“WHAT IS
YOUR
PROJECT?” An Architect's Role. Principles and Challenges.
INDEX 1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................................3 2. The Question of Criticality.......................................................................................................4-6 3. The Question of Place.................................................................................................................7-8 4. The Question of Excess............................................................................................................9-10 5. The Question of Engagement................................................................................................11 6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................12 7. Bibliography........................................................................................................................................13
C&T VI
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Thus, I chose “What is your project?”, quoting Reinhold Martin, who, in “Critical of What? Toward a Utopian Realism”, claimed: “The question is which realities you choose to engage with, and to what end. In other words: what's your project?”. It seems to me that it is essential for us, as future professionals in architecture, to think about our project in our career. So far, we have been learning the ropes of the profession, but we are in the final years of our degree, so it is time to reflect about many questions for which we should try and find an answer before starting to work as architects.
C&T VI
What do we want to do? Who do we want to work for? Which are the principles on which our future works will be based? Which are the challenges we will have to face and how will we be able to overcome them successfully? Basically, what's our project?; understood not only in an architectural sense, but also in a broader sense. Over the course of the semester, we have discussed and studied relevant issues which give us a hint to find out what questions we should ask ourselves and what the answers might be.
? CT E OJ
lity
WHAT IS YO UR PR An Arc hit ec t’s Ro le Plac e Criti ca Eng Exce ag ss
First of all, I would like to clarify the reason behind the change of the title of the present essay. After receiving feedback about the title I had initially proposed, I pondered earnestly about the opinions I had been given and realized that, in fact, it turned out to be certainly difficult to understand and did not express, as accurately as I wished, what I wanted to talk about.
ent m e
Principles & Challenges
3
2. THE QUESTION OF CRITICALITY
To begin with, it seems to me that it would be sensible to try and clarify the meaning of the many terms involved in this topic. The term engagement implies the idea of confronting or collaborating with the external conditions of the world, while the term autonomy can be understood as the opposite of engagement. Rather than engaging with the forces of the market or the realities of the moment, it would consist of making architecture that is about architecture. Thus, these terms serve us as an introduction to those of critical and projective architecture, which I will try to clarify by analyzing what the different authors studied in this issue defend. In “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form”, K. Michael Hays claims that engagement is preconditioned by autonomy, so that operating between conciliatory commodity and negative commentary might be possible. However, Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting, authors of “Notes Around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism”, clearly and enthusiastically advocate for C&T VI
projective architecture as an alternative to critical architecture; enthusiasm that is not shared at all by Reinhold Martin in “Critical of What? Towards a Utopian Realism”. According to the former, projective architecture is an architecture capable of recognizing the contingencies which form and surround architecture, based on practice rather than on principles and traditions; being design what prevents architecture from fading into heterogeneity, so it is that what architects should use in order to engage topics which are apparently external to the field of architecture. As it can be seen, Somol and Whiting show a very positive opinion about projective architecture as an engagement that, nevertheless, avoids to surrender to market forces. However, is it really like that? That does not seem to be Reinhold Martin's opinion, as, in contrast to Somol and Whiting”, he does not consider that projective architecture and its supposedly positive engagement have succeeded at all.
4
According to Reinhold Martin, projective architecture has not only failed to carry out a real project, but has also given in to the market and political powers; an example of which would be the project offered by the United Architects for the World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan, which he considers to be a humble submission to the imperatives of the sociopolitical situation in the USA at the time. What about critical architecture? In “Between Culture and Form”, K. Michael Hays defines it as “one resistant to the self-confirming conciliatory operations and yet irreducible to a purely formal structure disengaged from the contingencies of place and time”. According to him, it is an architecture that demands a place between culture and form, between the representation of previous cultural values and the autonomy belonging to an abstract formal system. In this case, Mies van der Rohe's works could be taken as an example. More concretely, the Barcelona Pavilion, which does not only take its place in the real world along with its contingencies, but also impedes its authority by means of the use of materials and techniques alien to it. C&T VI
Somol and Whiting, however, believe that it is essential to find an alternative to critical architecture and promote projective architecture as that alternative. That is not Reinhold Martin's point of view, who does not only criticize projective architecture for yielding to the forces of the markets and politics, but also censures critical architecture for not taking the risk to intervene in the future and avoiding the urgent need to engage with reality. In few words, while critical architecture establishes autonomy as a way of defining its realm, projective architecture focuses on the effects and exchanges of architecture, rather than on a unique autonomy.
CRITICAL ? disciplinarity autonomy engagement efficacy generative critical projective
5
In which sense is all the previously explained relevant to contemporary architecture production? How do we wish to position ourselves with respect to it? Nowadays, the matter of autonomy and engagement is something that we, as future professionals in architecture, have to ponder about calmly and earnestly. We have to be aware of the difficulties of practicing architecture without taking into account the demands of the market, the clients or other political and social circumstances. We are living in a world where taking into account the circumstances mentioned above is little less than unavoidable, so how much autonomy does that leave us? What is your project? That is the question we are really being asked. Should we embark on a critical adventure, with autonomy as our flag or should we merely accept the state of things and yield to the forces of markets and politics? From my point of view, it shouldn't be impossible to find a place in-between in which we are able to conserve a certain extent of autonomy why engaging with the sociopolitical circumstances. Is it impossible to make architecture about architecture and, at the same time, confront or collaborate with the external conditions of the C&T VI
of the world? We must decide how much autonomy we are prepared to sacrifice and what projects we are willing to engage with so that we can feel proud of the work we will be doing. However, the question of criticality is not the only one we should reflect on. What about place?
PLACES c i v im l o i d z e a r t n i i o t ny
m o v e m f e o n r t m
pace
i dd c ewu ne l t ll t i i u t n r yg e
nonPLACES 6
3.THE QUESTION OF PLACE The constant movement and the seemingly unstoppable homogenization of our more and more globalized world have promoted the expansion of non-places, but what are they and what do they mean? As Marc Augé clarifies in “From Places to Non-places”, while a place is relational, historical and concerned with identity, a non-place is a space which cannot be defined as such, like airports or supermarkets. Thus, the main distinction between place and non-place arises from the opposition of place and space, understanding space as a frequentation of places rather than a place. I haven't mentioned “movement” above by chance, as it is something characteristic from non-places which contrasts with the importance given to place by history, relationships and identity. In Mark Augé's words: “The traveller's space may thus be the archetype of non-place”. PLACE ? vernacular populism civilization phenomenology culture C&T VI
Why is it important? It is closely related to the importance of identity in our society nowadays. Those entering a non-place become what they do or experience as passengers, customers or drivers, experiencing a certain loss of identity, as these spaces do not create singular identity or relations, but solitude and similitude. They are spaces ruled by actuality, not by history. One might think of something like the loss of identity as something negative. However, that is not the opinion expressed by Rem Koolhaas in “The Generic City”. According to him, this loss of identity represents something entirely positive, as, in his own words: “Identity is like a mousetrap in which more and more mice have to hare the original bait... The stronger identity, the more it imprisons, the more it resists expansion, interpretation, renewal, contradiction”. It seems clear that Koolhaas, far from regretting the loss of identity, celebrates it, as the generic city he advocates for is, quoting his words, “liberated from the captivity of the centre, from the straightjacket of identity”. 7
On the other hand, Kenneth Frampton, author of “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance”, advocates for an architecture capable of countering the placelessness and lack of identity characteristic of the International Style. Although the roots of this architecture can be found in the modern tradition, they would be linked to the geographical and cultural context; to the topography, climate, light and tectonic. The globalization represented by non-places avoids such reflection of the local culture in buildings, as it implements universal, industrialized techniques. For Frampton, as well as for Heidegger, “the phenomenological essence of such a space/place depends upon the concrete, clearly defined nature of its boundary”, understanding boundary as something from which something begins, not as something at which something stops. This desire for an architecture capable of embracing culture and nature, the public and the private, contrasts with Koolhaas' point of view, whose desire is the triumph of the generic.
C&T VI
Heidegger, in “Building, Dwelling, Thinking”, seems to link the very essence of our humanity to dwelling, to a defined place. The author considers dwelling as the primary way in which we relate to our environment, with building belonging to dwelling as one of its manifestations. In his own words: “Dwelling and building are related as end and means”. Thus, Building would be the mediator of our relationship between thought and space, dwelling precisely that relationship and thinking the means we use to find awareness of ourselves and our space. In few words, for Heidegger, we are inextricably linked to dwelling, so we must be aware of space and location in order to dwell appropriately, as it can't happen when we forget our relation to the world. What is the importance of this for architecture and what should our position be? That is a question whose answer might be difficult to find. We must be aware of the current importance of non-places and the effects they cause so that we are able to find a way to deal with them.
8
4.THE QUESTION OF EXCESS We must not forget about the importance of this issue, either. So that we are able to discern what our role as architects will be and what challenges we will have to face, we must be aware of the close relationship between architecture and excess, characteristic of the last stage of capitalism, specially before the economic decline in which we are currently immersed. In “Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Capitalism” Fredric Jameson correctly points at the close relationship of architecture and the economic, in the form of commissions and land values, which give birth to spaces such as the Bonaventura Hotel, which instead of blending into its surroundings, tries to replace them and become a total space which causes a new form of collective behaviour.
C&T VI
These spaces represent the new hyper-space of global market ruled by the corporations of our late capitalism. Is this change desirable? Buildings such as this seem to force their visitors to adjust to themselves, while the opposite should be much more pleasant. We must also take into account the avant-garde/kitsch pairing to be able to find out what our project as architects should be. Avant-garde emerged as a reaction against the bourgeoisie, breaking free from society and focusing on art itself: “art for art's sake”. Thus, art became the subject matter of art, but as the ruling class was the only one capable of supporting and appreciating it, it ended up belonging to it, so the link with society was not broken at all. On the other hand, kitsch, arising from the industrial revolution and the increase in literacy, represents a “lower art” which parasitizes on genuine culture and is supported by market forces due to its profitability. The higher level of education and reflection characteristic of the product of avant-garde contrasts with the obviousness and easy assimilation of kitsch. 9
For Greenberg, while avant-garde works imitate the causes of art, kitsch works imitate its effects. These characteristics make kitsch easier to be employed by the powerful for their own purposes, so quality and social criticism can threaten both totalitarianism and capitalism. It seems clear that, as any form of art, Architecture depends on the social, political and economical situation of the time, so we should try to be able to adapt to any changes in environment, politics, economy, society or culture. However, there is another question to be answered: What is the importance of the pairing avant-garde/kitsch and how should we deal with it? CONDITIONS tra
im
po
EXCESS l
ns
at io
n
We must try to find a way to do something apart from recreating the past and imitating dead styles; however, once again, the importance of the economic and the engagement we want to have with the society is something that must not be dismissed. As architects, we are part of the society, a part capable of creating something new, of creating architecture, of creating art, but art does not have to be exclusive of a few. In my opinion, one of our main roles is to improve our environment and the quality of life of its inhabitants.
sit
io
n
ARCHITECTURE
EXCESS EXCESS EXCESS EXCESS C&T VI
EXCESS
10
5.THE QUESTION OF ENGAGEMENT
Closely related to many of the terms discussed above, a new development in architecture represented by small-scale actions which “propose and execute micro-acts of architecture and urbanism”. Thus, this kind of projects reduce the distance between autonomy and activist engagement in architecture. What do these recent developments mean for us and for architecture itself? While these tactical actions make it possible for us to make use of our abilities in a moment in which they are not highly demanded, a total immersion in such practice might prevent us from proposing something new. This is important for our role as architects, as it is changing our status: “The architect is gradually being transformed from a consumer of sites and of opportunities generated by others into a schemer, a producer him or herself of sites and opportunities”. However, if action reduces the importance of the architectural project, we might losing the ability to propose something different to that of the current reality. C&T VI
The tactical work proposes ways to occupy the remains of the city, but are they efficiently occupied like that or is the presence of a project still needed? “Action is immediate and responsive. Projects are contemplative, propositive, and may exist as ideas distinct from their actual material realization”. No matter whether a project is finally carried out or not, the use of the disciplinary tools of architecture is what gives it its importance. Such disciplinary tools are, however, not as important when dealing with the tactical actions previously mentioned. While in projects there is a separation between ideal and applied, such space does not exist in actions. There may not be much space for architects to act free from the forces of market and politics, but assuming it can help us find a way to offer something relevant. The project must not be forgotten, as constraining to actions without projects would mean a dispirited architecture.
11
Once again, I have to make reference to the title I have chosen for this essay: “What is your project?�. The importance of project is a fact that should not be forgotten or dismissed. Actions are relevant in our current sociopolitical and economic situation, but the role of an architect should be linked to the project, which can give actions an additional value.
6. CONCLUSION In this essay, I have not only tried to explain the principles and challenges we, as architects, have to take into account. I have tried to explain the importance for architecture of the binary pairs discussed during the course, as well as what the most desirable position with respect to them would be. However, it seems to me that it would be pertinent to try and clarify, in few words, how I wish to position myself with respect to the mentioned binary pairs.
economic situation represents a challenge for us as architects, but it is also true that firm principles and an iron will can help us overcome such challenge. Globalization does not have to make us forget about the importance of regional culture, it just demands an effort from us to find the most appropriate answer to the dilemmas it brings about. Architecture does not have to be just a consumer's good, but something else, something beautiful, something useful, something welcoming and hospitable. Action does not have to make us forget about how important projects are for architecture. An architect, I think, should not forget what his or her role is in our society, while struggling to overcome the challenges the present world faces us with.
In my opinion, virtue is the middle course. I do not think it is impossible to be able to engage with the society we live in while maintaining a certain grade of autonomy in our work. It is true that the C&T VI
12
7.BIBLIOGRAPHY
“The Question of Criticality” Michael Hays,” Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form.” Perspecta, Vol. 21. (1984), pp. 14-29. Reinhold Martin: “Critical of What? Toward a Utopian Realism” in Constructing a New Agenda: Architectural Theory 1993-2009. A. Krista Sykes, ed. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010) pp. 348-362. Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting, “Notes Around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism” in Constructing a New Agenda: Architectural Theory 1993-2009. A. Krista Sykes, ed. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010) pp. 190-203
“The Question of Place” Rem Koolhaas, “Generic City” in S,M,L,XL (New York: Monacelli, 1995) pp. 1248-1264 Martin Heidegger, “Building Dwelling Thinking” in Poetry, Language, Thought, Albert Hofstadter, trans. (New York: Harper and Row, 1971) pp. 145-161 Marc Augé, selections from Non-Places: Towards an Anthropology of Supermodernity (London:Verso, 1995) pp. 75-115. Kenneth Frampton, “Towards A Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance” in The Anti.Aesthetic, Hal Foster, ed. (New York: New Press, 1998). pp. 16-30
“The Question of Excess” Clement Greenberg, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” Frederic Jameson, selections from Postmodernism,or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
“The Question of Engagement” David Goodman, “Project and Action” in A+T, no. 39-40 (Spring-Autumn 2012) pp. 236-249
C&T VI
13
lity
WHAT IS YO UR PR An Arc hit ec t’s Ro le Plac e Criti ca Eng Exce ag ss
? CT E OJ
ent em
Principles & Challenges
“WHAT IS YOUR PROJECT?” An Architect's Role. Principles and Challenges.
Culture & Theory in Architecture VI IE University 13th June 2016 Professor_David Goodman Student_Julia Castaño