfortunately, all of it needed clarifying." We got it. What's the point of battering away with personal insults then, just move on and go to where the debate is honest. Trust me, I won't be insulted.
"I changed my mind, Don't try to articulate yourselves. Otherwise, this might actually turn into a debate or a conversation where I'd perhaps discover you might have something really interesting to say. Cuz then I'd have to hang myself." Dramatic much?
Historyrepeating itself,
"If you're going to question (or defend) the "rules" of academia, then thoroughness and specificity are called for." That's the spirit of the avant guard!
@ theperennialhole, Just remember that this wall of negativity dosen't exist outside of blogs like yours (and most architecture schools). Look at all the other blogs on this site, and how few comments there are compared to your posts. You think they would have moved on but something keeps them hammering away. Interesting to note that many of these same posters are quite polite on their own terms, but question some their basic assumptions and watch them turn into the Incredible Hulk. I'm sorry, was that too retrograde a reference? It get's better.
Thayer-D, your response directed to me is stupid and shows a certain gutlessness on your part.
Over and out for me.
ThayerD... seriously...get over yourself already. You can't defend your ideas/ideals or even clarify what they are exactly so you resort to continuously falling on your sword... "Oh woe is us! we're so misunderstood! Look at all of these goons attacking us and our virtuous mission!!"
Is perrenialwhole a real person or simply your second account?
And those comments are ridiculously innocuous for a message board for you to get all up in arms. I think most of the frustration with your and PW's posts derives from a lack of clarity and a general point... and then when that is questioned all you do is play the victim or further obfuscate whatever your point is with a whole bunch of words that mean nothing.
larslarson,
You may think the comments are innocuous, but theperennialwhole devoted a whole post on the level of vitriol, so maybe, like these buildings, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I'd also add that one dosen't need perfect clarity before one explores a subject. If that where the case, not much innovation would occur. To answer your question, I don't know theperrenialwhole, but would that even matter? I find it incredible that you and others can't even acknowledge many people find modernism cold and dehumanizing, not all, but a lot of it. And like others have suggested the "other" choice isn't fypon or neo-classicism, in fact there isn't a one choice in my mind.
Like I've said before, I can't defend wholeism per say as I'm not sure I understand it entirely, but I have laid out a reason as to why not every building needs to express the fragmentary nature of our world. I'd be happy to defend some of the points I've made, but I'm not convinced you want an honest debate. Your opening line towards me was...
"ive been working for almost 20 years and I still think you're full of hot air. "
I'll ask again, do you have a serious question for me (not theperrrenialwhole) or have you pre-judged me?
I have serious questions.
What are the traits of wholeness?
Can these traits be expressed independantly or is wholeness the sum of these traits?
Are these traits universally viewed as being whole?
Can these traits be reproduced in any architectural language, or are they the direct product of a classical approach?
Can a person feel whole in a place that others despise?
jla-x,
Like I said, I can't defend wholeness as it's not my thesis, but short of speaking for perennialwhole, I can try.
Wholeness isn't a style whereby it's traits can't be catalogued, but like perrenial said, it could encompass most styles who's tennants/aesthetics don't have to do with fragmentation. So I guess it could be defined more by what it is not, a celebration of the fragmentary, etc. I'd also add, it dosen't negate a fragmented perspective and/or style becasue to be truly whole, one must embrace all aspects of the human condition. It's maybe a recognition that most people aspire to solace and not aggitation with regards to their shelter.
These non-fragmentary traits can be expressed in any combination one would like, there's no predescribed way of building in our pluralistic society, only ones that might seem more or less intelligent, depending on the context. Furthermore, to cloud that point, a building could be beautiful in it's aesthetic and stupid in it's function. It could be beautiful in it's fragmentary nature, but maybe a street full of these buildings would overwhelm the street and give it a ridiculous aspect.
Yes, I've answered this question, I think, but to reiterate, wholeness (anti-fragmentation) could exist in any style, like the perrenial showed in his previous examples, like Kahns buildings.
"Can a person feel whole in a place that others despise? " Hell yeah. As diverse as we all are. Like I've noticed there are those who love NYC's chaos and some to whom a street in Mayburry is heaven. Personally, I have both those and other feelings but it's not a static condition as anyone's temperment would attest too. I guess it's about creating the space for students in many architecture schools around the country to persue something that's not based on cutting edge ideas or some abstract philosophy like deconstruction, fragmentation, and the liquid. In otherwords, it's living up to our progressive and liberal ethos to allow for many differing perspectives in an atmosphere free of bullying. In the perenial's case, it's seeing where his exploration goes rather than dictating what we all should be and do.
I don't know if I helped, but thanks for keeping it civil.
but neoclassicism and wholeness are fragmentary too.
but I have laid out a reason as to why not every building needs to express the fragmentary nature of our world. -disinformation
the "other" choice isn't fypon or neo-classicism -yet 99% of the time with your rhetoric, it is
I've got a "faux-old" neo-Gothic Brooklyn Bridge to sell you, which at least is much more honest than Mies's work. -Thayer-D and the faux-old, a timeless method of conservative resistance.
the cognitive makeup of hoarders - experiences deep anxiety when throwing old things away.
The architect-hoarder:
1. Misconstrues deconstructivism.
2. Gives false readings of Modernism and modernity.
3. Imposes superficial figurative observations, despite living in the internet age.
4. Relies on disinformation to conservatively legitimize the faux-old (just like the GOP).
5. Is fueled by nostalgia when producing counterproposals for contemporary projects.
6. Creates a blog and another account on archinect to defend their disinformation campaign.
7. Engorges itself with public and private money to recreate and rehabilitate its derelict building language.
I guess it's about creating the space for students in many architecture schools around the country to persue something that's not based on cutting edge ideas or some abstract philosophy like deconstruction, fragmentation, and the liquid
and is instead dumb and conservative.
In other words, it's living up to our progressive and liberal ethos to allow for many differing perspectives in an atmosphere free of bullying.
How you can call yourself liberal, yet setup a conservative disinformation campaign to plant faux-old flags....unless you're a neocon...
Until you actually know what you're criticizing, perenialhole..i mean Thayer, the architecture world - in anonymous and cutting edge form - laughs at this blog.
(psst - I'm actually giving you an opportunity to put me in my place by your being clear and articulate -and you give me 'dramatic much' - c'mon!!!!!)
i think what thayer-d is illustrating is basically the relationship between matter and dark matter. we're pretty sure there is dark matter, but we can't entirely explain it. dark matter exists essentially as anti-matter or non-matter because we know there is a whole that has to be filled by something that is non-matter. this is physics envy, just replacing terms that sound architectureish.
modernism done well is not cold and dehumanizing. it's simple and comfortable. it certainly isn't fragmented either so it would have to be considered 'not fragmented' or 'whole.' at least that's my opinion.
what happened to perennialwhole if he is not thayer-d? i hope he's ok.
Sometimes it takes a non-architect to layout what architects can't see.
"Architecture, the most public of endeavours, is practised by people who inhabit a smugly hermetic milieu which is cultish. If this sounds far-fetched just consider the way initiates of this cult describe outsiders as the lay public, lay writers and so on: it's the language of the priesthood. And like all cults its primary interest is its own interests, that is to say its survival, and the triumph of its values – which means building. Architects, architectural critics, architectural theorists, the architectural press (which is little more than a deferential PR machine) – the entire quasi-cult is cosily conjoined by mutual dependence and by an ingrown, verruca-like jargon which derives from the more dubious end of American academe.
From early in its history, photography was adopted by architects as a means of idealising their buildings. As beautiful and heroic, as tokens of their ingenuity and mankind's progress, etc. This debased tradition continues to thrive. At its core lies the imperative to show the building out of context, as a monument, separate from streetscape, from awkward neighbours, from untidiness. A vast institutional lie is being told in architectural magazines the world over, in the pages of newspapers and in countless television films. It's also being told on the web – which is significant, and depressing, for it demonstrates how thoroughly the convention has seeped into the collective."
The Guardian Newspaper - Jonathan Meades
That isn't news, it's British humor with a little conspiracy theory.
You could make the same assumption about Meades' journalism.
i tried to read that thing
it was like grinding pebbles between my teeth
was there anything worthwhile in it?
here. it's american and english.
lets work towards peace after we destroy the new urbanists.
random post-posting thought: am i threatened by this stuff?
yeah, this shit ruined architecture in america.
i think the closest experience one can have of architecture is to be sacrificed in it and have one's blood spill all over its tables and floors and walls and so on and simlutaneously masturbated in the throes of life ebbing away. i think then we will truly be one with Architecture and reach a degree of oneness with Architecture in its truth and beauty that might satiate the appetite of Thayer/ThePerennialWhole for something real and tangible. All else is trivial, all else are mere words and pictures.
lets work towards peace after we destroy the new urbanists.
people actually really like the CNU style neighborhoods. They want shit like front porches, front gardens, narrow streets, relatively dense mixed use neighborhoods, to be able to walk to stores, transit, casually run into neighbors... they also like physical environments that carry the weight of time and history (what we all don't like about the CNU aesthetic is that it tends toward pastiche - it tries to replicate things that took decades to create) - usually in choice of material, age of trees, etc... people also like putting their own imprint on the physical environment.
anyway - I still have no idea what the hell "wholeness" means, but the projects being offered for critique have a similar quality. they aren't really part of this continual slow aggregation and change - and even though a couple of the images above "look" like aggregations, they are still these overly precious closed objects that don't really allow future generations to physically "comment" on these buildings when they inevitably need to alter or repurpose them. at least the more classical or cartesian aesthetic scaled (although Koolhaas makes a good point about "bigness") - these buildings don't scale.
To answer your question, I don't know theperrenialwhole, but would that even matter?
It's hard for me to believe that you're not the same person, but I'll believe you.
"I find it incredible that you and others can't even acknowledge many people find modernism cold and dehumanizing, not all, but a lot of it. "
This is YOUR point! You're the one that keeps bringing up modernism! You're talking about a style that's 40 or so years old! Talk about now! Why are we arguing that Mies' buildings don't fit into their context or whatever? You're arguing a strawman on this point.
"ive been working for almost 20 years and I still think you're full of hot air. "
I'll ask again, do you have a serious question for me (not theperrrenialwhole) or have you pre-judged me?"
That wasn't my opening to you...you and I went back and forth on PW's other post. I asked you several questions and you've yet to respond to most of them. It would be good to hear from PW though since he started this whole thing with a half thought out idea that may (unlikely) be interesting to discuss.
Anyway...I would like to see some of your work/projects just so I know more fully what you're interested in/have designed...have you lived up to your ideals? Or have you been forced to design 'modernist' buildings?
I have designed modernist buildings and enjoyed doing them as much as the traditional ones. It's not modernism as a style, of which these examples are just the latest generation, It's the ethos that's troubling. The way it provokes so much partisan pasion might be the way it outright rejected all other styles as if there where a caste system in architecture. So much for liberal ideals. I have also said all this before, but you don't want to acknowledge this becasue it dosn't fit your narrative. Not my problem.
As for you seeing my work, that reminds me of high school where one kid is challenging others to show theirs off. Are you serious? Who are you, the architecture police asking for my papers? My ideals involve treating others with respect and bettering the world. If I treat the clients, builders, and neighbors involved in a project well, and the building I design makes some of them happy on some level, then job well done. Beyond that, I got nothing.
Disinformation aside, you're nostalgist thayer, plain and simple.
to claim nostalgia as the only happy-maker is stupid.
get yourself an education my friend.
Shit like:
" front porches, front gardens, narrow streets, relatively dense mixed use neighborhoods, to be able to walk to stores, transit, casually run into neighbors"
has nothing to do with generalist aesthetics (What shit looks like...).
CNU is in my experience almost always a set of good ideas which gets swapped for a shitty surface aesthetic, resulting in a shitty place that kinda looks familiar.
"... they also like physical environments that carry the weight of time and history (what we all don't like about the CNU aesthetic is that it tends toward pastiche - it tries to replicate things that took decades to create)" - EXACTLY. Not only is it pastiche, its simpy dishonest. They like replication and simulation - its looks close enough. It doesnt carry any weight at all, let alone the weight of time or history. it just refers to it. I like a good kunstler talk, but I turn it off when new urbanism creeps to the fore. Its decent practical ideas ruffied into 'aesthetic' predetermination.
Vile Child,
What you can't stomach is that all those "good ideas" from the CNU came from environments that had decorative architecture (read-nonmodernist). Name one modernist built environment (read-public space) that remotly compares to the spaces the CNU references.
What's dishonest is you and your type continually railing against humans inate desire to decorate their buildings, just as they do their homes and persons. You are fighting an uphill battle that you will never win becasue you're fighting yourself. Enjoy.
CNU is in my experience almost always a set of good ideas which gets swapped for a shitty surface aesthetic, resulting in a shitty place that kinda looks familiar.
everything has a surface-applied aesthetic - there's no such thing as "honesty" in surface application. most people generally like weird victorian detailing, old brick, applied ornament, texture... something that at least looks like it was made and cared for by a human being. we are currently trained to make blank (oddly oppressive) faceless boxes/forms with large expanses of glass or some other surface. we allow people to alter the space with maybe some gardening and furniture... but it's just the same sort of empty homogenization that we accuse the CNU disciples of. Even if their shit is cartoony - at least people feel like they know how to alter it if they need to.
I dunno, though - currently we can buy snap-on plastic ornament (which I personally hate) because it's too expensive to get the real shit. so the question is why do people keep putting this garbage on buildings? and it's not because they're ignorant of the modernist aesthetic ideology.
My guess is the cartoony aspect of a lot of CNU work would improve if schools taught all styles equally. In other words, if they acknowleged what you just did, that everything has a surface-applied aesthetic. Naturally, I'd love to have solid brick walls as much as I'd like to see Mies's Seagrams I beams be the actual structure, but we have neither. In the end though it's useless obsessing over these dilemas becasue their has always been and there always be architecture where the structure is either integral, hidden, or a play between the two, but none of those senarios has ever, on it's own, made buildings great. They still have to be well built, functional, and beautiful some level.
Going back to Ancient Rome where they built both solid stone buildings and concrete walled buildings with stone veneer hung from them, it's clear that this obsession is a modern one and a phony one at that. Yet so many of the people who jump down the throught's of anyone who advocates for stylistic agnosticism can't seem to get beyond this superficial argument. It's very telling of the depth to which they understand and appreciate archtiecture.
@theperennialwhole
Please do a post about the "Mirror of the self" test, a really deep one about it. Try to explain or show how to do it properly (trying to leave all preconceptions before doing it), and use what Alexander says about the "expanding humanity" when facing a true work of art. Then maybe we can have a discussion without all of the "it's just a matter of opinion" issue. I agree that it isn't perfect, and obviously there will still be different points of view, or feelings, but then we'll have a basis for a real discussion. I've had many discussions about these topics (and even about things that don't have anything to do with architecture or art, but are about feelings or people) where this "test" has really worked to get people to see eye to eye.
"As for you seeing my work, that reminds me of high school where one kid is challenging others to show theirs off. Are you serious? Who are you, the architecture police asking for my papers?"
I just am interested...all that other junk you throw in there is your perception. I just wanted to know where you're coming from...it was not at all threatening in any way, but you see everything as an insult apparently.
"Going back to Ancient Rome where they built both solid stone buildings and concrete walled buildings with stone veneer hung from them, it's clear that this obsession is a modern one and a phony one at that."
You seriously don't think the Romans would have used steel if it had been available to them? Seriously? What's funny is the Romans were actually advancing architecture at the time...constantly pushing the limits of structural capabilities of their materials and trying new things.... exactly the opposite of what you're espousing.
Wrong again Mr. Larson. The Romans developed technology not for the sake of "pushing technology" but for the reason most people innvent. They have a specific need that isn't being addressed adequatly with the existing technology. If you took the modernist mindset to the Roman era, you'd have some architect railing about why all the buildings wheren't all exposed concrete becasue that was the latest "technology" or becasue that's the "truth" of the building. Of course they'd have used steel if they had it, they just wouldn't have engaged in these phony arguments about truth and the avant guard, they'd just do it. Do you think medeaval builders stretched the height of thier cathedrals becasue they wanted to "constantly push the limits of structural capabilities"? No, they pushed the height for the glory of God, and for thier own glory too, of course. Before you go all Tea Party on me though, I'm an athiest liberal who likes seeing things as they really are, rather than for what I'd like them to be. Speaking of honsety, why do you refuse to acknowledge how people actually engage with buildings? Because it would make your modernist fettishes obsolete. the Romans are no different that us, despite what your professors said about the importance of technology. It's a tool for the majority, not the end all and be all, or worse yet, a marketing tool.
As for you wanting to see my work, why don't you show us yours? Becasue it has nothing to do with the discussion we're having. What if a non-architect had the same criticisms of how ugly and inhumane so much of our contemporary buildings where. Would they have to show you their work to make their criticism valid?