As I migrate over to Archinect, a few highlights from 2012:
Gunther Vogt opened his lecture last Fall with a conversation about working in Europe and went on to discuss the Swiss Alps as an urbanized landscape. Within this context, he posed a series of questions: what is the difference between a city and a landscape? How does landscape function in the formation and endurance of regional identity?
From the lecture, City as Territory as Landscape ©Vogt
Vogt spoke about sparsely inhabited, European landscapes, especially Apulia and the Swiss Alps, and the role the Alpine region plays in Swiss culture: at once connected by a network of paths and set apart, an extension of urban life and a refuge from it. The lecture also included the striking image of vacant lands in Southern Italy. According to Vogt, abandoned and underutilized land has not been mapped by the European Union, resulting in a scarcity of publicly available data on the subject. Nonetheless, it appears to account for up to 40% of particular regions, such as Apulia, for example, as illustrated in the lecture by a series of maps.
Eurostat: European National Statistics ©Vogt
Vogt describes his work in pairs of terms: distance and engagement, miniature and panorama. These pairs imply a both a critical eye and shift of scale from architecture to region. Vacant land represents a growing opportunity for design intervention, and high instances of abandonment in rural and post-industrial Europe warrant attention. An un-described field lies in the wake of urbanization and “urban studies.” We would do well to examine its politics and the prospects it holds for architects and landscape designers.
In his 1983 essay, Prospects for a Critical Regionalism, Kenneth Frampton, advanced the thesis that architecture can represent regional culture and propel it, in a dialectical sense, by both drawing on historic sources and engaging in a globalized discourse. He envisioned the region as a culturally specific, contextual, reference point and called for an anti-centerist politics in architecture.
Twenty-nine years later, the world is further globalized, the call to enact specificity more acute. However, the scales of intervention have also changed, engulfing the reference points. Designers are increasingly working at a regional scale. The move from miniature to panorama poses the danger of abolishing those distinctions (urban and periurban, metropolitan and alpline, Swiss and Italian) that make great cultures unique, what Paul Ricoeur called the “ethical and mythical nucleus of mankind.”
The studio-based curriculum at Harvard GSD runs in parallel to the school's evening lecture series. While material from the studio finds its way into the Q & A, the most thought provoking talks do not always have direct expression. I propose this blog as a forum to hone the casual post-lecture discussion in the trays into a record of the most exciting and ephemeral aspects of an architectural education. Follow @kongsgaarden. Views are my own.
8 Comments
"The move from miniature to panorama poses the danger of abolishing those distinctions (urban and periurban, metropolitan and alpline, Swiss and Italian) "
what are you talking about? there is no danger of abolishing; from the perspective of modern contemporary production, the distinctions have already been largely abolished. there are some trademark swiss commodities and italian commodities (cheese, wine, neutrality, banking systems...etc), yes...because our capitalist systems like consuming myths as well..and, practically speaking, because some people just know how to do some things better than other having a longer history of it. but there is something that is inherently (ie non contigently) swiss about modern swiss architecture that makes it an identifiably distinct breed? i dont think so - there might be a clique, but dig deep and one will see that the assumptions of insularity are fake. the sensibility for clean, minimalist, orthogonal and precise architecture..i see in germany as well as in switzerland as well as elsewhere. swiss teachers teach in darmstadt, german teachers teach in zurich..and all teach elsewhere around the world.
as a non architectural example - but still within the design realm, we know now that the autuers of modern violin making are no longer centred in Italy (specifically Cremona) but are widespread and the production knowledge is shared amongst them, whether they studied in Salt Lake city (USA), Newark (UK), Cremona (Italy), Germany, Tokyo..etc.
Interstingly, ithe more universal modern nationalism is(having a nationality on par with any other, creating parallel systems of governance that allow exchange of trade, ideas..and so on under the banner of one nationality) the more will its outcome be the reverse of what one assumes: instead of uniquely identifying each nation and its people, it's effect is to do away with the distinction carried vide older indigenous systems that indeed qualify their uniqueness. they become equivalent to any other nationality. thats why the conclusion of nationality should just be its abolishment. open borders. just be honest, for goodness sake.
now, a question..are there not some regions that deserve regionalism and some that simply don't? and in the case of the latter, aren't we just fishing for constants in the anxiety laden tablua rasa of modern design? and...one could also ask...is there not a contradiction between the term "critical" and "regionalism"...we assume that vernacular architecture is not a product of reflexivity...no? and if we subject regionalism to reflexivity...then why noy subject something else, say a philosophical or a form-based system to reflexivity? in other words, the compound term "critical regionalism" is rather hypocritical. it is a theoretical chameleon - on one hand, it professes some degree of necessity and incontigency by attaching itself to-masking itself with the assumed results of- local conditions..and on the other hand, it is as contigent, as detached and as deliberated as any other system of reflexive design merely using the semiotics of locality to give it credibility. it is like being an atheist who goes to church on sundays wearing his or her best in a conservative town to allow himself/herself to belong. thats not bad necessarily...but he or she would be even more interesting if they owned up to it,.
"..are there not some regions that deserve regionalism and some that simply don't?"
Beyond how paternalistic this sounds, who "deserves" what should be determined by the people living there, not some far off academic and his tidy polemics about regionalism. Have you ever considered that those places with a strong identity seem to want to break free from it and those with little identity seem to want to establish one? This speaks to the need for some kind of identity no matter how fragmented or equivalent it might be to other identities.
All architectural theory aside, wouldn't it be more productive to start from what are constituent elements of our human condition and design to their benefit? I'm sure we all have put on our "best" for the sake of social commity with out a whole lot of angst about honesty or anxiety about modern design. Most people I speak to just don't like a lot of modern design, and as such, tend to remove themselves from the anxiety laden tabula rasa. Maybe their just not being honest... who knows.
Thayer, your understanding and imagination is falling short. falling, failing...
there are islands in greece where you must observe regulations regarding colours, materials...etc. there are areas in china where you can copy paste global designs. there are areas in london where you must observe formal and typological regulations and, in the same city, there are areas where you glass skyscapers are much more common. this is
from another point of view of what "deserve" implies, one may very well design a very contemporary and exciting building in a drab industrial neighbourhood to help revive. and in another busy neighbourhood, one may build something sedate and tranquil. these are examples where "regionalism" might not be deserved.
on the other hand, in a greek island, the powerful force of aegean architecture might be (and mostly by law, should be) compelling enough to force one to abide by the existing colours and forms. this is where contextualism is deserved by force of how it convinves the designer and the people experiencing the building. this is not paternalism - in fact, dictating an absolute abidance by regionalism where the region itself is does not qualify this is paternalistic, a dogmatic ideology like any other. places have characters...some are more convincing than others and will ask you to respect them, some have weak or corrupt characters...this is what i meant. but you obviously just want to argue, not listen (read) before you argue
"Most people I speak to just don't like a lot of modern design, and as such, tend to remove themselves from the anxiety laden tabula rasa. Maybe their just not being honest... who knows."
this implicit classification is simplistic. like modernism and its kids, classicisms were as much products of the anxious creative void as they were products of historical developments...they dealt with with initial associations and confrontations as much as they do with historically inherited ones . this is why the emerge as paradigms. in other words, classicisms were their own period's modernism - within them, they contain the germ of the abstract and the difficult figurative thought of their era.
even neo-classicism, if imbued with imagination - additive, subtractive...etc- will in turn reflect the same.
having generally read other posts written by you Thayer, i think that that simplistic approach of yours is adding to neo-classicism overtones of the vernacular - which, in my opinion, robs the value of both and the valour of definition and exactitude. your thoughts in this arena are very murky.
palladio was as abstract as meis, perhaps even more abstract. baroque was even more ridiculously abstract. and this is very evident today: the irony (for you) would be that common people of our time are probably more able to understand modern architecture , more so than people were able to understand bernini's architecture, say, at his time. architects have sort of dumbed down a bit (removing all those messages and codes on the facades and plans that bring architecture closer to painting, scultpure and pamphlets) and people are now generally more literate. ...perhaps
tammuz,
I usually avoid starting a counter argument with the kind of insult you feel fit to use, but I'll mix it up. You're an idiot if you think I'm a neo-classicist. Talk about simplistic, you pose an argument against modernism and immediatly you are labled a neo-classicist, or maybe a vernacularist with neo-classical overtones. Where do you get this stuff?
"palladio was as abstract as meis, perhaps even more abstract. baroque was even more ridiculously abstract." And black is white. Sure, this is the kind of academic throw-it on a wall and see if it sticks school of thought. People understand both modernism and Bernini as much as they have to, which is to say, they have no more obligation to "understand" archtiecture than I have to "understand" music or painting. Sure, if I'm inclined as I often am, I will dig under the surface to see the how and why of what I enjoy, but I won't get there if I don't actually enjoy it.
"this is where contextualism is deserved by force of how it convinves the designer and the people experiencing the building" fine, but who's the judge? No doubt "regionalism", whether understood litterally or more fundamentally can be as dogmatic as any other ism, but broad pronouncments of what character is "compelling enough" or "convincing" aren't exactly the stuff science was built on. I personally don't think one needs any justification to build what they want. Let the public be the judge and let time decide what sticks and what dosen't. All this naval gazing does is inhibit the designer with a bunch of theory that get's in the way that created those places you deem worth preserving. Imagine a musician going through all these gymnastics to create a pleasing melody. By all means study it all, just be careful that in the process you don't extinguish that inate sense of beauty and fitness.
To quote one of my favorite architectural voices, Marinna Griswold Van Rensselaer in her biography of HH Richardson: “In matters of treatment, Richardson’s attitude towards the precedents of ancient art was the same as in matters of conception. He studied them with the love and care but in no slavish, idolatorous mood, and from a practical or purely aesthetic, not from an antiquarian standpoint.” He viewed precedents not as “fetishes, starting-points not patterns.” He looked upon them as a dictionary, not as a grammar, and still less as a collection of attractive features which might be stowed away in the mind like quotations isolated from their context. He dosen’t take “schemes or features which were beautiful because appropriate in one building and try to make them beautiful in another at the expense of fitness; and there is no favorite feature he does not sacrafice if fitness demands.”
BTW, he wasn't a neo-classicist either.
i didnt say you were a neo-classicist...read my comment about that. and if you need to stoop down to calling me names, then i won't bother anymore with you. "simplistic" is one thing, "idiot" is something else. anyway, there is nothing interesting or insighful in your posts for me to continue with you.
Vogt points to regional distinctions within the landscape in terms of its identity, inhabitation and use. His take on globalization reflects his disciplinary stance as a landscape architect. In this respect, he is an intriguing and anomalous voice.
The topic, of course, is also prevalent in architecture. In the first few minutes of his 2011 interview with Charlie Rose, Rem Koolhaas also mentions the particularities of Swiss and Italian landscapes. His countryside is not an idyllic or vernacular environment, but rather a place of dynamic change, driven by emigration and home to dangerous and controversial issues that are sanitized in cites. Koolhaas is interested in what he terms the "countryside" in so far as it instantiates globalization and reflects mass migration to cites, resulting in an overlooked and abandoned landscape. Under-designed territories are interesting. Potentially hot.
So, yes, there are some paradoxes here. Some big players have weighed in. There are precedents historically for this line of thought (Frampton, et. al) and the subject is rich for discussion.
"i didnt say you were a neo-classicist" but "having generally read other posts written by you Thayer, i think that that simplistic approach of yours is adding to neo-classicism overtones of the vernacular". So I'm not a neo-classicist yet my simplistic approach is adding vernacular overtones to neo-classicism. That's on par with...
"Thayer, your understanding and imagination is falling short. falling, failing..." but "if you need to stoop down to calling me names, then i won't bother anymore with you. "simplistic" is one thing, "idiot" is something else." You're right, idiot might have been a bit harsh, but I actually said "You're an idiot if you think I'm a neo-classicist. Since you didn't call me a neo-classicist, were all good.
I'm all up for a clean discussion where we can civilly agree to disagree, but if you want to play word games by throwing dirt and then whining about getting it back, then by all means, don't "bother" with me anymore. What your answer clearly states is that beyond not likeing being called out on being insulting, you can't answer the points on the table.
My main trouble with your point isn't that we disagree on modernism or classicism, I could care less as I think both have a place in contemporary archtiecture and both can be both regional and international, depending on how they're handled and in which context. My issue is with the idea that an outsider can come in and declare that a "region itself is does not qualify" for a regionalistic approach is both paternalistic and arrogant. There was no "Charleston" character when the English first arrived, but after 200 years, it naturally grew out of the Carribean-English cultures and local climate etc. Hypothetically, why is another virgin area being populated by Charlestonians not allowed to build in their regional archtiectural language and let time and climate modulate it in due course? People crave an identity, if your adolescence didn't make that perfectly clear. Just let people do what they like and by golly you might invent a new vernacular, but it will never flourish in the overly analytical academic world we train our architects in.