First forum here so please excuse my missing forum etiquette, but I would like to hold a little survey here. I recently heard news about the Pritzker Prize being awarded to Alejandro Aravena for his "Half-a-House" concept and many other innovative, unorthodox, humanitarian style. I thought up a controversial issue that I thought would be a good topic for a school project; How will this statement affect the direction of architecture on a general political timeline. It could very much be compared to "Why should we bother paying taxes to fund welfare when we could focus on R&D torwards new technology?" So a few questions to start off:
What do you think the purpose of Architecture is? If you were to pick between it being ‘serving’ or ‘innovating’ which one would you choose, and why?
Do you think focusing on the humanitarian part of design principles is a step in the right direction for society? Or a just a waste of time to be focusing on a new future of raw ideas? Why is it important?
Run a scenario in your head where you had to drop one of those concepts completely (humanitarian design and innovative design aspects) leaving only the other. Which would it be and what would happen to architecture?
(One quick one about the Pritzker Prize) What was the Pritzker Prize meant to recognize? And are there any ideas as to what styles or innovations are ‘eligible’ for this award and the weight it carries?
On a general timeline, would you say this is a push away from architectural conservatism/tradition and a push towards a modern socialist design reform?
Feel free to respond if you're interested!
,,,,
Mar 22, 16 12:48 am
False dichotomy
toosaturated
Mar 24, 16 1:57 pm
Why does it always have to be one way or another? Is there no room for both? Too much of anything is bad
lacalr
Mar 24, 16 4:35 pm
Is there a reason why you cannot have humanitarian design that is innovative??
maxmeyer
Nov 8, 17 11:37 am
Agree! I think that as the focus changes to long-term sustainable solutions there will be a greater connection between Humanitarian Design and Innovative Design.
Hi everyone!
First forum here so please excuse my missing forum etiquette, but I would like to hold a little survey here. I recently heard news about the Pritzker Prize being awarded to Alejandro Aravena for his "Half-a-House" concept and many other innovative, unorthodox, humanitarian style. I thought up a controversial issue that I thought would be a good topic for a school project; How will this statement affect the direction of architecture on a general political timeline. It could very much be compared to "Why should we bother paying taxes to fund welfare when we could focus on R&D torwards new technology?" So a few questions to start off:
What do you think the purpose of Architecture is? If you were to pick between it being ‘serving’ or ‘innovating’ which one would you choose, and why?
Do you think focusing on the humanitarian part of design principles is a step in the right direction for society? Or a just a waste of time to be focusing on a new future of raw ideas? Why is it important?
Run a scenario in your head where you had to drop one of those concepts completely (humanitarian design and innovative design aspects) leaving only the other. Which would it be and what would happen to architecture?
(One quick one about the Pritzker Prize) What was the Pritzker Prize meant to recognize? And are there any ideas as to what styles or innovations are ‘eligible’ for this award and the weight it carries?
On a general timeline, would you say this is a push away from architectural conservatism/tradition and a push towards a modern socialist design reform?
Feel free to respond if you're interested!
False dichotomy
Why does it always have to be one way or another? Is there no room for both? Too much of anything is bad
Is there a reason why you cannot have humanitarian design that is innovative??
Agree! I think that as the focus changes to long-term sustainable solutions there will be a greater connection between Humanitarian Design and Innovative Design.