Architecture, of the capital “A” variety, is exceptionally capable of creating signature pieces, glorious one-offs. We’re brilliant at devising sublime (or bombastic) structures for a global elite who share our values. We seem increasingly incapable, however, of creating artful, harmonious work that resonates with a broad swath of the general population [...]
We’ve taught generations of architects to speak out as artists, but we haven’t taught them how to listen.
— nytimes.com
57 Comments
It's lovely to see the kind of accord that's possible between people like Orhan and EKE or Donna and I. Sure there are differences in our preferences and even world views, but we all live in the same cities. I think most of us don't want to suppress or eliminate other points of view, but there's room for a healthy dialogue that can go beyond the caricatures that are put out there on both sides. I'll admit to contributing to some of that by not making a clear enough distinction between modernist ideology and one's personal preferences or aesthetic bent. As much as I won't convince folks like curtkram, I do admire many modernist buildings, it's the absolutism of it's ideology, or any ideology that is particularly stifling.
"I'm assuming you don't mean style as appliqué but style as evolved from centuries of design refinement in response to local climate and available materials."
I fully agree with the implication that a style has much more resonance when it's grounded in the local climate and available materials, but history is full of wonderful exceptions to this rule that can't be ignored. How classicism crept up Europe from its mediteranean home to the highest reaches of Scandinavia. The proportioning systems that make it such a resilient style can't be ignored, despite climactic differences. Afterall, adaption can be had and is infact what makes once foreign imports into beloved native treasures. But that's not always necessary as I with a sublime modernist cube in a Canadian winter landscape or a sultry expresionist curve of a sports stadium. I guess it has something to do with each of our own individualistic artistic and/or logical proclivities.
Given such wide diversity in every asepct of architecture, surely we can allow eachother's personal preferences to be voiced in a respectful manner. That dosen't mean we need always need to agree, nor does it mean I'm unaware of the the political nature of these discussions. Afterall, we will always protect our own assets, be they a modernist education or anaffinity for traditional forms or an eclectic approach. Were traditionalists to dominate academia, I'm sure I would defend the minority position, and I have no doubt that they would protect their turf as vigorously as modernists do. It's in our tribal nature, unfortunatley. The important ponit for me is to create a space for all opinioins to be aired and not to forclose on them before they've had a chance to be heard. I firmly believe it's the friction of divergent ideas in close contact that makes for creation, which is why most of us where drawn to this profession.
Agree, Thayer.
Lightperson, I also totally agree that media is more about drastic and spectacular oversimplification to get a rise out of people than in reporting nuanced knowledge about a given topic. It's so much harder to have a considered and considerate conversation than to drop a snarky line, or perhaps to flip some reporter the bird!
I suppose the silver lining is that if major media publications are talking about design *at all* that means people care about it. As long as it remains a topic we are likely to see better quality work emerge.
(Thayer, I've been thinking about you yesterday and today because we had to make predictions for 2015 and one of mine is that I'm fearful that Havana - and all those gorgeous historical buildings - is about to be turned into another horrid developer tourist resort, and I wondered if you would tease me for wishing that we could save that beautiful place forever...let's hope Zaha or Daniel don't get an opportunity to go in there!)
^ Exactly. Cuba couldn't be defeated with overt and covert military actions, repeated assassination attempts or 50 years of economic sanctions so now we're going to invite them into our banking system.
That will destroy them for certain. The vultures are circling already.
Agreed on Havana. To be honest, I can't wait to get there, and will be one of those tourists who contribute to it's disenyfication. That seems to be the curse of a world in serious need of more beauty. The food, the people, and architecture are calling. I don't think it needs to be frozen, although I'll wager the Cubanos will set aside a large section aside to get their economy going. As much as Obama has let me down placating Wall Street, I still love him for trying to foster communication across the ideological spectrum.
I'm pinning all my hope in Elisabeth Warren. The way she speaks/thinks is like a cool shower on a hot day.
Since I enjoy flogging dead horses, but especially because I agree with this response...
Merry Christmas :)
ah flat roofs aren't flat. something that architects only seem to know.
Some roofs are more flat that others.
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.