Discussion on:
Just
In
In
The perils of the omnipresent potato...
Edited by BLINKdesign
Updated - 24th Sep
Show:
0
Votes
What about those who hire the architects?
Don't they bear any responsibility? The architect can't do a thing if his/her project does not get approved and funded.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
24th Sep
0
Votes
The perils of the omnipresent potato...
Though I am not in total disagreement with the author, having endured the cult of architectural reason myself for three decades now, the true argument here is the inappropriate application of Modern principles in the overtly historical culture of Britain.
Architecture is a profession and all professions have their own language. What is challenging about architecture is the people inhabit the results as opposed to merely gazing upon it and casting judgements. Architecture is both an object and a cloak and as such, it necessarily asserts itself into the lives of its contemporaries super-saturated with the values and the best skills and understanding of the designer.
Historians have often been told that they have no product, merely a forked tongue and a biased pen! To create a space that appeals to the clients subjective and functional needs as well addresses the ideal solution for a city is incredibly difficult. The integration of structure and services and maintaining the design intentions though to the maiden voyage is even more difficult. The most notable architects have abandoned seeking to do so and are hired for their own language rather than what the clients wants. In my many years in this profession, I can tell you that clients rarely have any cohesive idea what they want, and, they rarely admit that!
Lastly and more to the point, an era of 'special' architecture is now about 25 years old and it borrows from a true literary cult known as Deconstruction. This persists as a reaction to the bindings of history because there are people in this world who recognize that historical continuity is not mandatory and not always desired. The character of stonewalled spaces is compartmentalization that was liberated by the I-beam and plate glass and from this point forward, history was an option sustained only by cultural preference. I am not surprised by this author's discomfort though as my late aunty from Essex said when I asked her why the Brits have potatoes with every meal, looking rather confused and concerned she said, "What else is there?" If you gotta ask aunty, you are not a Modernist.
British Modernism is an oxymoron! The American venue champions blatant individualism. Dare anyone step forward and claim which is, um, better! A culture without much of their own history must express themselves too!
Architecture is a profession and all professions have their own language. What is challenging about architecture is the people inhabit the results as opposed to merely gazing upon it and casting judgements. Architecture is both an object and a cloak and as such, it necessarily asserts itself into the lives of its contemporaries super-saturated with the values and the best skills and understanding of the designer.
Historians have often been told that they have no product, merely a forked tongue and a biased pen! To create a space that appeals to the clients subjective and functional needs as well addresses the ideal solution for a city is incredibly difficult. The integration of structure and services and maintaining the design intentions though to the maiden voyage is even more difficult. The most notable architects have abandoned seeking to do so and are hired for their own language rather than what the clients wants. In my many years in this profession, I can tell you that clients rarely have any cohesive idea what they want, and, they rarely admit that!
Lastly and more to the point, an era of 'special' architecture is now about 25 years old and it borrows from a true literary cult known as Deconstruction. This persists as a reaction to the bindings of history because there are people in this world who recognize that historical continuity is not mandatory and not always desired. The character of stonewalled spaces is compartmentalization that was liberated by the I-beam and plate glass and from this point forward, history was an option sustained only by cultural preference. I am not surprised by this author's discomfort though as my late aunty from Essex said when I asked her why the Brits have potatoes with every meal, looking rather confused and concerned she said, "What else is there?" If you gotta ask aunty, you are not a Modernist.
British Modernism is an oxymoron! The American venue champions blatant individualism. Dare anyone step forward and claim which is, um, better! A culture without much of their own history must express themselves too!
Posted by BLINKdesign
Updated - 24th Sep