Art is Dead Part 2
I've known a number of people, friends, professors, fellow peers, even some journalists say that the profession of architecture is dying. They're almost correct. Architecture is dead. I've heard a number of accusations for why architects are a dying breed, and why architecture seems to get crummier over the years. Among the speculations are: contractors gaining all the power (so become a contractor if you want power), the economy, LEED, the demand of knowledge required for the ARE, separation of architect and engineer and interior designer (i.e. separation of disciplines), et cetera. Perhaps these are factors, but they compare nothing to the two main factors to the death of architecture: the death of beauty in architecture, and the birth of hubris.
After Gropius made his modification to Vitruvius' so-called three points of architecture (functional utility, structural stability, and charming beauty), in which Gropius stated: utilitas + firmitas = venustas. This ultimately left the notions of charm, delight, and beauty on the back-burner of architectural theory and practice ever since. Architects used to say that everyone knows something is beautiful or ugly when they see it, and so notions of what creates the healthiest beauty in architecture was the primary focus of theory. For instance, Alberti discusses what is appropriate to a building (what Vitruvius called decorum): certainly the Corinthian Order is the most beautiful of all the Orders of Architecture, but it is inappropriate to use the Corinthian on a rustic farm house. But a church, a house of God, all architects ranging from Alberti to Ledoux agreed that there was never enough ornament or beautiful things that could be added to make it suitable for its purpose.
Beauty was often, if not almost entirely attached to the discipline of being appropriate for the most healthy beauty. But the idea that beauty is simply known and recognized by all was indeed quite a presumptuous statement. It is what Kant would have called "metaphysical", "a priori" and should be left out of the discussion. So architects then resorted to tradition for beauty and focused on other realms of practice: fireproofing, use of steel, standardization, civic structures, et cetera. Henri Labrouste's work is probably one of the finest selection of examples of leaving beauty to tradition (i.e. to pre-established forms and proportions) and focusing on something like fireproofing. Robert Mills is another fantastic example of this in America.
But God had the audacity to go die on us, and suddenly with Modernist figures like Gropius, Breuer, Le Corbusier, van der Rohe, Loos, et cetera began to focus on form and function, utility, standardization, industrialization, and taking advantage of new structural capabilities (i.e. skyscraper technology). Suddenly a new idea opened up, which if beauty had never been abolished, would have prevented such hubris: the aspiration to create a universal architecture... whatever that means.
The audacity to think there was, is or could be a universal architecture is hubris that inevitably led to Pruit Igoe, and Pruit Igoe is the finest example of why not everyone deserves the same thing. The notion that everyone is equal on all levels is absolute foolishness: to say that all are or can be equally intelligent, capable, skillful, beautiful, economically endowed, politically powerful, et cetera is pure hogwash. Certain everyone should be respected for the qualities of their place in society and the contributions they make, but to say everyone is equal is myopic, if not completely blind. Men and women are physiologically unequal, as well as mentally and emotionally unequal in how their cognitive processes function, but each's differences should be respected, because the world is not singular; the working men/women have their own skills that society cannot function without, and they should be respective for them; the academics have their own skills and knowledge that they should be respected for; and so forth - but in no way are any of them equal. To think everyone is equal is what has led to the DIY age: everyone thinks they're a photographer when they take a picture of their food, everyone thinks they're a philosopher, an artist, a theologian, a politician, a handyman, et cetera... which has inevitably led to an era of some of the worst political agendas and policies in history, some of the shittiest art, and the most poorly founded philosophy we may ever have the disadvantage to know.
As such, not everyone deserves the same architecture: this was previously at the heart of the discussion of beauty since the Greeks up until the Modernists. Thinking everyone is equal led to the desire to do the same thing for everyone rich and poor alike, powerful and weak alike, mentally and physically powerful alike. The same principles that built some of Le Corbusier's finest works are the same principles that built Yamasaki's Pruit Igoe (same architect of the World Trade Centers). Since when does the world's most significant and powerful economic center deserve to be built under the same principles as a low-income housing project? It is not only irresponsible, but inappropriate. To forget what is appropriate and inappropriate in architecture, what is beautiful to the project, created a crisis that no one has been able to solve since.
The demolition of Pruit Igoe is often considered to be the death of Modernism. It demonstrated that architecture as a social vehicle can fail terribly: it exacerbating crime and poverty. It's construction was shoddy and needed extensive repair, and given the high level of crime among the projects, the only solution was destruction, which is absolutely fitting. Pruit Igoe won Yamasaki numerous awards, and was herald as one of the finest works of architecture from the Modernist Era. And when Modernism failed, which was inevitable, it was time to destroy that awesome work of Moderism, just as Michelangelo's bronze of Julius II needed to be destroyed. Not all things are equal, and not all things deserve the same things.
Now we have the hubris of the Post-Modernists, who often do some of the most inappropriate works of architecture (if it could be called Architecture, with a capital A) this world has seen. Take for instance Koolhaas' Villa dall'Ava: it's in a historic 19th Century neighborhood in Paris, and is by far an abomination to its context. Had the small house been built in the middle of a prairie, like Corb's Villa Savoye (the client of Villa dall'Ava wanted an updated version of Villa Savoye, which was equally hubristic), then there would be no problem: it would be isolate as its own object valued as a separate object. But it just had to be done in a historic neighborhood, which is inappropriate, making it one ugly house.
In a way that's what beauty is: being relevant and appropriate to its context. Frank Lloyd Wright, probably the greatest of the Modernists, understood context and appropriateness. The Usoanian houses were small, affordable houses for middle class families, and they were appropriate to the client and their neighborhoods. Then for more wealthy clients he would build something like Fallingwater, Prairies Style houses, et cetera. For institutional clients (churches, museums, offices) he built another way that was appropriate to them. While Wright was not always successful, he is a fine example of appropriateness or "beauty" in architecture.
Now we have Libeskind, Thom Mayne, Hadid, et cetera who do works that are oftentimes absolutely inappropriate. Why does Libeskind need to do a house prototype that looks like his museums? Even his museums are inappropriate, at least to the art they house. Before Post-Modernism architects addressed structural problems when they were required to address them: Brunelleschi's dome in Florence, skyscraper technology, hammerbeams, et cetera. Now architects dream up unnecessary structural problems to address, such as Nouvel's 174 foot (53 meters) long cantilever in the Guthrie Theater, which is not only ugly, but pointless. Nouvel isn't the next Brunelleschi: a bigass cantilever is not a "structural feat", because in order to be a feat is must have been a readily recognized structural problem. Making a cantilever that big was not an aesthetic or structural problem, it was Nouvel's problem - in a sense, a personal problem. And so we return to self-expression in art.
Personal expression in architecture is absolutely irresponsible, if not unethical. Architecture is for the world, for the masses, and each part of society gets their own architecture, but each part's architecture can be respected by all. The highbrow architects admired Pruit Igoe, but its tenets did not, and so it failed and deserved demolition. Nouvel's Guthrie Theater deserves demolition. It deserves it because it died the moment it was built, it died when Nouvel had to interject his own personal "structural problems" into a cultural center. It is not only hubristic, but lacks appropriateness, and therefore lacks beauty.
Such is the death of architecture: lack of concern for appropriateness, lack of beauty, and filled to the brim with hubris. The only means of reviving architecture is by architects asking, "should we do that?" How do LEED points create architecture? (They don't). How is a bike rack a criteria for ethically responsible architecture? (It isn't). Do we need to do a seven foot tall, four inch thick wide-flange beam to achieve this giant pointed cantilever crossing 13th Avenue? (No). Should we make an all-glass house in a residential neighborhood? (No). Should we build a factory in a residential area? (Why is that a question?). Do we need to use titanium on this new project? (Not really).
Like art, and certainly more so than art, architectre has a prominent social and ethical function. If it can't be respected, if beauty and appropriateness can't be respected, if hubris and ego can't be sacrificed for beauty, then architecture deserves to die.
No comments:
Post a Comment