agfa8x - like I said I didn't read all the responses here so I don't really know what everyone said. your half-cocked response pulled like two of the finer points I harped on out of somewhat longish responses of mine and you've obviously missed or ignored my bigger points which are in response to the original question (the first post). I said I wasn't responding to all posts in this thread so your points a) and b) aren't relevant to the whole context of my post(s).
from the first post, the writer questioned whether (advancement in) architecture was more like art (and less like science or economics). I was basically expounding upon that idea (which I agree with). universities and academies are in fact what drive the intellectual agenda of architecture. they set the bar for what 'advanced' means. the things they push are what we will or won't (if the ideas are rotten) see from good students in the years to come. my complaints about what's happening from students and faculty in mainline schools like sci-arc, the AA, the Bartlett, columbia, ucla, and others are both relevant and largely true from my experiences, conversations, and observations of these places.
if you're someone who's doing ambitious form making in these places and even figuring out how these forms can be built, you may feel free to take any of this personally. I think the majority of the work being done at those schools present the world with useless 'solutions' to non-problems while as I said, the building industry is rife with real problems.
if the alphanumericcha comment was to me... I'm saying that most work coming from these schools is very advanced by our criteria but that it's useless and misguided. the fact that the work is thoughtful doesn't necessarily legitimate it. in fact this sort of 'advanced' architecture is fearful. form that's informed by rigorous theory is understandably intellectually stimulating. this sort of work is visually and intellectually sexy and it's wildly tempting.
I'm indeed quite hungup on what I believe is a tremendous waste of intellect in the aformentioned schools on armchair curiosities and the sort of quandries of conscience that can only be legitmate in the world of art.
I don't think I'm taking it personally. I just think you are devaluing an important area of architectural advancement (even if it is only one, and quite possibly not the most important one).
We seem to agree however, that the schools are important sites for architectural advancement.
How can I name these historians? I go through journals and articles and some are good and I take notice, and some are bad and I don't think much of them. Among the good ones are Franklin Toker, and Andrew Saint. I don't think I am qualified to harrass them but every person is entitled to his opinion, right? So here I am placing these thoughts on the table: some historians do spin a meta-narrative which are placeholders for their evidence and I don't see eye to eye with this practice.
The XYZ tribesmen epitomise capitalism. They were "bankers" (because they loan money out in exchange for some favors) and their power came from what they own.
I just replaced what you said about the medicis with a traditional society in E. Asia. If your notion of capitalism is so broad, then I have nothing to say.
To answer your questions, no one really knows who built the cathedrals (other than the more commonly accepted notion of the master builder, please see Saint's article...) and I guess the patron is the Church.
My exact point is that there is no need to bring capitalism into the picture with a patron-architect duality at all. The need to do so baffles me greatly. There is no logical association at all. If I do pro-bono work for you, you are therefore my client and I am your architect. So where is your pet or the design world archi-talk capitalism in this?
Sure, I am sure you understand French better than I do, and I give you that. I also understand English alot better than some others so I say you have your interpretation and I have mine. But that is not to say that I cannot make a judgment about a paragraph laced with phrases you only see in badly translated second handed french tracts and in pseduo-talk. That's my judgment and not an accusation.
It is obvious that you understand the other forum participant's paragraph since you defined it as "meaningless". I am actually quite astonished that you can follow my arguments up to this point and then proclaim that you don't understand it. This is to me, quite a mystery.
I'm afraid I can't do any more than offer you my sincerest assurances that my references to capitalism are not just an attempt to be trendy. You are free to believe me or not on that one.
I am suggesting that in a capitalist economic system it is perfectly natural that the patron-architect relationship seems obvious; but that this may not have been true for all times, nor for all places. Re-reading some of your earlier thoughts, I understand you to be suggesting that by looking outside of this one-to-one relationship, there may be potential for architecture's advancement. If so, I agree.
Where we disagree is that you seem to be suggesting that looking outside the one-to-one relationship of architect and patron would be a [i]new[/] development; while I would suggest that there have already been many historical examples of alternative models.
I am aware of what psychologists call the fundamental attribution error, and by your suggestion that we are all players in this system, and thus natural, is making this error. Putting this error aside for a minute, I guess I can see your point about how this is natural. However, beyond this "natural" relationship, I was trying to suggest that there is really no good reason to suspect that capitalism is at work in the patron-architect duality depicted.
Yes, I was somewhat suggesting that but my interpretation of what has gone on before in modernism was a luke-warm one when the singularity of the patron self is blurred. We do have a fine history of community design, and perhaps that would be a fruitful example to consider from our recent past. The little that I know from these examples is that the patron sort of turn into a 'monster' so to speak, that architects are incapable of taming with the traditional value sets and lens when working them them. This is excluding a whole lot of other exterior forces at work trying to sow discord between these parties.
We can argue about "newness" till dawn and I am quite convinced that we will simply walk away both frustrated, as well as empty-handed (or empty headed :)). I guess when I referred to what you term "new", I was trying to brainstorm for other ideas of thinking about this. You are probably right that there is really nothing new under the sun. If we have a disagreement about this point, it is that newness can be defined quite differently in different context. So something which is tried and tested, and also failed may come back in a different time and place to work and be commented as creative and also innovative.
I believe you because the critique of capitalism is something which I have come to embrace, then tolerate, and further on, reject. It seems that there are so many lens to put on in understanding architecture but somehow, thinkers working in this domain tend to put on these sets of lens when critiquing everything. It is like the whole world looks like nails when you are the hammer, so to speak. If there is something I am working for, it is pluralism.
Poor students do come into school and hear one side of the story and then go out believing that this is the only side of the story. That said, I am not convinced of the somewhat convenient answer that the students' own habitus is already the prototypical model of capitalism so who needs to speak up for it. I really would like to see more shades than this black and white picture. This last few lines are my rant :)
I certainly don't want to be thought to be priveleging a critique of capitalism as a fundamental approach to architecture. I still think it is a relevant concern in considering the architect-patron relationship; but I don't feel like I have much more to add on that (side-) issue.
My suggestion that there are historical precedents for alternatives to the notion of the single master-builder is not intended to weaken the force of those alternatives. I think that those historical precedents may help with the question of 'advancement' which diabase raised.
so many words and so many little twirls and turns and yet every paragraph, minus excuses, polite frills, mockingly apologetic ticks and all those different 'atmospheric' mannerisms could be condensed into very few sentences and she's the one who complains. does she understand this? or is it still too synthetic, should i talk animal to her maybe? that might be more natural, she might just get it then.
honestly, its not that it don't make sense. it was just boring except when thenewold walked in for a while but then...
thenewold messed up. it was fine at where it was (or wasnt. in terms of advancement being just that minus a technology of ethics shadowing technology) , but now this criticism of 'student projects' and whats being taught and not. its a totally different place, that. now we get all bleeding hearts and drown in a global tidal wave of humanism. and the way students and studios are being lumped together...seems like the lump is just an excuse for frustration sometimes, rather than the other way around. of course i am not pedalling content, but i dont why you should pedal discontent. illustrate, if you mean columbia and the aa..well they're not the only schools , and they do have diverse studios/units and they have their set ambitions. be more specific. offhandedness is only enjoyed in camp vein. maybe you have let yourself buy too much in the human ability to be self deceptive...jaded eyes (but doesnt that also mean that you can just as easily fall victim to this ability)
agfa8x -
I think the area of architectural advancement that I'm hating on NEEDS devaluing. It's the perpetuation of a historical, promotional structure that encourages competetiveness, egoism, and individualism in architectural education. This school of thought believes it's okay and valuable for individual architects to behave like artists. Everything is fair game because the only person the individual archtect(ure student or academic) has to answer to are themselves in terms of personal integrity. In this way, this line of thought holds that nothing can BE frivolous so long as it's new, rigorous, and intellectually strong. In such an environment where individualism is upheld so strongly, it's impossible to mount a case against any line of thought in architecture. This is totally fine for art but architects have more broad responsibilities. I'm asserting that we can't afford to be frivolous as we are.
the cellardoor whore - Maybe I did mess up in doing the bleeding heart thing for a minute. It's really hard and I'd argue wrong to restrict the discussion (or claim that it's the only interesting part) to basically semantic chin scratching about the nature and meaning of 'advanced'. I think the critique of whole schools by me was unfairly broad, too many people that I honestly don't know lumped together (as you said) and so on... The thing is that I don't believe people in that environment have any awareness or consciousness of the issue of the basic relevance of their interests and work to the world outside the academy. The lack of questioning makes my discontent relevant even if my approach is unpleasant in some way(s). The schools I mentioned as well as some I didn't attract the students who are the brightest in our field, the most hardworking, and the most passionate. I didn't ask these questions of myself during undergrad and I never heard any other serious students ask it either. I mean, back to the part you think has merit, the meaning of 'advanced', I don't think students really combine that question of meaning with any ethical check.
As for specificity vs. lumping, well, I only have so much time to write during lunch. Additionally, of the specific work or studios with which I'm familiar and which I find most objectionable, mostly I know of them because I have good friends there. I'm not interested in attacking my friends, I think they're victims of this intellectual self indulgence too.
agfa -
Like you're saying, I think it's interesting that some projects are so personal to the creator that they're inaccessible sometimes in spite of the creator wanting feedback. It's really too bad for these students. I've seen many projects in school where critics were really unable to respond meaningfully. It's an interesting aspect of the quality of being 'advanced' that to the extent 'advanced' = personal it becomes inaccessible. And isn't it paradoxical that sometime could be both inaccessible AND provocative. Isn't something provocative supposed to illicit at least a little comprehension by the provoked ?
At the risk of boring Cellardoor, let me continue. The discrepancy between academia and professional practice is a cliche.
One can testify to the intense competition between graduates to secure jobs in the prestigious firms where a design philosophy is practiced, and those poor suckers who end up working for Christopher Ratsarse Architects and Planners Ltd.
The design philosophy of one of the practices I worked at after graduating can be summed up in one word: cheap.
I would second agf8x' recommendations re: a better synthesis between practice and theory.
About advancement, with an example. A biologist can talk about advancement in a number of ways. new discoveries, new processes, ongoing research, global collaboration, extension into entrepreneurship, etc, etc. In what way can we look around and claim genuine advancement? can we? Is it possible? Is it irrelevant?
The biologist you refer to would be talking about the advancements of their entire field in that example. Each single advancement has the reality or the true potential of reaching millions of lives. I don't think a single act of architecture can reach so many lives so directly. The closest recent example might be the so called bilbao effect which has resulted in endless new signature museums and arguably the cheapening of art. Only a small segment of the global population care about art or architectural tourism while we all care about health. So maybe the comparison with biology isn't a fair one but I think it's a great point that one measure of the ethical goodness of an advance is it's positive impact on as many people as possible. Possibly the answer to this original question is that yes there is advancement in architecture but that the smallness of our actual impact in the best of circumstances doesn't equate to our sense of self importance or self indulgence.
You listed the following: 1. new discoveries 2. new processes 3. ongoing research 4. global collaboration 5. extension into entrepreneurship.
I think 2 to 5 are all actively pursued in the field of design. Methods and Processes have been looked at in the 60s but lesser now. However, many engineering and computer science folks are looking into the design field precisely for these methods and processes. (3) is actively being pursued in universities and research institutes. (4 & 5) are all observed in major collaborations of offices across borders and 5 esp. is the backbone of our profession!
That said, I am struggling with (1) since architectural design does not deal with discoveries with some existing reality but the creation of new realities with respect to existing ones. I have not been able to come up with a set of criteria for this yet.
I think thenewold has a good point. Ethics is a growing field these days and architecture can seize this opportunity for "advancement". There is so much "ought" in design that cannot be objectively argued for. On the other hand, the humanistic part of architecture is fertile ground for a higher ethical awareness to the amount of energy, types of materials and spaces used...
Although point 5 may be the backbone of our profession, point 1 is the backbone of the scientific professions. I do believe that the idea of discovery is what I am getting at. Perhaps this should be the reframed question: what have we discovered in architecture? Or is there nothing left to discover? [famous last words].
I suppose there might be 'discoveries' in architecture, but I tend to see architecture as strictly constructive. For example, I would tend to see perspective, or projective geometry, as an invention rather than a discovery.
It might be possible to discover things about the effects of architecture though: for example, research might help explain why the human organism responds in certain ways to certain spaces. This would be a purely retrospective kind of discovery, though.
( yep, I'm home with all the doors open enjoying the sun. I don't think I'll be at the park tonight though - I ran up Mangere Mt this morning and half killed myself )
I think something could be said if design discoveries are somehow disassociated from that of scientific discoveries.
I had once heard one teacher said that in design we discover ourselves (and perhaps remake ourselves). Reflecting on the career paths of many of my classmates, who were once so adamant on architecture that nothing could thwart it, I have come to conclude that we do find out about how we think and value through the creation of a personally important artifact. I think this is a vitally important point in design because calculating an equation in mechanics or finding out the energy of a chemical reaction is very different than something you make from your own ideation. Practising scientists may disagree, but this point certainly hold for the general bulk of design students.
In addition, I have observed what some of my more thoughtful teachers, who were amazing practitioners said. Many of them would tell stories of how they have discovered they were completely wrong on hedging the bet on some materials or some parts of their designs. They would have discovered that it maybe better to do this on site, or a sudden realization struck them while the CDs are ducked away at the site in the office and so on. I appreciate their candidness but discovering our human cognitive limits, and at the same time, catching a glimpse of its potential, can be very exciting.
I guess if discovery is associated to how new structures stand up, or how a certain lighting algorithm works better for lighting calculation and simulations, or better insulation, materials scientists and engineers are light years ahead of us. Part of this maybe associated with our education, which tend to emphasize a wider scope than depth. This makes great discoveries very difficult given how specialization can contribute to the chances of discovering something these days.
Great discussion. This comparison with biology has another aspect that architecture could learn from and that's the phenomenon of mistakes. In biology, a mistaken formula or analysis is noted and discarded while in architecture, mistakes can be repeated potentially forever.
i like .... now oe, im going to read some t.s.eliot now. thanks for making good time. i found this unadorned relation amongst things at the bottom (barrel or wineglass or whatever) in ted hughes as well. a fragile wolf heartedness.though its less likely to have this 'our'. a couple of months ago i found myself writing in an 'our-us-we' voice, but that was after years of ridding myself of plurality. strange i found a lot of love for the crowd but at the same time it was a very cold place this 'our-us-we', a love you have for the mass with headphones on and watch it come together and apart.
i do not understand why ethics should be inculcated and imprinted in such a way. your student carries her/his own baggage, if it is part of their coming-into-their-own it will make itself present. as a tutor you equip them, some will become humorists with no seeming morality, some will immerse themselves in self-mirroring self-referential geometries and that might be their gift, others will choose cancer wards and orphanages and build in cob, straw and clouds. i do not understand how u can so coldly construct a mega-ambition to jolt ethics into the 'student body'. what exactly do you wish to do? show them pictures of the holocaust and tell them this is what happens if you don't build without an idea i the tutor think is humane?
i had once a tutor whose sole concern was exactly that, set against the so called 'avant garde' and feeding his students zumthor and aalto.
by the end of it i was thinking up evil schemes like trapdoors with upstanding blades beneath that i could smuggle into the drawing. i wanted to slaughter most of the student projects for the esoteric 'humanism' that they were regurgitating up and back on.
I am all for freedom of thoughts and path-finding. I do not know which part of my ethical consideration you are arguing against. All I am trying to place on the table here is that design decisions have ethical consequences. If there is nothing else, concepts of these sort rarely get pointed out in class (or even the workplace, depending on where you are) where it is 'archi-brand' saturated.
The type of freedom you described is never as 'ethically' free as you might think. In the extreme situation where no one respects ethics, it is very likely that even the foundation on which freedom of thinking and acting is built on will be shaken.
You think too highly of me if it is my statement you are arguing against. I think mega-ambition is the worst thing an instructor can impart to the student body. I am all for constructivism, not ideology. Thus, I would find your rebellion against your evil instructor quite reasonable, though morbid.
I don't think we have a criteria of mistakes in design yet...Compared to something as sentient and as adaptable as human beings, design once fixed is quite dead. What was once understood as an acceptable and correct response to living requirements is now tolerated as a historical mistake further down the road.
Rather, I see mediocrity as a bigger problem than the criteria of mistake. Why are some buildings seen as mediocre to the trained designer, but perceived and lived through as excellent to the general public? I am sure we all can think of some insignificant buildings not taught to us as exemplars of our canon that people simply loved. How one's mediocrity is another excellence is another good question to be answered for "advancement".
We do have that in science too but I would think that the consensus is normally more uniform.
BE -
Firstly, some design decisions (mostly those in urbanism) are now almost universally and objectively acepted as actual 'mistakes'. Corbusier's tower's in the garden urbanism are today's banlieues complete with burning cars and scores of disaffected youth. The whole design movement of post moderism is likewise totally rejected today. Mies like skyscrapers are reviled as creating the setting for the generic corporate world of 'office space' and 'fight club'. All of those things, were they replicated in spirit or in fact would be considered mistakes by all today.
I think mediocrity is kind of a question of talent and it's indeed another facet of 'advancement' (so bravo). I was thinking that I have friends who left school and decided that working super hard to be more than mediocre just wasn't their deal. People like that grow up to be heads of firms like that of course. People get tired and overcoming mediocrity is mostly a symptom of hard work and good luck with clients. Wanting a normal life and a normal job is probably the main cause of mediocrity but it's also a totally legitmate life choice for an architect to make. That's not me, I'm still a true believer.
cellardoor whore -
Your blithe and jaded affectations might be charming except for the faux neutrality about 'humanist' ethics. Your rant belies the artistic ethical innoculations in architectural education that you are indirectly arguing for and which you've refused to recognize. Being against humanist ethics is THE necessary foundation for believing any sort of masturbatory architecture or frozen ejaculatory forms are perfectly legitimate pursuits for a student. This cliche which permeates architectures' highest cloisters results in the Bushian black-white view of the built world that sets pure artistic integrity against the supposed mindlessness of everything else. The resulting 'refusal', contre all, of the world is watery retreatism and every bit as mindless as subjecting students to slideshows of the endless 'meaningful' built responses to the holocaust. I mean,... you're not neutral at all really.
If I say that I disagree that Corb or Mies's towers, or "the whole design movement of post modernism" are mistakes, I predict that you will tell me I'm wrong, but the strength of your feeling on the matter does not make it universal or objective.
I agree that you might be able to say that a certain design decision (deciding to use concrete, deciding on the strategy of towers in a garden, deciding to increase occupational density, deciding to make explicit reference to other buildings, etc.) was a mistake (provided that you set out the criteria by which you determine that).
However an entire movement, or an architect's career, or even a single building project, contain a great many design decisions, some of which may be 'mistakes' and some which may not.
yeah..... it's really a grey area this 'mistake' business. but I think it bears keeping in mind the harm that architecture can do. as you mentioned earlier, sometimes the public loves or hates something where architects feel the opposite. a great example is the proliferation of courthouses and federal buildings in the Paul Rodolph brutalist style which most people find to be soulless and sinister. the campus of TU Delft is full of brutalist monstrosities that I'm certain the architect thought were very good ideas. cognisance of the potential for mistakes can make arguments for 'smarter' designs more legitimate. the chorus of criticism for the new ground zero is an example of the need for such a discussion. of course, it isn't going to work there. I use the phase 'mistake' all the time when verbally manhandling clients and so far, it seems to work pretty well.
I think you have to argue that something is a mistake, not just assert it.
A further problem might be the relationship between taking risks and making mistakes. The only way to make no mistakes is to take no risks, and that, I would suggest, is undesirable.
agfa8x
good point,
though i may not agree with the assumptions corb or mies made on what was and what was not important in architecture, i could not and would not say their assumptions and subsequent decisions were mistakes. though there is a prepondance (sp?) of evidence that modern architecture's social agenda failed, im not sure i would classify the whole movement as a mistake.
i would also disagree that mies' modernist towers have become a symbol of mediocrity and generic corporate offices. the architecture of those buildings have little to do with the program within. the references to mediocrity in the work place is not a consequence of the architecture. I work in a OMA building, crazy as can be, and i still find my job to be boring and mediocre at times.
and
the IBM tower in chicago is still one of the most stunning and in my oppinion beautiful towers in the city. it is incredibly powerful, and in no way characterized (in my mind) by the type of business it houses.
or the federal plaza in chicago
i take all my non architect friends there and they all can appreciate how powerful a space that is
Yes, I agree with your post, lietdownl. To blame everything on architecture (that is, the physical environment) is to say that the physical environment determines everything. I am sure it affects us somewhat, but I am unwilling to say that it has so much power that we cannot change things.
Reverting to my previous posts, the myth of the failure of modernism in Prutt-Igoe, is one of the those meta-narratives I was talking about.
Architecture has NOT qualitatively advanced since modernism.
We are in the midst of a cultural and technological revolution and yet there is no architecture for that revolution. The modernist movement was all about buildings and form and technology and architecture. Maybe the movement of the now in is all about the lack of such things. Maybe each of us has the intuitive realization that a true 'movement' in today's net of global dominance would be a force too great and terrible to comprehend.
thenewold but that had nothing to do with my response. if anything i do not recognize a black and white world vision and if it must be then please dont let it be 'knife in the water' zylewicz's ... so metallic for it would drive me mad to be in that world. soggy humanism is just as 'black and white' as your bushes(brown red) and osamas (dark plum-purple).
i don't see how someone who 'permeates' and 'proliferates' could have anything against cliches. so much talk. an amphibian you. i did like our hermetically seeled technology though.
mistake and failure. yesternight in a pub lecherously drunk (i care) with a devout christian friend discussing pseudo-theosophically catechism, the church, the turin shroud, madonna's pre-kabalah religiosity ( catholic absolution as a theological and theocratic economy was the fulcrum at that point) and belief we arrived at a frontier. that between being able to answer with words that leave decisive footprints and not being able to with stuttering and much nonsense (in text form it would have just been silence but ...) .i then realized that an agnostic is the stupidest creature ever, a by-god agnostic-about-it-all. with god or the lack of god departs even the security of intelligence. mistake, a thing that shouldnt have been done and if so, so shouldnt have been that way of thinking that realized that mistake . or would there just have been another mistake? how can a whole world be called a mistake, erm...god knows.
he very premise of this thread bothers me. it shos WE havent advanced much.
Stop thinking of history and architecture as a linear account of events, today this happens and tomorrow it will be greater. IS that type of dillusional thinking that brought us the international style, an architecture that produces more than 50% of the CO2 emissions in hte world. You can say that this architecture will iterally KILL US. Why adavance that?
Life is not linear it only sems that way to us. I am of the opinion that we are basically still monkeys but with better toys. The peoples of yesteryear had architectural innovation that we cannot imagine anymore. They used DESIGN AS A WAY OF LIVING!! I think I can learn more from most aboriginal and vernacular architectures than from Mies, koolhaas, Corb, etc... Thats just a good old boy Club, furthering their image, and playing to the brain-less burgoise of the world.
I don't think dumb is the right adjective. I think it is recklessness within bounded rationality is the culprit. If we are dumber than monkeys, than we are incapable of throwing ideas around in written language. Since we are doing so, I can say quite confidently that we are brighter than monkeys, and perhaps along with that, acquired a sense of recklessness not seen in monkeys.
I dont hate humans, as a matter of fact I have personal relationships with many of them. But I seriously think that we think we are smarter more adapt, etc... Specially in the West, we think we are hot shit, and we destroy, destroy, destroy...
And I think part of the problem is the current frame of mind of he culture as a whole. The idea that today matters more than yesterday, or tomorrow, short attention spans, etc... It is pretty evident in our profession too.
m -
fair enough. it's an unfortunate cliche that a certain segment of the architecture world seem bent upon harping on the destructive aspects of construction. in reality, no one's going to stop building buildings or tearing old ones down. the financial costs of doing everything in the most earth friendly way possible are prohibitive. In this ways, most architects understand their role in the world to be like that of an airplane pilot guiding a damaged craft down in a crash landing. Basically trying to steer the burning plane towards an area where it does the least harm. Architecture is all about trying to manage, minimize, and mitigate damage to the extent possible.
unfortunately the destructive aspects won't change until there are better alternatives OR governments see the cost (of 'destruction') as greater than that of preventing it. It remains to be seen whether sustainability will catch on to the point of one day becomming gonvernment policy. Elsewise, it will become what organic farming is; a fringe techinique that can't possibly keep up with global demand or be competetive with genetically modified produce and other modern, un-organic farming techniques.
I disagree with you, I think that it is easier than we thought. The idea tha it is expensive makes us feel good that we don't do more for environmental design. The native peoples of the whole world have done it in the past, why can't we do it now?!?!?!
Are we addicted to the HVAC, and the overlighting of space?
Anyway, I dont htink that it is that hard we just need to want it, and the day of too expensive gas is coming, we will have to want to.
Mel... the International Style is responsible for 50% of the world's CO2 emissions?
The International Style?
Not 'this modern world' or 'twentieth-century building practices', but the International Style?
Compared to the number of buildings constructed in the 20th and 21st centuries, an almost infinitesimally small number would belong to the International Style. Far more dangerous, and dumping far more carbon into the system, are the millions of suburban houses built each year (forgetting cars and heavy manufacturing for now).
Hating on the Modernists is so 1968. Did they steal your kittens as well?
I mean, this 'argument' is just naiive, cliche, and not particularly impactful, insightful, or interesting. All undergraduate arch students inevitably complain about air conditioning at some point. It's in the same course where professors whine about the 'evils' of Disneyland and show predictable slideshows of aerial photos of american suburbs and go on and on about potemkin this and pastiche that. It's as predictable as the sun rise. Equally predictable, most people eventually get over the chip on their shoulder because they realize having a chip isn't helpful. Students who maintain this clueless hysteria go on to do bland 5th year projects 'about' sustainability. Every thinking architect in the world cares about the impact of what we do on the environment, they've just got better things to do than go on about it all day.
Agfa, TNW
wow Im feeling the hate.
I was answering the specific question at the origin of this thread. I guess agfa you answered no. My simple answer is that we are saying that during Modernism we were "advancing" and we aren't anymore?!?!
The suburban house got its cues from the international style, read up on the subject, read the propraganda of abrave new world that modernist architects promised with climate controlled buildings. The suburb was being developed at this time and followed until our very own day. Also, the international style won, look at any skyline in any city in the world, see differences?
The newworld are you saying that those professors where wrong? I agree that someitmes it is just a facile argument, and not very insightful so lets make it.
Again, my original point is that life doesn't move lineraly, we can learn more from the past and not believe the fallacy that we need to be "progressing" as time goes one. It is just as fruitful to "regress" and look at some of the ingenious things that were done in the past, and use them in a new context.
No cchip here, Im just trying to do my part, it is possible, it is not too expensive, it has been done in the past, no reason why it can't be done now.
Okay, so I'll re-ground Mel's stuff to the original question. The question of 'progress' as mel is talking about it is similar to the question of what it means to be 'advanced'.
Also, I don't think anyone's trying to attack you. It's just that most people have heard this slack argument replete with the loose language, broad generalizations, and tired anectdotes about 500 times. That's pretty much why people get tired or bored with the righteous fervor and get on with trying to make the best buildings they can.
Advancement in Architecture
Who are you referring to alphanumerica?
agfa8x - like I said I didn't read all the responses here so I don't really know what everyone said. your half-cocked response pulled like two of the finer points I harped on out of somewhat longish responses of mine and you've obviously missed or ignored my bigger points which are in response to the original question (the first post). I said I wasn't responding to all posts in this thread so your points a) and b) aren't relevant to the whole context of my post(s).
from the first post, the writer questioned whether (advancement in) architecture was more like art (and less like science or economics). I was basically expounding upon that idea (which I agree with). universities and academies are in fact what drive the intellectual agenda of architecture. they set the bar for what 'advanced' means. the things they push are what we will or won't (if the ideas are rotten) see from good students in the years to come. my complaints about what's happening from students and faculty in mainline schools like sci-arc, the AA, the Bartlett, columbia, ucla, and others are both relevant and largely true from my experiences, conversations, and observations of these places.
if you're someone who's doing ambitious form making in these places and even figuring out how these forms can be built, you may feel free to take any of this personally. I think the majority of the work being done at those schools present the world with useless 'solutions' to non-problems while as I said, the building industry is rife with real problems.
if the alphanumericcha comment was to me... I'm saying that most work coming from these schools is very advanced by our criteria but that it's useless and misguided. the fact that the work is thoughtful doesn't necessarily legitimate it. in fact this sort of 'advanced' architecture is fearful. form that's informed by rigorous theory is understandably intellectually stimulating. this sort of work is visually and intellectually sexy and it's wildly tempting.
I'm indeed quite hungup on what I believe is a tremendous waste of intellect in the aformentioned schools on armchair curiosities and the sort of quandries of conscience that can only be legitmate in the world of art.
thenewold:
I don't think I'm taking it personally. I just think you are devaluing an important area of architectural advancement (even if it is only one, and quite possibly not the most important one).
We seem to agree however, that the schools are important sites for architectural advancement.
agfa8x,
How can I name these historians? I go through journals and articles and some are good and I take notice, and some are bad and I don't think much of them. Among the good ones are Franklin Toker, and Andrew Saint. I don't think I am qualified to harrass them but every person is entitled to his opinion, right? So here I am placing these thoughts on the table: some historians do spin a meta-narrative which are placeholders for their evidence and I don't see eye to eye with this practice.
The XYZ tribesmen epitomise capitalism. They were "bankers" (because they loan money out in exchange for some favors) and their power came from what they own.
I just replaced what you said about the medicis with a traditional society in E. Asia. If your notion of capitalism is so broad, then I have nothing to say.
To answer your questions, no one really knows who built the cathedrals (other than the more commonly accepted notion of the master builder, please see Saint's article...) and I guess the patron is the Church.
My exact point is that there is no need to bring capitalism into the picture with a patron-architect duality at all. The need to do so baffles me greatly. There is no logical association at all. If I do pro-bono work for you, you are therefore my client and I am your architect. So where is your pet or the design world archi-talk capitalism in this?
Sure, I am sure you understand French better than I do, and I give you that. I also understand English alot better than some others so I say you have your interpretation and I have mine. But that is not to say that I cannot make a judgment about a paragraph laced with phrases you only see in badly translated second handed french tracts and in pseduo-talk. That's my judgment and not an accusation.
It is obvious that you understand the other forum participant's paragraph since you defined it as "meaningless". I am actually quite astonished that you can follow my arguments up to this point and then proclaim that you don't understand it. This is to me, quite a mystery.
I'm afraid I can't do any more than offer you my sincerest assurances that my references to capitalism are not just an attempt to be trendy. You are free to believe me or not on that one.
I am suggesting that in a capitalist economic system it is perfectly natural that the patron-architect relationship seems obvious; but that this may not have been true for all times, nor for all places. Re-reading some of your earlier thoughts, I understand you to be suggesting that by looking outside of this one-to-one relationship, there may be potential for architecture's advancement. If so, I agree.
Where we disagree is that you seem to be suggesting that looking outside the one-to-one relationship of architect and patron would be a [i]new[/] development; while I would suggest that there have already been many historical examples of alternative models.
Am I understanding you correctly?
I am aware of what psychologists call the fundamental attribution error, and by your suggestion that we are all players in this system, and thus natural, is making this error. Putting this error aside for a minute, I guess I can see your point about how this is natural. However, beyond this "natural" relationship, I was trying to suggest that there is really no good reason to suspect that capitalism is at work in the patron-architect duality depicted.
Yes, I was somewhat suggesting that but my interpretation of what has gone on before in modernism was a luke-warm one when the singularity of the patron self is blurred. We do have a fine history of community design, and perhaps that would be a fruitful example to consider from our recent past. The little that I know from these examples is that the patron sort of turn into a 'monster' so to speak, that architects are incapable of taming with the traditional value sets and lens when working them them. This is excluding a whole lot of other exterior forces at work trying to sow discord between these parties.
We can argue about "newness" till dawn and I am quite convinced that we will simply walk away both frustrated, as well as empty-handed (or empty headed :)). I guess when I referred to what you term "new", I was trying to brainstorm for other ideas of thinking about this. You are probably right that there is really nothing new under the sun. If we have a disagreement about this point, it is that newness can be defined quite differently in different context. So something which is tried and tested, and also failed may come back in a different time and place to work and be commented as creative and also innovative.
I believe you because the critique of capitalism is something which I have come to embrace, then tolerate, and further on, reject. It seems that there are so many lens to put on in understanding architecture but somehow, thinkers working in this domain tend to put on these sets of lens when critiquing everything. It is like the whole world looks like nails when you are the hammer, so to speak. If there is something I am working for, it is pluralism.
Poor students do come into school and hear one side of the story and then go out believing that this is the only side of the story. That said, I am not convinced of the somewhat convenient answer that the students' own habitus is already the prototypical model of capitalism so who needs to speak up for it. I really would like to see more shades than this black and white picture. This last few lines are my rant :)
I certainly don't want to be thought to be priveleging a critique of capitalism as a fundamental approach to architecture. I still think it is a relevant concern in considering the architect-patron relationship; but I don't feel like I have much more to add on that (side-) issue.
My suggestion that there are historical precedents for alternatives to the notion of the single master-builder is not intended to weaken the force of those alternatives. I think that those historical precedents may help with the question of 'advancement' which diabase raised.
so many words and so many little twirls and turns and yet every paragraph, minus excuses, polite frills, mockingly apologetic ticks and all those different 'atmospheric' mannerisms could be condensed into very few sentences and she's the one who complains. does she understand this? or is it still too synthetic, should i talk animal to her maybe? that might be more natural, she might just get it then.
honestly, its not that it don't make sense. it was just boring except when thenewold walked in for a while but then...
thenewold messed up. it was fine at where it was (or wasnt. in terms of advancement being just that minus a technology of ethics shadowing technology) , but now this criticism of 'student projects' and whats being taught and not. its a totally different place, that. now we get all bleeding hearts and drown in a global tidal wave of humanism. and the way students and studios are being lumped together...seems like the lump is just an excuse for frustration sometimes, rather than the other way around. of course i am not pedalling content, but i dont why you should pedal discontent. illustrate, if you mean columbia and the aa..well they're not the only schools , and they do have diverse studios/units and they have their set ambitions. be more specific. offhandedness is only enjoyed in camp vein. maybe you have let yourself buy too much in the human ability to be self deceptive...jaded eyes (but doesnt that also mean that you can just as easily fall victim to this ability)
agfa8x -
I think the area of architectural advancement that I'm hating on NEEDS devaluing. It's the perpetuation of a historical, promotional structure that encourages competetiveness, egoism, and individualism in architectural education. This school of thought believes it's okay and valuable for individual architects to behave like artists. Everything is fair game because the only person the individual archtect(ure student or academic) has to answer to are themselves in terms of personal integrity. In this way, this line of thought holds that nothing can BE frivolous so long as it's new, rigorous, and intellectually strong. In such an environment where individualism is upheld so strongly, it's impossible to mount a case against any line of thought in architecture. This is totally fine for art but architects have more broad responsibilities. I'm asserting that we can't afford to be frivolous as we are.
the cellardoor whore - Maybe I did mess up in doing the bleeding heart thing for a minute. It's really hard and I'd argue wrong to restrict the discussion (or claim that it's the only interesting part) to basically semantic chin scratching about the nature and meaning of 'advanced'. I think the critique of whole schools by me was unfairly broad, too many people that I honestly don't know lumped together (as you said) and so on... The thing is that I don't believe people in that environment have any awareness or consciousness of the issue of the basic relevance of their interests and work to the world outside the academy. The lack of questioning makes my discontent relevant even if my approach is unpleasant in some way(s). The schools I mentioned as well as some I didn't attract the students who are the brightest in our field, the most hardworking, and the most passionate. I didn't ask these questions of myself during undergrad and I never heard any other serious students ask it either. I mean, back to the part you think has merit, the meaning of 'advanced', I don't think students really combine that question of meaning with any ethical check.
As for specificity vs. lumping, well, I only have so much time to write during lunch. Additionally, of the specific work or studios with which I'm familiar and which I find most objectionable, mostly I know of them because I have good friends there. I'm not interested in attacking my friends, I think they're victims of this intellectual self indulgence too.
I have no personal insight into the schools you are criticising.
I also get frustrated by projects that try to argue that no criticism of them is possible, though.
agfa -
Like you're saying, I think it's interesting that some projects are so personal to the creator that they're inaccessible sometimes in spite of the creator wanting feedback. It's really too bad for these students. I've seen many projects in school where critics were really unable to respond meaningfully. It's an interesting aspect of the quality of being 'advanced' that to the extent 'advanced' = personal it becomes inaccessible. And isn't it paradoxical that sometime could be both inaccessible AND provocative. Isn't something provocative supposed to illicit at least a little comprehension by the provoked ?
Totally.
At the risk of boring Cellardoor, let me continue. The discrepancy between academia and professional practice is a cliche.
One can testify to the intense competition between graduates to secure jobs in the prestigious firms where a design philosophy is practiced, and those poor suckers who end up working for Christopher Ratsarse Architects and Planners Ltd.
The design philosophy of one of the practices I worked at after graduating can be summed up in one word: cheap.
I would second agf8x' recommendations re: a better synthesis between practice and theory.
About advancement, with an example. A biologist can talk about advancement in a number of ways. new discoveries, new processes, ongoing research, global collaboration, extension into entrepreneurship, etc, etc. In what way can we look around and claim genuine advancement? can we? Is it possible? Is it irrelevant?
I'm trying, but I'm afraid I just can't think in terms of advancement.
I've spent years trying to make myself completely cynical about the idea of progress, and it looks like I've succeeded!
agfa8x, its a beautiful day in Auckland. Walk through Cornwall Park and forget the cares of the world...
The biologist you refer to would be talking about the advancements of their entire field in that example. Each single advancement has the reality or the true potential of reaching millions of lives. I don't think a single act of architecture can reach so many lives so directly. The closest recent example might be the so called bilbao effect which has resulted in endless new signature museums and arguably the cheapening of art. Only a small segment of the global population care about art or architectural tourism while we all care about health. So maybe the comparison with biology isn't a fair one but I think it's a great point that one measure of the ethical goodness of an advance is it's positive impact on as many people as possible. Possibly the answer to this original question is that yes there is advancement in architecture but that the smallness of our actual impact in the best of circumstances doesn't equate to our sense of self importance or self indulgence.
diabase,
You listed the following: 1. new discoveries 2. new processes 3. ongoing research 4. global collaboration 5. extension into entrepreneurship.
I think 2 to 5 are all actively pursued in the field of design. Methods and Processes have been looked at in the 60s but lesser now. However, many engineering and computer science folks are looking into the design field precisely for these methods and processes. (3) is actively being pursued in universities and research institutes. (4 & 5) are all observed in major collaborations of offices across borders and 5 esp. is the backbone of our profession!
That said, I am struggling with (1) since architectural design does not deal with discoveries with some existing reality but the creation of new realities with respect to existing ones. I have not been able to come up with a set of criteria for this yet.
I think thenewold has a good point. Ethics is a growing field these days and architecture can seize this opportunity for "advancement". There is so much "ought" in design that cannot be objectively argued for. On the other hand, the humanistic part of architecture is fertile ground for a higher ethical awareness to the amount of energy, types of materials and spaces used...
Good and Fair points both.
Although point 5 may be the backbone of our profession, point 1 is the backbone of the scientific professions. I do believe that the idea of discovery is what I am getting at. Perhaps this should be the reframed question: what have we discovered in architecture? Or is there nothing left to discover? [famous last words].
I suppose there might be 'discoveries' in architecture, but I tend to see architecture as strictly constructive. For example, I would tend to see perspective, or projective geometry, as an invention rather than a discovery.
It might be possible to discover things about the effects of architecture though: for example, research might help explain why the human organism responds in certain ways to certain spaces. This would be a purely retrospective kind of discovery, though.
( yep, I'm home with all the doors open enjoying the sun. I don't think I'll be at the park tonight though - I ran up Mangere Mt this morning and half killed myself )
diabase and agfa8x,
I think something could be said if design discoveries are somehow disassociated from that of scientific discoveries.
I had once heard one teacher said that in design we discover ourselves (and perhaps remake ourselves). Reflecting on the career paths of many of my classmates, who were once so adamant on architecture that nothing could thwart it, I have come to conclude that we do find out about how we think and value through the creation of a personally important artifact. I think this is a vitally important point in design because calculating an equation in mechanics or finding out the energy of a chemical reaction is very different than something you make from your own ideation. Practising scientists may disagree, but this point certainly hold for the general bulk of design students.
In addition, I have observed what some of my more thoughtful teachers, who were amazing practitioners said. Many of them would tell stories of how they have discovered they were completely wrong on hedging the bet on some materials or some parts of their designs. They would have discovered that it maybe better to do this on site, or a sudden realization struck them while the CDs are ducked away at the site in the office and so on. I appreciate their candidness but discovering our human cognitive limits, and at the same time, catching a glimpse of its potential, can be very exciting.
I guess if discovery is associated to how new structures stand up, or how a certain lighting algorithm works better for lighting calculation and simulations, or better insulation, materials scientists and engineers are light years ahead of us. Part of this maybe associated with our education, which tend to emphasize a wider scope than depth. This makes great discoveries very difficult given how specialization can contribute to the chances of discovering something these days.
"
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
"
This nervous chatter we call progress, fidgeting leaves,
Churchbells and bagpipes for the invisible forgotten,
For our dead mothers
For our dead fathers
not flowers,
but new cars
At the hour when
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.
Great discussion. This comparison with biology has another aspect that architecture could learn from and that's the phenomenon of mistakes. In biology, a mistaken formula or analysis is noted and discarded while in architecture, mistakes can be repeated potentially forever.
i like .... now oe, im going to read some t.s.eliot now. thanks for making good time. i found this unadorned relation amongst things at the bottom (barrel or wineglass or whatever) in ted hughes as well. a fragile wolf heartedness.though its less likely to have this 'our'. a couple of months ago i found myself writing in an 'our-us-we' voice, but that was after years of ridding myself of plurality. strange i found a lot of love for the crowd but at the same time it was a very cold place this 'our-us-we', a love you have for the mass with headphones on and watch it come together and apart.
i do not understand why ethics should be inculcated and imprinted in such a way. your student carries her/his own baggage, if it is part of their coming-into-their-own it will make itself present. as a tutor you equip them, some will become humorists with no seeming morality, some will immerse themselves in self-mirroring self-referential geometries and that might be their gift, others will choose cancer wards and orphanages and build in cob, straw and clouds. i do not understand how u can so coldly construct a mega-ambition to jolt ethics into the 'student body'. what exactly do you wish to do? show them pictures of the holocaust and tell them this is what happens if you don't build without an idea i the tutor think is humane?
i had once a tutor whose sole concern was exactly that, set against the so called 'avant garde' and feeding his students zumthor and aalto.
by the end of it i was thinking up evil schemes like trapdoors with upstanding blades beneath that i could smuggle into the drawing. i wanted to slaughter most of the student projects for the esoteric 'humanism' that they were regurgitating up and back on.
the cellardoor whore,
I am all for freedom of thoughts and path-finding. I do not know which part of my ethical consideration you are arguing against. All I am trying to place on the table here is that design decisions have ethical consequences. If there is nothing else, concepts of these sort rarely get pointed out in class (or even the workplace, depending on where you are) where it is 'archi-brand' saturated.
The type of freedom you described is never as 'ethically' free as you might think. In the extreme situation where no one respects ethics, it is very likely that even the foundation on which freedom of thinking and acting is built on will be shaken.
You think too highly of me if it is my statement you are arguing against. I think mega-ambition is the worst thing an instructor can impart to the student body. I am all for constructivism, not ideology. Thus, I would find your rebellion against your evil instructor quite reasonable, though morbid.
thenewold,
I don't think we have a criteria of mistakes in design yet...Compared to something as sentient and as adaptable as human beings, design once fixed is quite dead. What was once understood as an acceptable and correct response to living requirements is now tolerated as a historical mistake further down the road.
Rather, I see mediocrity as a bigger problem than the criteria of mistake. Why are some buildings seen as mediocre to the trained designer, but perceived and lived through as excellent to the general public? I am sure we all can think of some insignificant buildings not taught to us as exemplars of our canon that people simply loved. How one's mediocrity is another excellence is another good question to be answered for "advancement".
We do have that in science too but I would think that the consensus is normally more uniform.
BE -
Firstly, some design decisions (mostly those in urbanism) are now almost universally and objectively acepted as actual 'mistakes'. Corbusier's tower's in the garden urbanism are today's banlieues complete with burning cars and scores of disaffected youth. The whole design movement of post moderism is likewise totally rejected today. Mies like skyscrapers are reviled as creating the setting for the generic corporate world of 'office space' and 'fight club'. All of those things, were they replicated in spirit or in fact would be considered mistakes by all today.
I think mediocrity is kind of a question of talent and it's indeed another facet of 'advancement' (so bravo). I was thinking that I have friends who left school and decided that working super hard to be more than mediocre just wasn't their deal. People like that grow up to be heads of firms like that of course. People get tired and overcoming mediocrity is mostly a symptom of hard work and good luck with clients. Wanting a normal life and a normal job is probably the main cause of mediocrity but it's also a totally legitmate life choice for an architect to make. That's not me, I'm still a true believer.
cellardoor whore -
Your blithe and jaded affectations might be charming except for the faux neutrality about 'humanist' ethics. Your rant belies the artistic ethical innoculations in architectural education that you are indirectly arguing for and which you've refused to recognize. Being against humanist ethics is THE necessary foundation for believing any sort of masturbatory architecture or frozen ejaculatory forms are perfectly legitimate pursuits for a student. This cliche which permeates architectures' highest cloisters results in the Bushian black-white view of the built world that sets pure artistic integrity against the supposed mindlessness of everything else. The resulting 'refusal', contre all, of the world is watery retreatism and every bit as mindless as subjecting students to slideshows of the endless 'meaningful' built responses to the holocaust. I mean,... you're not neutral at all really.
If I say that I disagree that Corb or Mies's towers, or "the whole design movement of post modernism" are mistakes, I predict that you will tell me I'm wrong, but the strength of your feeling on the matter does not make it universal or objective.
I agree that you might be able to say that a certain design decision (deciding to use concrete, deciding on the strategy of towers in a garden, deciding to increase occupational density, deciding to make explicit reference to other buildings, etc.) was a mistake (provided that you set out the criteria by which you determine that).
However an entire movement, or an architect's career, or even a single building project, contain a great many design decisions, some of which may be 'mistakes' and some which may not.
yeah..... it's really a grey area this 'mistake' business. but I think it bears keeping in mind the harm that architecture can do. as you mentioned earlier, sometimes the public loves or hates something where architects feel the opposite. a great example is the proliferation of courthouses and federal buildings in the Paul Rodolph brutalist style which most people find to be soulless and sinister. the campus of TU Delft is full of brutalist monstrosities that I'm certain the architect thought were very good ideas. cognisance of the potential for mistakes can make arguments for 'smarter' designs more legitimate. the chorus of criticism for the new ground zero is an example of the need for such a discussion. of course, it isn't going to work there. I use the phase 'mistake' all the time when verbally manhandling clients and so far, it seems to work pretty well.
I think you have to argue that something is a mistake, not just assert it.
A further problem might be the relationship between taking risks and making mistakes. The only way to make no mistakes is to take no risks, and that, I would suggest, is undesirable.
agfa8x
good point,
though i may not agree with the assumptions corb or mies made on what was and what was not important in architecture, i could not and would not say their assumptions and subsequent decisions were mistakes. though there is a prepondance (sp?) of evidence that modern architecture's social agenda failed, im not sure i would classify the whole movement as a mistake.
i would also disagree that mies' modernist towers have become a symbol of mediocrity and generic corporate offices. the architecture of those buildings have little to do with the program within. the references to mediocrity in the work place is not a consequence of the architecture. I work in a OMA building, crazy as can be, and i still find my job to be boring and mediocre at times.
and
the IBM tower in chicago is still one of the most stunning and in my oppinion beautiful towers in the city. it is incredibly powerful, and in no way characterized (in my mind) by the type of business it houses.
or the federal plaza in chicago
i take all my non architect friends there and they all can appreciate how powerful a space that is
Yes, I agree with your post, lietdownl. To blame everything on architecture (that is, the physical environment) is to say that the physical environment determines everything. I am sure it affects us somewhat, but I am unwilling to say that it has so much power that we cannot change things.
Reverting to my previous posts, the myth of the failure of modernism in Prutt-Igoe, is one of the those meta-narratives I was talking about.
Architecture has NOT qualitatively advanced since modernism.
We are in the midst of a cultural and technological revolution and yet there is no architecture for that revolution. The modernist movement was all about buildings and form and technology and architecture. Maybe the movement of the now in is all about the lack of such things. Maybe each of us has the intuitive realization that a true 'movement' in today's net of global dominance would be a force too great and terrible to comprehend.
thenewold but that had nothing to do with my response. if anything i do not recognize a black and white world vision and if it must be then please dont let it be 'knife in the water' zylewicz's ... so metallic for it would drive me mad to be in that world. soggy humanism is just as 'black and white' as your bushes(brown red) and osamas (dark plum-purple).
i don't see how someone who 'permeates' and 'proliferates' could have anything against cliches. so much talk. an amphibian you. i did like our hermetically seeled technology though.
mistake and failure. yesternight in a pub lecherously drunk (i care) with a devout christian friend discussing pseudo-theosophically catechism, the church, the turin shroud, madonna's pre-kabalah religiosity ( catholic absolution as a theological and theocratic economy was the fulcrum at that point) and belief we arrived at a frontier. that between being able to answer with words that leave decisive footprints and not being able to with stuttering and much nonsense (in text form it would have just been silence but ...) .i then realized that an agnostic is the stupidest creature ever, a by-god agnostic-about-it-all. with god or the lack of god departs even the security of intelligence. mistake, a thing that shouldnt have been done and if so, so shouldnt have been that way of thinking that realized that mistake . or would there just have been another mistake? how can a whole world be called a mistake, erm...god knows.
Perhaps agnosticism takes no risks?
emm, well I tried to match one stylishly aloof and dense response with another and since I didn't really mean it,.... ummm oops.
incomprehensibility is so 2003
thenewold,
I think she maybe using one of those dictation software...wonder why she did not manage to crash it.
he very premise of this thread bothers me. it shos WE havent advanced much.
Stop thinking of history and architecture as a linear account of events, today this happens and tomorrow it will be greater. IS that type of dillusional thinking that brought us the international style, an architecture that produces more than 50% of the CO2 emissions in hte world. You can say that this architecture will iterally KILL US. Why adavance that?
Life is not linear it only sems that way to us. I am of the opinion that we are basically still monkeys but with better toys. The peoples of yesteryear had architectural innovation that we cannot imagine anymore. They used DESIGN AS A WAY OF LIVING!! I think I can learn more from most aboriginal and vernacular architectures than from Mies, koolhaas, Corb, etc... Thats just a good old boy Club, furthering their image, and playing to the brain-less burgoise of the world.
Wow standing on this soapbox feels good.
Let me ammenda that: I think we are dumber than monkeys, the ydont destroy their own environment and call it "progress"
I don't think dumb is the right adjective. I think it is recklessness within bounded rationality is the culprit. If we are dumber than monkeys, than we are incapable of throwing ideas around in written language. Since we are doing so, I can say quite confidently that we are brighter than monkeys, and perhaps along with that, acquired a sense of recklessness not seen in monkeys.
BE -
'crashed dictation software....' tee hee hee
Melquidades -
It's so 2001 to hate on humans.
I dont hate humans, as a matter of fact I have personal relationships with many of them. But I seriously think that we think we are smarter more adapt, etc... Specially in the West, we think we are hot shit, and we destroy, destroy, destroy...
And I think part of the problem is the current frame of mind of he culture as a whole. The idea that today matters more than yesterday, or tomorrow, short attention spans, etc... It is pretty evident in our profession too.
m -
fair enough. it's an unfortunate cliche that a certain segment of the architecture world seem bent upon harping on the destructive aspects of construction. in reality, no one's going to stop building buildings or tearing old ones down. the financial costs of doing everything in the most earth friendly way possible are prohibitive. In this ways, most architects understand their role in the world to be like that of an airplane pilot guiding a damaged craft down in a crash landing. Basically trying to steer the burning plane towards an area where it does the least harm. Architecture is all about trying to manage, minimize, and mitigate damage to the extent possible.
unfortunately the destructive aspects won't change until there are better alternatives OR governments see the cost (of 'destruction') as greater than that of preventing it. It remains to be seen whether sustainability will catch on to the point of one day becomming gonvernment policy. Elsewise, it will become what organic farming is; a fringe techinique that can't possibly keep up with global demand or be competetive with genetically modified produce and other modern, un-organic farming techniques.
I disagree with you, I think that it is easier than we thought. The idea tha it is expensive makes us feel good that we don't do more for environmental design. The native peoples of the whole world have done it in the past, why can't we do it now?!?!?!
Are we addicted to the HVAC, and the overlighting of space?
Anyway, I dont htink that it is that hard we just need to want it, and the day of too expensive gas is coming, we will have to want to.
Mel... the International Style is responsible for 50% of the world's CO2 emissions?
The International Style?
Not 'this modern world' or 'twentieth-century building practices', but the International Style?
Compared to the number of buildings constructed in the 20th and 21st centuries, an almost infinitesimally small number would belong to the International Style. Far more dangerous, and dumping far more carbon into the system, are the millions of suburban houses built each year (forgetting cars and heavy manufacturing for now).
Hating on the Modernists is so 1968. Did they steal your kittens as well?
I mean, this 'argument' is just naiive, cliche, and not particularly impactful, insightful, or interesting. All undergraduate arch students inevitably complain about air conditioning at some point. It's in the same course where professors whine about the 'evils' of Disneyland and show predictable slideshows of aerial photos of american suburbs and go on and on about potemkin this and pastiche that. It's as predictable as the sun rise. Equally predictable, most people eventually get over the chip on their shoulder because they realize having a chip isn't helpful. Students who maintain this clueless hysteria go on to do bland 5th year projects 'about' sustainability. Every thinking architect in the world cares about the impact of what we do on the environment, they've just got better things to do than go on about it all day.
Agfa, TNW
wow Im feeling the hate.
I was answering the specific question at the origin of this thread. I guess agfa you answered no. My simple answer is that we are saying that during Modernism we were "advancing" and we aren't anymore?!?!
The suburban house got its cues from the international style, read up on the subject, read the propraganda of abrave new world that modernist architects promised with climate controlled buildings. The suburb was being developed at this time and followed until our very own day. Also, the international style won, look at any skyline in any city in the world, see differences?
The newworld are you saying that those professors where wrong? I agree that someitmes it is just a facile argument, and not very insightful so lets make it.
Again, my original point is that life doesn't move lineraly, we can learn more from the past and not believe the fallacy that we need to be "progressing" as time goes one. It is just as fruitful to "regress" and look at some of the ingenious things that were done in the past, and use them in a new context.
No cchip here, Im just trying to do my part, it is possible, it is not too expensive, it has been done in the past, no reason why it can't be done now.
I guess Agfa to answer you mroe directly to me the Itnernational Style began many of the things you mentioned:
'this modern world' and 'twentieth-century building practices' and 'suburbs'
Anyway, I think you guys understand what Im saying is just soooeasy to attack people in a thread.
Okay, so I'll re-ground Mel's stuff to the original question. The question of 'progress' as mel is talking about it is similar to the question of what it means to be 'advanced'.
Also, I don't think anyone's trying to attack you. It's just that most people have heard this slack argument replete with the loose language, broad generalizations, and tired anectdotes about 500 times. That's pretty much why people get tired or bored with the righteous fervor and get on with trying to make the best buildings they can.
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.