Does the problematic
relationship between architecture and critics begin with the word ‘design’?
We
hold artists of all kinds to higher standards than ourselves – While most of us
have finger-painted, we are not all painters. While most of us have cracked an
egg into a bowl of Bisquik, we are not all chefs. Our society recognizes one
must acquire skills, experience, and talent to be an “artist”. As soon as we collectively regard someone as
an artist, their works as art or ‘designs’, we immediately seek out to be
moved, feelings evoked, minds ‘blown’. While architects do acquire a certain
level of education, and undoubtedly master a certain skill set, are our
expectations of them, and thus the critics’ responses to their works, crippling
their ability to develop architecture with a better sense of social and
economic responsibility? *
The
arts are historically connected with luxury – People with disposable income
collect and/or are patrons of it, while the population with less disposable
income lives without it, as it is not necessary to survival. Something
luxurious is defined as, habitual indulgence in or enjoyment
of comforts and pleasures in addition to those necessary for a reasonable
standard of well-being. I offer the following assumptions:
1) Only a certain amount of
people can afford to hire an architect
2) For this reason it can be
considered a luxury
3) Luxury comes with certain
connotations – unnecessary, opulent, extravagant
4) The architect feels the
need to live up to the expectations
5) The critic holds an
architect to these expectations
If
we linguistically regarded
architecture as something other than art, if culturally we removed that stigma from
it, firstly, would we begin to recognize it as somewhere between luxury and
survival something of it’s own, and secondly, would criticisms begin to
encourage socially responsible projects in light of that transition in thought?
Would architects feel less pressure to impress?
While
it is easy to say, “well let’s just all begin to value economic, social, and
environmental responsibility more”, what is not easy is catalyzing or
furthering such a huge shift in thought. My opinion is, it is probably not
possible to linguistically change how we address and discuss architecture. It is
engrained in us, and comes from a long history undeniable of itself.
As
a solution-oriented person, my question to myself is always, How can we improve
that? How, in the future, can we as professionals in the design field, improve
our critiquing skills in order to promote more socially, economically, and
environmentally responsible buildings? As with many socio-economic issues in
the world, I find the answer usually comes back to education and inevitably, money.
We, in this class, are the answer to that this question. We are the ones who
create the new culture around design. But the existence of an aware culture does
not translate into physical change in world. Inevitably, people want an
incentive to change. This, is where my questions still linger. In a culture
which worships celebrity, which likens excess with access and success, what
could incentivize people to make more responsible choices?
While
this discussion just leaves me with more questions about the values and
accessibilities of our culture, I think it is worth stating that the majority
of people aim to please or accomplish goals -
If those goals, and milestones are linked to the ‘extravagant’ the ‘
never-before-seen’ , then what motivation does one have to strive for something
more subtle, smart, accessible?
*This is not to say I want
to devalue architecture by disregarding the creativity and innovation, which is
inherently apart of it. Rather, I feel it is important to explore how
connecting a certain set of words to an idea can shape our views on that idea.
Bethany
Giblin
No comments:
Post a Comment