Architects: “Do We Matter?”
September 21st, 2006
No other art form is as filled with self-doubt as architecture; since millions of buildings are constructed each year by people lacking a theoretical background, architects are naturally a bit defensive about their work. But rather than affirming the benefits of professional knowledge, this year’s Royal Institute of British Architects’ conference is once again trying to justify the very existence of architecture as a discipline. The conference’s topic: “Does good design make a difference?”
In choosing this topic RIBA misses the opportunity to advance architecture, instead choosing to throw a self-fulfilling celebration of elitist separation. After all, only the most cynical attendee would admit that his or her profession is essentially without merit by claiming that ‘good design’ is anything but beneficial. Good design, by its very nature and name, is successful; thus the conference’s topic, seemingly an investigation of possibilities, is a self-defeating argument, a paradox, a waste of time.
With green design exploding in popularity, the human tragedies stretching from Kabul to New Orleans, and the expanding urbanization of the developing world, you’d think that the Royal Institute of British Architects could find something better for the likes of Norman Foster, Zaha Hadid, and DC Mayor Anthony Williams to discuss.
But for architecture, as it is said: legitimacy is gained through success, not through discussion.
Popularity: 4% [?]
September 21st, 2006 at 7:34 am
Harsh but fairly true. As to the obfuscatory rhetoric which architects seem to hide behind, there were a couple good quotes in the NYTimes article on Rem Koolhaas’ new design for Cornell’s architecture building.
The article states, “He said he had entered the ‘apparent warfare between blob and box’ in contemporary architecture, and that he was ‘trying to short-circuit that dialectic.’”
“The box is always an isolated thing. But here, we use the box as a connector. You could say it’s a postmodern use of the box.â€
Also, “We didn’t want to do a literal masterpiece, but an almost mysterious single beam of modernity,’’ said Shohei Shigematsu, the firm’s senior associate on the project.
It’s not that these statements don’t have merit, it’s just that the extremely introspective nature of architectural theory, combined with the (in my opinion) purposeful use of such language to maintain a monopoly over all things “architectural” which I object to. Also, they’re just ridiculous.
Oops, that was a bit of a rant. Well, maybe not a rant, but an almost mysterious single beam of skepticism.