View Full Version : can architecture not be intellectual?
spadestick
28-10-2005, 20:08
Sometimes, I'm get tired of justifying what i design or what my office designs. Just do it and make it beautiful. If if can be improved, great. But if it already looks great - sometimes, it doesn't have to contain meaning or be broken into an intellectual discourse, that's what i reckon.
Pretty soon, once our buildings are built and published, you'll get what i mean by what I just said.
It's not a exactly a rant, but the people i work often to ask, "it's gotta have meaning - why are we doing this?" Sometimes I just wanna reply, because it's cool, the clients are paying for it and it looks good, but because the principals are intellectuals - they have to find meaning. Not meaning to offend anybody, and I know I'd sure get slammed for this but then again. Sometimes the lay public, mr. joe blow, don't care, as long as it works, looks good, who cares? Is this all to boost our ego and stroke our intellectual prowress?
I often notice that some architects get away with producing beautiful and striking works, and don't have a dime of explanation to their work, except to say that it keeps the rain out. for instance, Gehry.
If you run out of ideas, just doodle or look at magazines.
One of the best books I've ever seen was "Architecture without Architects". very old book but intriguing indeed.
I think the intellectual end of architecture gives the architect the rational and direction that drives the design. You need this starting point. Is most of the public is perceptive enough to understand the underlying principles and theoretical hoohaa–doubtful. They don't really care, but the designers should.
I can't believe Gehry said that or REALLY meant it.
Sometimes the lay public, mr. joe blow, don't care, as long as it works, looks good, who cares? Is this all to boost our ego and stroke our intellectual prowress?
Well Mr. Joe Blow is not typically the person responsible for financing the project. Mr. Money Bags usually has to have something tangible to put his money into, opposed to some architects wet dream.
You could practice like a majority of the architects in the distant past: become wealthy doing something else and then do architecture as a hobby!
I think the intellectual end of architecture gives the architect the rational and direction that drives the design. You need this starting point.
jake always tells it like it is
I often notice that some architects get away with producing beautiful and striking works, and don't have a dime of explanation to their work, except to say that it keeps the rain out. for instance, Gehry.
Yeah, and look at how obnoxious his stuff turn's out to be.
The intellectual aspects of architecture are the real meat of our profession. A lack of coherent thought creates a shallow building. We build these thing for people to use. The end user has a relationship with the building. A building design for 'cool' doesn't have the depth and continuity that is required for a meaningful relationship. I hope that this isn't getting too corny.
It's like dating a beautiful person that can't talk. Yeah, it's kick-ass for a while, but looks and 'cool' don't last long. Sooner or later humans require more meaningful interaction. I'm sure that I'm not standing alone on this point. I believe that this is true about our relationships with buildings, too.
Additionally, without a thought or driving idea, where do you go to answer the questions about design that inevidably come up. Architecture is problem solving with light, space and construction documents as answers. Without an underlying idea these tools cannot resolve themselves into a unified building. I don't think that it's fair to the owner, our profession or the users to answer these important questions with...'it looks cool'.
It's like dating a beautiful person that can't talk. Yeah, it's kick-ass for a while, but looks and 'cool' don't last long. Sooner or later humans require more meaningful interaction.
Paris Hilton Architecture
cool house
31-10-2005, 12:19
Paris Hilton Architecture , boy wouldn't that be a superficial space! talk about cosmetic facades they would probably wash off in the rain after one night! :puke:
Paris Hilton Architecture
This thread flies too high for me :D
I can't follow up :cheers:
What would be interesting however is a debate between 'facade architecture' and 'backdoor architecture' :wondering
In japanese we make a difference between the 'tatemae' (what we show to the exterior/what we make people think we are thinking of) and 'honne' (what we feel/think inside). This discourse exists in architecture too...
Orinally posted by Ryo:
What would be interesting however is a debate between 'facade architecture' and 'backdoor architecture' In japanese we make a difference between the 'tatemae' (what we show to the exterior/what we make people think we are thinking of) and 'honne' (what we feel/think inside). This discourse exists in architecture too...
Is this a social phenomenon, too? I image that we all do this to varying degrees, but I don't know that it is prevelent enough to manifest itself architecturally in alot of cultures. That is really interesting. The windows have an incredible amount of power! A peak into the honne, through the differing facade! The discourse sound endlessly facinating! Can you post some examples of this architecture.
I'm a little off course from the original thread, sorry, but this disussion shows that the discourse involved in architecture is what validates it. Paris Hilton would be kick-ass to screw...but sooner or later, she's going to ask you to carry that goofy f*$king dog of hers! :puke:
I wouldn't mind carrying the dog :D
From all the times I wanted to design something out of nothing I has fallen apart. At some point everything needs a reason. Even if you start with something that has no meaning or no reason to be there you find it later on.
The thing is that there is many ways of thinking of an intellectual justification for design, it's not just metaphor or functionalism. But that you have to find yourself according to the project.
Or you can learn to improvise :rock on:
wegofaster
31-10-2005, 22:06
well said CACA.
meaning finds most of my projects, even if i start design before i understand the meaning of the whole project...
I often get " I just want a water feature" from people.
that gives me a blank slate to start with, and then i find meaning for how the space will be used and viewed.
Arkitrion
01-11-2005, 11:06
...even if you define an architecture "cool"...it always start from something,from your culture/education for example.
If you got a "Paris Hilton culture"...well, you're architecture will be really poor of meanings :(
the research of a meaning should not prevaricate everything,anyway...
we got to remember that architecture is a form of art,some we got or not inside..and as an art should be able to transmit something to people... this is partially related to meanings you would want for your building...it's more related to which sensibility has your client/people.Then..if your client/people got a Paris Hilton "culture"...define an architecture "cool" could be appropiate.
only monkey can design without the purpose, meanings, intellectual effort ... even "cool architecture" comes somehow from somewhere ... but it sometimes hardly follows the past and future ...
for me architecture needn't be intellectual...
architecture could be sufficent when is full of feelings and seems to be cool - without explanations
... or has just one tiny feeling (mind ? ) hidden among the gadgets
what is architecture?
it's a creation .. the problem is the creation of what? :))))
Interesting topic.
I think that in this constantly accelerating world that we are living in it is easy to forget the meaning. Architecture becomes nothing but aesthetics and looks. Like fashion really. It is still however a reflection of our time, but being that, it may not live for long. But perhaps there is not the need for it in today’s social and economic climate...which investor wants to own a fifty year old building today?
Interestingly enough, a lot of the big name architects speak about their work these days as having no meaning besides the client and the budget. It seems (to me) like we have moved away from the theorisation of architecture that occurred in the late 80s and throughout the 90s. Even though the debate was interesting on an academical/theoretical/student level, it never really got the response it needed in the built world. Gehry, Zaha, Libeskind, Coop and others got to build very little because the clients never figured out what the hell they were talking about. It is not until recently, when they stopped speaking about it, that they do well, because in today’s climate, the client can identify with the "looks" of that type of architecture. As a spectacular landmark or signage it works, as a lengthy interpretation of a text by Derrida it may not.
The Dutch (and other) architects however, were different. They were a lot more pragmatic in their approach, following requirements, budgets and other "real life issues" to the extent that they made (or recycled) a theory of that. By interpreting the brief in this way they pulled it the other way. They made these requirements into a radical architecture, that not only looked good enough for investors, but that could also be paid for. There is an old theory of Pragmatism, which was present in the US during the 20s I think, which has to some degree been associated with this (although Koolhaas for example denies any kind of connection to this-as he would-NO meaning!).
Pragmatism concerns itself with "things in the making" or "a living understanding of the movement of reality", in other words "cash value". Now, it is important to understand that this is not only about money. Money is probably a common cause in many cases, but it could be other things that drive a concept. A project on the city could for example include how a city compete with other cities (marketing-long term survival), what to do about its traffic problems (logistics), how to cope with the constant in-flux of people (density) or about the escalating sprawl (environmental). A piece of Architecture could be looked at in a similar way. The real life issues BECOMES it's meaning.
And about Paris Hilton (I know I am going to get slammed for this...), every time I see or hear her, I am convinced that there actually is a hidden meaning (money?), after all, her success does not only build on peoples stupidity, I am sure that it also comes from clever marketing and branding...Then, one can always debate if this is for a good cause...
Anyway, sorry if I have gone of topic here...
Great article mikael :clap:
It is not until recently, when they stopped speaking about it, that they do well,
When architects are young and without work, they talk. When they are busy building they don't have time to talk. When the economy falters, the talking will start again.
Architecture could be looked at in a similar way. The real life issues BECOMES it's meaning.
Yes, but "real life issues" can include many, many things. Each architect selects only particular issues to address.
Paris Hilton is a professional celebrity; a creature of media. No exceptional ability other than an ability to exploit the media. "The media is the message."
Peter E.
On your first statement, perhaps this is true, although I wonder if it did not have more to with the intellectual and academic debate that flourished as a reaction to the "happy 80s" building boom that went on without much thought. It seemed at the time to be promising a better architecture.
On your second statement, yes, although of course selected by the architect, in regards to Pragmatism, the Client or the task at hand selects the issues. The architect could use these as a driving force in his/her process (a meaning).
In regards to your third statement, I am not so sure she is a creature of media rather than by media. I do not fully understand "The media is the message" in regards to this either. I thought this was more in regards to media for the sake of media. For example, you come home and watch TV (what ever is on) rather than a particular show at a particular time that you want to see every week. But I could be wrong.
imasayer
16-11-2005, 18:11
Peter E.
On your first statement, perhaps this is true, although I wonder if it did not have more to with the intellectual and academic debate that flourished as a reaction to the "happy 80s" building boom that went on without much thought. It seemed at the time to be promising a better architecture.
I was not really into architecture in the 80's. (just starting to see girls in a new light at that time, I was just a kid) I was wondering who started the debate? Was it the schools or the deconstrutivists who really started the debate against the post-modern movement?
primocordara
16-11-2005, 18:29
I was not really into architecture in the 80's. (just starting to see girls in a new light at that time, I was just a kid) I was wondering who started the debate? Was it the schools or the deconstrutivists who really started the debate against the post-modern movement?
Uff, lets say I miss more the hair styles than Architecture of the 80's!
I studied Architecture from 1980-1986 boy all the hype was about post-modern neoclassicism :puke: It didn't catch on here in South America thanks god, but the idea that "modern is over" and lets look the past gave way to "neo- spanish colonial" neo- british colonial" etc.. specially in housing.
I must say the Aorta square thread is just the type of things we listened over and over during this time (anyone remembers the "Portlandia" building by Michael Graves?)
By 1987 I remember in Rotterdam there was interesting architecture going on, there was I understand a very "turning point" exhibition in New York on "Deconstructive Architecture" which joined the work of some 9 architects (Koolhas, Haddid, etc).
I understand this exhibition, more than theoretical writings opened the way ...
I deffinently agree with michael that one could mark the end of a very theory driven architecture, the kind that was supported and explored in texts like Assemblage (i can't remember when that finished up,early 90's?) but i remember there being a lot of talk about it being the end of an era of paperarchitectures, ideas being explored in virtual spaces. the fact that so many of those architects have now gone on to build buildings, Eisenman, Libeskind, Tschumi etc changes the context for kinds of architecture which seek to push the possibilities of the profession. That's why i think that the work that is coming out now from these architects are so interesting, the translations from ideas to space. Now i don't think they do translate so easily, which is what makes it interesting. It means that architecture needs another framework, and they don't have to choose between Heidegger or paris hilton. i've spent the last week reading Merleau Ponty, who i think is one of the philosophers whose work ties in so beautifully with architectural practise. embodied construction of space, just bodies and spaces, architecture basically. we 're in an age when ideas of space are constantly being extended, exploded, dissected, on a very basic and personal level across the globe,and how we choose to make space has very profound repercussions for how we live and therefore how we think. I don't think architects need to freak out about being 'intellectual' (otherwise known simply as 'wanking on', i mean come on i think it's sad that 'intellectualism' should be spoken of with such distaste), but they do need to think about a damn lot of very complex issues beside the aesthetic factor and the material structure, because whether they like it or not their spaces will effect inhabitation, movement, consumerism,recreation, ..etc etc dependant on program....you can't escape that as architects, even when you hide behind banality
i like to remember that the greek work 'theoria' comes from the act of speculation, a very simply idea, looking around, and considering, thinking about it.it doesn't have to be complex but it does have to be thoughtful.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.