Finally someone calls out the nightmare ecosystem of clickbait projects feeding content platforms. While second guessing the designer's intent is a dangerous path, the proliferation of projects after every crisis smacks of opportunism at worst and half-baked "concepts" at best. I could understand students publishing quixotic projects but it is infuririating to see full-service firms pumping out rudimentary renders and some catchy headline about solving a complex problem. Design has an important role to play no doubt and it takes intiative and vision to corral the resources - many of which lie beyond the architect's expertise - to come up with a genuinely thoughtful and helpful step towards ameliorating the issue at hand. It was telling that the majority of Notre Dame's re-inventors and now the Coronavirus' saviors didn't bother to consult with preservationist and healthcare experts respectively. And who could blame them really? The content platforms are looking for advertising revenue, the audience for a quick scroll, and maybe a politician for a good slogan.
square.
Jun 15, 20 11:36 am
Likewise, the solutions at these intersections of y and z are always surface-level—technocratic at best and tone-deaf at worst. Their authors believe uncritically that design can and will solve all of our problems, from climate change to income inequality.
great article, and astute observation. going further, i'm skeptical architecture practiced in its current form can really change anything- our work is the result of much bigger political, economic, and social forces. we can tinker around the edges, but without a major restructuring of these forces, we'll be left complacent, or worse, grasping at straws making these sorts of vapid pr stunts.
x-jla
Jun 15, 20 12:02 pm
Ah ha. So you are getting to the crux of our disagreements. Social Justice is a call for action that has a direct effect on the perceived problem. Architecture has little potential imo to have a direct effect on a problem. Architecture and art are not platforms for activism, they are platforms for enlightenment and enhancement of the individual mind at their best.
square.
Jun 15, 20 12:22 pm
The most powerful and successful architecture firms in the world thrive simply because the status quo rewards them for their work. They win huge contracts from NGOs and corporations as well as huge publicity opportunities from other NGOs and corporations. The industry is the way it is because it is safe: action and real novelty are risky, but safety is profitable and that profitability incentivizes homogeneity and ideological fecklessness.
it's not social justice i'm concerned with here, i'm speaking particularly about economic forces, which are also mentioned at length in the article. we don't control the money, we follow it. so until you change the broader structures of capital, we will continue to create work that only reinforces it. in that way i agree that architecture has little direct impact on a large scale. on the other hand, there is a long, long history of art affecting change more effectively, whether you agree with the opinion or not.
x-jla
Jun 15, 20 1:22 pm
Hasn’t it always been that way? Architecture is apolitical, but exists within a political and economic context. Good architecture transcends that context and speaks the the individual at a deeper level. Good architecture persists beyond the life of that context.
square.
Jun 15, 20 1:29 pm
in a way, yes, but i would argue architecture as a primarily economic conduit is different and getting worse. if you look at gothic cathedrals for instance, yes they were a result of religions policies and values, but because the architects were more intertwined with where the values were coming from, as well as more directly influential on and a part of the building industry at the time, you could easily argue it was a time when (A)rchitecture had more "influence." whether that is good or not, i don't know, but no one shouldn't pretend that architects are practicing in that same tradition today. now we are aligned with the new religion of the day, economic policy, but instead of amplifying our position it is using it for its own purposes.
https://archpaper.com/2020/06/opinion-no-pr-chitecture-wont-save-us-from-the-pandemic/
Finally someone calls out the nightmare ecosystem of clickbait projects feeding content platforms. While second guessing the designer's intent is a dangerous path, the proliferation of projects after every crisis smacks of opportunism at worst and half-baked "concepts" at best. I could understand students publishing quixotic projects but it is infuririating to see full-service firms pumping out rudimentary renders and some catchy headline about solving a complex problem. Design has an important role to play no doubt and it takes intiative and vision to corral the resources - many of which lie beyond the architect's expertise - to come up with a genuinely thoughtful and helpful step towards ameliorating the issue at hand. It was telling that the majority of Notre Dame's re-inventors and now the Coronavirus' saviors didn't bother to consult with preservationist and healthcare experts respectively. And who could blame them really? The content platforms are looking for advertising revenue, the audience for a quick scroll, and maybe a politician for a good slogan.
Likewise, the solutions at these intersections of y and z are always
surface-level—technocratic at best and tone-deaf at worst. Their authors
believe uncritically that design can and will solve all of our
problems, from climate change to income inequality.
great article, and astute observation. going further, i'm skeptical architecture practiced in its current form can really change anything- our work is the result of much bigger political, economic, and social forces. we can tinker around the edges, but without a major restructuring of these forces, we'll be left complacent, or worse, grasping at straws making these sorts of vapid pr stunts.
Ah ha. So you are getting to the crux of our disagreements. Social Justice is a call for action that has a direct effect on the perceived problem. Architecture has little potential imo to have a direct effect on a problem. Architecture and art are not platforms for activism, they are platforms for enlightenment and enhancement of the individual mind at their best.
The most powerful and successful architecture firms in the world thrive simply because the status quo rewards them for their work. They win huge contracts from NGOs and corporations as well as huge publicity opportunities from other NGOs and corporations. The industry is the way it is because it is safe: action and real novelty are risky, but safety is profitable and that profitability incentivizes homogeneity and ideological fecklessness.
it's not social justice i'm concerned with here, i'm speaking particularly about economic forces, which are also mentioned at length in the article. we don't control the money, we follow it. so until you change the broader structures of capital, we will continue to create work that only reinforces it. in that way i agree that architecture has little direct impact on a large scale. on the other hand, there is a long, long history of art affecting change more effectively, whether you agree with the opinion or not.
Hasn’t it always been that way? Architecture is apolitical, but exists within a political and economic context. Good architecture transcends that context and speaks the the individual at a deeper level. Good architecture persists beyond the life of that context.
in a way, yes, but i would argue architecture as a primarily economic conduit is different and getting worse. if you look at gothic cathedrals for instance, yes they were a result of religions policies and values, but because the architects were more intertwined with where the values were coming from, as well as more directly influential on and a part of the building industry at the time, you could easily argue it was a time when (A)rchitecture had more "influence." whether that is good or not, i don't know, but no one shouldn't pretend that architects are practicing in that same tradition today. now we are aligned with the new religion of the day, economic policy, but instead of amplifying our position it is using it for its own purposes.