By Douglas Kelbaugh FAIA, Dean, A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture + Urban Planning, University of Michigan. I perceive seven design fallacies that permeate professional practice and studio culture at many schools of architecture.Read
Never thought much of Kelbaugh when he was on crits - kind of like an architectural Bob Newhart, shuffling and not so interesting...
But this is a good essay - it's about time someone advocated for the intelligence of the middle, compromise, real urbanism (not forms on a metropolitan scale) and accepting a place for architecture outside the media spotlight. Here in LA, it seems like the whole architectural community wants to be on the edge, and all it does is make for a lot of people arguing the importance of extremely trivial issues of form-making.
I also thought this was an intelligent and compelling essay. Especially liked the bit about architecture not scaling, as the human body doesn't sale either. This can be used theatrical effect, but can also lead to extreme visual and bodily discomfort!
I didn't read the long version though - saving that for some non-deadline related weeknd. Teachers out there, this would be a good essay to assign and then discuss in a relaxed Friday-afternoon type class session.
i read the short version in jae but havent gotten to the long bs version yet.
i think there is a discussion already going with regard to new urbanism which is his stick, kelbaugh wrote what i feel is a book fill with completely flawed criticsm regarding anything about architecture that wasnt 'new urbanism' and unilaterly puts everything else in either 'everyday urbanism' [strip malls and verturi-esk] or post urbanism [the starkitects wow project]. his somewhat 'street talk critism' rather than speaking from someone who read and understands although disagrees with the ideas of a different perpsective has led me to believe that umich program must be clearly mis-guided and mis-directed.
A good essay with more or less accurate commentary, but why are these attributes necessarily always bad for architecture (in limited quantities)? I'm speaking mostly w/r/t the "Mandatory Invention Fallacy," wherein students and professionals often feel compelled to reinvent both form and function, solely for the sake of being different. In this sense he's right on the money, that constant invention goes nowhere when there is no distinction between New Ideas and Good Ideas, or when new ideas are simply dressed-up old ones. But the obverse of this is just as negative a situation, if originality and audacity are automatically perceived as "conceited." I've always felt that one should not abandon the pursuit of (good) ideas, even when it involves the occasional massive risk.
I agree that categorically banishing any of the things that Doug is talking about here would not be in the professions best interest. I think he is speaking mostly as a pedagogue trying to outline the responsibility of educators to advocate the middle position, since that's the venue in which most of us will work.
Most of my favorite architects fully endorse all seven of his Fallacies.
Good; not horribly overwrought. I skimmed down the short version. Like others responding here, I see many familiar ideas. IMO, each bolded (heading) topic makes for (at least one) independent discussion thread.
I guess they're classic topics of debate (?)
Still, I can't agree COMPLETELY with the side the author has apparently taken.
If these attitude defects are most attributed to 'starchitekts', then we should also not forget they are starchitects. Hmmm... OTOH, we wouldn't be aware of the same defective attitudes when held and practiced by 'sludgechitects'.
Regarding the short version:
1.
Individuality versus urban context + energy + climate. Like apples and oranges. The author seems to be arguing against ‘design’ and not quite the ‘solo’ (individual ego; one might be very egotistically focused on energy-climate, or a particular urban relationship).
2.
‘Modern’ invention and re-invention opposed to ‘Beaux Arts’ eclecticism and historicism. These too seem to be apples and oranges. This entire argument seems to have been developed entirely for the purpose of ‘proving’ that modern practices can be as stuck and framed as anything else (an obvious point). Then he refines, more appropriately, to the distinction between originality (ex-nihilo invention) and creativity (contextual invention). I like creativity better.
3.
This third point should be decrying transient focus. However, it becomes more about ‘theory’ versus ‘practice’ (perhaps the ‘philosophical’ versus ‘economy + environment’). An interesting topic arises: the possibility of applying transient-pendulum-shifting focus to economy and ecology.
4.
A bit too generalizing, but, yes, architects would benefit from giving more thought to urbanism.
5.
This point does not really advocate local instead of global as much as it proposes greater richness and variety in the evaluation of architecture. It seems that Mr. Kelbaugh might think that this is easier done at a smaller, local level. This might very well be true (a lot hinges on being to evaluate the building in person), but is it? (a lot might hinge on visiting a more complex virtual version of the building)
6.
This is especially interesting for me because I do “view middle class taste as embarrassingly banal and beneath our attentionâ€Â. More to the point, it is an issue of a client that has just enough power to not want to listen to an architect. I think we should continue to ignore middle-class individuals, until they sink or ‘triumph’ (and let them continue to produce fun kitsch as a pastime).
7.
Again... The idea of excess is right on. Yes, architecture can do much more with much less (and, important, it can be expected to do less). But where did ‘esthetic’ come into play? This should have been back at the first or third fallacies (where, well, it would counter his anti-theory-and-design arguments). Hmmm.
dherman, good points. And others too. I agree that these seven "fallacies" should not be banished from the discipline of architecture. Architecture is such an encompassing discipline that of course there is room for horribly bad invention, if only for others to learn from mistakes made by others, just as there is room for subtle and high-quality re-creation of ages-old ideas.
fen-om, although I mostly agree with the actual statements you make under item #6, I question the attitude. Is middle class taste banal, or do we label banal taste as "middle-class"? I have seen plenty of incredibly wealthy/incredibly tasteless clients! These very wealthy people definitely have the power to choose not to be educated by us.
But what would you do with a client who, say, builds hot rods for a living, has exceptionally developed aesthetic sensibilities within a certain specific area of custom car culture, but lives in a crappy McMansion with wall to wall carpeting and nothing on the white walls but car posters? I personally think that person deserves to be "educated" as to making his physical environment reflect the passion he understands in another aesthetic realm. Or say a journalist, someone who can craft the written word to be uplifting, scathing, etc. - can't we educate that person about parallels between the craft of writing and the craft of building, even if they just live in a mid-city condo?
Sep 22, 04 9:13 am ·
·
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.
9 Comments
Never thought much of Kelbaugh when he was on crits - kind of like an architectural Bob Newhart, shuffling and not so interesting...
But this is a good essay - it's about time someone advocated for the intelligence of the middle, compromise, real urbanism (not forms on a metropolitan scale) and accepting a place for architecture outside the media spotlight. Here in LA, it seems like the whole architectural community wants to be on the edge, and all it does is make for a lot of people arguing the importance of extremely trivial issues of form-making.
I also thought this was an intelligent and compelling essay. Especially liked the bit about architecture not scaling, as the human body doesn't sale either. This can be used theatrical effect, but can also lead to extreme visual and bodily discomfort!
I didn't read the long version though - saving that for some non-deadline related weeknd. Teachers out there, this would be a good essay to assign and then discuss in a relaxed Friday-afternoon type class session.
Good link, Jav, and good comments.
Why dont we kick this into the discussion forum? liberty bell, Janosh would you do the honors?
i read the short version in jae but havent gotten to the long bs version yet.
i think there is a discussion already going with regard to new urbanism which is his stick, kelbaugh wrote what i feel is a book fill with completely flawed criticsm regarding anything about architecture that wasnt 'new urbanism' and unilaterly puts everything else in either 'everyday urbanism' [strip malls and verturi-esk] or post urbanism [the starkitects wow project]. his somewhat 'street talk critism' rather than speaking from someone who read and understands although disagrees with the ideas of a different perpsective has led me to believe that umich program must be clearly mis-guided and mis-directed.
A good essay with more or less accurate commentary, but why are these attributes necessarily always bad for architecture (in limited quantities)? I'm speaking mostly w/r/t the "Mandatory Invention Fallacy," wherein students and professionals often feel compelled to reinvent both form and function, solely for the sake of being different. In this sense he's right on the money, that constant invention goes nowhere when there is no distinction between New Ideas and Good Ideas, or when new ideas are simply dressed-up old ones. But the obverse of this is just as negative a situation, if originality and audacity are automatically perceived as "conceited." I've always felt that one should not abandon the pursuit of (good) ideas, even when it involves the occasional massive risk.
I agree that categorically banishing any of the things that Doug is talking about here would not be in the professions best interest. I think he is speaking mostly as a pedagogue trying to outline the responsibility of educators to advocate the middle position, since that's the venue in which most of us will work.
Most of my favorite architects fully endorse all seven of his Fallacies.
Good; not horribly overwrought. I skimmed down the short version. Like others responding here, I see many familiar ideas. IMO, each bolded (heading) topic makes for (at least one) independent discussion thread.
I guess they're classic topics of debate (?)
Still, I can't agree COMPLETELY with the side the author has apparently taken.
If these attitude defects are most attributed to 'starchitekts', then we should also not forget they are starchitects. Hmmm... OTOH, we wouldn't be aware of the same defective attitudes when held and practiced by 'sludgechitects'.
Regarding the short version:
1.
Individuality versus urban context + energy + climate. Like apples and oranges. The author seems to be arguing against ‘design’ and not quite the ‘solo’ (individual ego; one might be very egotistically focused on energy-climate, or a particular urban relationship).
2.
‘Modern’ invention and re-invention opposed to ‘Beaux Arts’ eclecticism and historicism. These too seem to be apples and oranges. This entire argument seems to have been developed entirely for the purpose of ‘proving’ that modern practices can be as stuck and framed as anything else (an obvious point). Then he refines, more appropriately, to the distinction between originality (ex-nihilo invention) and creativity (contextual invention). I like creativity better.
3.
This third point should be decrying transient focus. However, it becomes more about ‘theory’ versus ‘practice’ (perhaps the ‘philosophical’ versus ‘economy + environment’). An interesting topic arises: the possibility of applying transient-pendulum-shifting focus to economy and ecology.
4.
A bit too generalizing, but, yes, architects would benefit from giving more thought to urbanism.
5.
This point does not really advocate local instead of global as much as it proposes greater richness and variety in the evaluation of architecture. It seems that Mr. Kelbaugh might think that this is easier done at a smaller, local level. This might very well be true (a lot hinges on being to evaluate the building in person), but is it? (a lot might hinge on visiting a more complex virtual version of the building)
6.
This is especially interesting for me because I do “view middle class taste as embarrassingly banal and beneath our attentionâ€Â. More to the point, it is an issue of a client that has just enough power to not want to listen to an architect. I think we should continue to ignore middle-class individuals, until they sink or ‘triumph’ (and let them continue to produce fun kitsch as a pastime).
7.
Again... The idea of excess is right on. Yes, architecture can do much more with much less (and, important, it can be expected to do less). But where did ‘esthetic’ come into play? This should have been back at the first or third fallacies (where, well, it would counter his anti-theory-and-design arguments). Hmmm.
dherman, good points. And others too. I agree that these seven "fallacies" should not be banished from the discipline of architecture. Architecture is such an encompassing discipline that of course there is room for horribly bad invention, if only for others to learn from mistakes made by others, just as there is room for subtle and high-quality re-creation of ages-old ideas.
fen-om, although I mostly agree with the actual statements you make under item #6, I question the attitude. Is middle class taste banal, or do we label banal taste as "middle-class"? I have seen plenty of incredibly wealthy/incredibly tasteless clients! These very wealthy people definitely have the power to choose not to be educated by us.
But what would you do with a client who, say, builds hot rods for a living, has exceptionally developed aesthetic sensibilities within a certain specific area of custom car culture, but lives in a crappy McMansion with wall to wall carpeting and nothing on the white walls but car posters? I personally think that person deserves to be "educated" as to making his physical environment reflect the passion he understands in another aesthetic realm. Or say a journalist, someone who can craft the written word to be uplifting, scathing, etc. - can't we educate that person about parallels between the craft of writing and the craft of building, even if they just live in a mid-city condo?
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.