So my thoughts on Architecture and Theory…
A discussion of the problem with nostalgia, the impact of our historical obsession on our society, and on architecture. A continued discussion from our fourth session…
It is my option that as a society in general we seem to be obsessed with using historical influences; we seem to be constantly reverting back to the past for ideas for use in the present. Why is this the case? Are we as a society becoming lazy creatively? Can’t anyone be bothered to think up any authentic ideas anymore? Or, like we discovered with Henry Ford back in session ten, do we long to revert back to a simpler, easier time? In the book U.S.A by John Dos Passos it is apparent that near the end of his life, Henry Ford decided to change his lifestyle and the appearance of the places around him to the way they were in his past. He chose to hide the world of the automobile, that he had helped to create, so he moved the roads away from the buildings he owned and he praised the obsolete modes of transportation that the automobile had replaced. Did he do this because he was tired of it all, had he had enough of all the stress of working in the industry, or had he realised the tragedy of the world he had helped to create; a world of pollution and tarmac. Is history going to repeat itself? Are we growing sick of the world that we ourselves have built up and beginning to long for the old ways of the world?
As we discussed back in session four, we live in a replay culture, a “product” culture. In other words events are repeated over and over on a loop. This concept of “product” was investigated in Henri Lefebvre’s book, The Production of Space. Within the book he concludes that products are replacing works. Lefebvre defines ‘work’ as something that is unique and that also has something irreplaceable about it. A product is described as something that can be mass produced and easily duplicated. You don’t have to look far to see the signs of this product culture within our everyday lives. Television for example has been recently increasing the amount of revived “classic” shows, like the return of Doctor Who, yet another The Royle Family Christmas one off show, prequels to previous shows like Only Fools and Horses, yet more adaptations of dramas like The Turn of the Screw and remakes of previous shows like Knight Rider. It is apparent that there are very little authentic ideas around at the moment. It is not just remaking that is occurring but a lot of once authentic television shows are now being dragged out. Big Brother has been on for 10 series now, the X Factor has also been around for years, the US drama series Lost is approaching its seventh season. As a society we aren’t helping the situation in that we still seem to be obsessed by these shows. Television executives therefore don’t need to worry about creating new and authentic viewing if their viewers are happy to watch the same things over and over. In the last few years nostalgic television channels have appeared on satellite television, like Dave, G.O.L.D and Alibi. The most watched television show over the festive period was Eastenders. This programme is a great example of replay culture at work. Ok the characters on the show change every now and again but the storylines are on a constant loop of murder, adultery, fights, disastrous weddings and other depressing events. Other medias are also guilty of becoming unauthentic, looking through the coming soon pages for local cinemas is not much different either. Do we really need a remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a film that has already had many sequels following its original release, we have already seen remakes to Halloween (I and II) over the last few years, again another film that produced a number of sequels, late last year Saw six was out in cinemas, that’s around a sequel a year following the release of the first movie. Even seemingly authentic films like Avatar could be seen as being just a futuristic version of a previously released film Dances with Wolves. Also new films over the last few years are overloaded with the latest advances in CGI technology, these films may be better looking visually but aren’t necessarily better than past films if the quality of the story being told is lost. This observation can also be applied to architecture in that some modern architect’s buildings are designed purely to obtain a wow factor appearance. They are covered in the latest technology, involve weird and wonderful shapes but then don’t actually work or cost a great deal of money to construct. One example of this is the Scottish Parliament building. This building could be said to look good, but because of the large sums of money involved to get the building complete, many people despise it.
This social longing for the reusing of past ideas is having a negative impact on the architecture currently being constructed in the United Kingdom. Local authorities are constantly knocking back radical and futuristic designs because they are not suiting local contexts. Conservation area requirements mean that the external appearances of any new buildings have to tie in with the existing neighbouring buildings. Also the use of traditional materials for external finishes is required, such as brickwork and tiled roofs. Any design features that don’t suit the appearance of a place are more often than not refused planning consent. This has meant that radical new developments’ external appearances are being stripped back and decorated in historical details that are copied from existing surrounding buildings. These regulations have meant that some towns and cities in the United Kingdom still have the same appearance as they have done for years. In my opinion this idea is pointless. What is the point in retaining the appearance of a place? Surely this means there is no noticeable historical evolution. In nature, the appearances of landscapes are constantly changing. On close observation of natural forms it is clear to see how they have developed and built up over time; it is therefore not natural for our streetscapes to remain the same. These regulations are therefore hampering the new waves of building design that should be being produced in our towns and cities.
On the other hand we do need to be careful that we don’t go too far towards the other end of the design scale. This extreme can be clearly seen occurring in Dubai. As we discussed back in our second session, from the essay by Mike Davis, Dubai is a city built up for no real reason. It has been constructed just to be bigger and better than anyone else, because it’s richer citizens have money to spare and want to create the ultimate rich people’s paradise. The architecture of the city was built from exploiting its workforce and financed using dirty money. The buildings currently under construction completely ignore the historicism of the country. These buildings scream out look at me and offer little to Dubai’s citizens, offering benefits only to the rich tourists.
In his book After Theory, Terry Eagleton longed for new theory but this is being hampered by this obsession with looking back to the past. We should be pushing forwards and be creating new authentic ideas. This way of thinking we found is shared with established architects such as Zaha Hadid. Zaha, as we discovered back in our first session, appears not to be engaged with her historic surroundings in London and this is reflected in her architecture around the globe. Her designs appear to turn their back on the historicism of their locations. It would also appear that Zaha has acknowledged the repetitive nature of our culture. Zaha refuses to discuss the theories behind her architecture. Zaha knows that the second she does then designs based on her theories will be replicated, badly, all over the world.
It is therefore up to us, as possible future architects, to help push society away from this replay culture, and not copy what has already been done. This will ensure that authentic designs/ideas have a chance to be seen in the future. This obviously needs to be achieved without becoming ego maniacs, like Howard Roarke from The Fountainhead, self obsessed with our ideas and spitting our dummy out when we don’t get our own way.
If not then the future will look very dull indeed.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Session 10 - 04.12.09 U.S.A by John Dos Passos
So my thoughts on U.S.A...
That’s more like it! Following last weeks cheese fest that was The Fountainhead, it’s nice to get back to a good old fashioned, just telling it like it is, no fancy trimmings, no nice endings, book showing the tragedy of success.
The mini biographies within U.S.A are insightful glimpses into the lives of some of the most famous individuals from the turn of the century. The way Henry Ford, after helping create the world of the automobile, chooses in the end to hide away from it all. He spent the money he earned from manufacturing a world of motor cars, to build a world where the cars didn’t exist. He rebuilt his childhood farm, he praised the obsolete models of transport he himself had made obsolete and he moved roads away from buildings he owned. Why would he do this? Had he seen the tragedy of his life’s work, the pollution and tarmac that was covering everything in its path? Or had he simply had enough of it all, grown sick of the monster of the motor run world he had helped to create.
Do architects follow the same kind of pattern? I know that after three and a half years of designing Sainsbury’s car parks and clad sheds I am already sick of the sight of supermarkets, to point where I will do anything but go and shop in them.
That’s more like it! Following last weeks cheese fest that was The Fountainhead, it’s nice to get back to a good old fashioned, just telling it like it is, no fancy trimmings, no nice endings, book showing the tragedy of success.
The mini biographies within U.S.A are insightful glimpses into the lives of some of the most famous individuals from the turn of the century. The way Henry Ford, after helping create the world of the automobile, chooses in the end to hide away from it all. He spent the money he earned from manufacturing a world of motor cars, to build a world where the cars didn’t exist. He rebuilt his childhood farm, he praised the obsolete models of transport he himself had made obsolete and he moved roads away from buildings he owned. Why would he do this? Had he seen the tragedy of his life’s work, the pollution and tarmac that was covering everything in its path? Or had he simply had enough of it all, grown sick of the monster of the motor run world he had helped to create.
Do architects follow the same kind of pattern? I know that after three and a half years of designing Sainsbury’s car parks and clad sheds I am already sick of the sight of supermarkets, to point where I will do anything but go and shop in them.
Session 9 - 27.11.09 The Fountainhead
So my thoughts on The Fountainhead...
Film, as a media, is a lot harder to explore than a book, or any written media. With books authors’ say, most of the time, as they please. The thing with film is it has to be coated in Hollywood cheesiness and the token traditional fairytale ending. In the film, Roark ends up the winner, he gets the girl, he gets the success, he gets the fame, he gets the glory, he gets the money and he gets to build his big job without anyone getting in the way of his design. The “Hollywood” ending is never the case, the “machine” would never allow it, and no one man can have that much power without consequences. In real life Roark would have been thrown in jail for blowing up that building, not honoured.
The scary thought is, is this how architects are seen to be? No wonder we don’t get much respect from other sin the building industry, do people see us as ego maniacs, self obsessing with our designs and that we spit our dummy out when we don’t get our own way?
Granted a film about an architect sitting around all day drawing and taking crap from all directions would be a truly boring film.
Film, as a media, is a lot harder to explore than a book, or any written media. With books authors’ say, most of the time, as they please. The thing with film is it has to be coated in Hollywood cheesiness and the token traditional fairytale ending. In the film, Roark ends up the winner, he gets the girl, he gets the success, he gets the fame, he gets the glory, he gets the money and he gets to build his big job without anyone getting in the way of his design. The “Hollywood” ending is never the case, the “machine” would never allow it, and no one man can have that much power without consequences. In real life Roark would have been thrown in jail for blowing up that building, not honoured.
The scary thought is, is this how architects are seen to be? No wonder we don’t get much respect from other sin the building industry, do people see us as ego maniacs, self obsessing with our designs and that we spit our dummy out when we don’t get our own way?
Granted a film about an architect sitting around all day drawing and taking crap from all directions would be a truly boring film.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Session 8 - 20.11.09 All that's solid melts into air
With a day to spare I can write my blog...
So my thoughts on "All that's solid melts into air"...
It is clear that the story of Faust is still very apt today. The developer phase of the story can be seen all around, we as humans are constantly building and destroying our way through time, we can’t afford to slow down or stop building as it is the basis for our livelihoods in the construction industry, it is the basis on which the economy of nations continue to grow, the only reason for the growth of our world is for wealth and money, destroying anything, including nature, that gets in our way, just when will the tragic end to our development/society occur? Looking back in time we can see the patterns of great civilisations that have grown and grown only to destroy themselves, for example the city of Babylon. A great modern example of the tragedy of development is that of Dubai. Like the devil in the story of Faust the reason behind the development of this area is purely for the purpose of money and wealth. The projects being constructed are not being built for good but for greed. The story of the developer in Faust can't afford to slow down, nor has Dubai over the last few years.
We as architecture students can relate to the problems faced in the first phase of the story, “the dreamer”, withdrawn from the outside world, feeling there are bigger challenges, on our road to our ultimate goals we have to do the bad, the car park layouts, the many hours of study, we have already turned to the devil for knowledge, in our case this devil is the machine.
So my thoughts on "All that's solid melts into air"...
It is clear that the story of Faust is still very apt today. The developer phase of the story can be seen all around, we as humans are constantly building and destroying our way through time, we can’t afford to slow down or stop building as it is the basis for our livelihoods in the construction industry, it is the basis on which the economy of nations continue to grow, the only reason for the growth of our world is for wealth and money, destroying anything, including nature, that gets in our way, just when will the tragic end to our development/society occur? Looking back in time we can see the patterns of great civilisations that have grown and grown only to destroy themselves, for example the city of Babylon. A great modern example of the tragedy of development is that of Dubai. Like the devil in the story of Faust the reason behind the development of this area is purely for the purpose of money and wealth. The projects being constructed are not being built for good but for greed. The story of the developer in Faust can't afford to slow down, nor has Dubai over the last few years.
We as architecture students can relate to the problems faced in the first phase of the story, “the dreamer”, withdrawn from the outside world, feeling there are bigger challenges, on our road to our ultimate goals we have to do the bad, the car park layouts, the many hours of study, we have already turned to the devil for knowledge, in our case this devil is the machine.
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Session 7 - 13.11.09 Le Corbusier & Professor Silenus
So my thoughts on Professor Silenus...
As I was laying in bed last night, unable to sleep due to the most random thoughts running through my mind and worries with regards to work/university work, I realised that this character is a great representation of, not only the most well known architect of the time Le Corbusier, but architects and students of architecture in general.
I think in his book Evelyn Waugh creates the prefect stereotypical architect in Professor Silenus. I think that these traits are still relevant today. His classic architect traits and how these compare to the current crop of architect and architect wannabes;
As I was laying in bed last night, unable to sleep due to the most random thoughts running through my mind and worries with regards to work/university work, I realised that this character is a great representation of, not only the most well known architect of the time Le Corbusier, but architects and students of architecture in general.
I think in his book Evelyn Waugh creates the prefect stereotypical architect in Professor Silenus. I think that these traits are still relevant today. His classic architect traits and how these compare to the current crop of architect and architect wannabes;
- Hatred for humans, their interference in his work Professor Silenus states that the prefect building is a factory, it is not possible for domestic architecture to be beautiful. Occupants of buildings will always want to change and alter pieces of architecture. The problem with a great piece of architecture is, unlike a painting that will never change in appearance, never get bigger, never be repainted in different colours, it will enviably be changed to suit a future generations need.
I have been working on a scheme in the office recently for a mixed use development, all I seem to do for days and days on end was alter our design to suit the various needs of the number of occupiers, looking at the final design now it has completely changed from the initial design. I can definitely relate to Silenus's annoyance with human intervention. - Eccentric behaviour
"He removes a biscuit from his pocket and begins to munch...two hours later he had not moved...his empty jaw champed rhythmically" Definitely a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Within my office it is obvious who the architects are, we have one who looks like Sideshow Bob from the Simpsons, the other architects are the ones who have random conversations with the photocopies and are constantly shaking their computer screens. The amount of times I have found myself staring blankly at the computer screen whilst working, lost in my thoughts, is a bit weird looking back now. But I think you can't be an architect without being a bit insane, the amount of pressure and annoying clients is enough to send anyone a bit nutty. - The pain of building regulations and standards
Professor Silenus moans in the piece about the annoyance of having to install a staircase. The amount of times we have had to redraw designs to accommodate fire escape stairs and to allow for disabled access. - Never happy with the final design
"I hate and detest every bit of it" I'm pretty sure very few architects have completed a build and been 100% happy with the final result. The amount of times I have been to site to see completed builds only to find corners have been cut or the contractor has failed to finish off details as we have designed them. Plus all the redraws you have to make during the design process to suit client needs you kind of get sick of the sight of the building come completion. - Insomnia
Professor Silenus doesn't sleep, he just rests and thinks. I don't think I know one student of architecture who gets a good night sleep whilst studying.
Looking at this character it does make one wonder why I'm trying to become one of these architects, oh yeah that's right I'm slightly mad. Silly me...
Friday, 6 November 2009
Session 6 - 06.11.09 The machine and Archigram
So my thoughts on Archigram...
(As scribbled down on the train back home)
Plug-in-City is a mega-structure with no buildings, just a massive framework into which dwellings in the form of cells or standardised components could be slotted. The machine had taken over and people were the raw material being processed, the difference being that people are meant to enjoy the experience.
After the session today and looking at Archigram's designs it is quite scary to me just how close we could be to actually living in an Archigram design. I mean lets look at the world we live in, we have no need for shops, we have Amazon and Tesco's delivery, no need to talk to each other anymore, we are increasingly using texting and social networking sites (I will discuss this a bit more later), we don't need to go to the gym or for a run anymore, we have Wii Fit. Recently at work, as well as the work becoming more and more a case of copy and paste, I have noticed that more and more my boss emails me what work I need to do rather than coming to see me, I do all my work on a computer, look up information online, do I actually need to be at the office? No, not really. I laughed at the piece in week 1 on Zaha's office, how her employees are plugged into a machine, but the scary thought is that we all might not be far off working like that.
So my thoughts on the "Machine"...
I agree with Paul regarding doctors acting as mechanics. Fine by me, I'd quite like to lose the lecture every time I go to the doctors. Yes, I probably do drink more units than I should be, eat too much salt and don't exercise or look after myself as well as I should. But I do pay my taxes, I "conform" to the rules of the machine, so surely I should be entitled to a new liver or any other new part I might need off the NHS every now and again!
Due to advances in technology we are increasing the control the machine has. Facebook, much like windows 7, is the new software upgrade for the machine. Facebook, as well as any other social site, is a monitoring and controlling piece of software that is feeding the machine. People are compelled to tell it, amongst other things, how they are, what they are fans of, where they've been, who they were with...and don't think just because you haven't conformed and created a profile it doesn't know about you. You'll be in there, in someone’s photos, in someone’s comments, whether you like it or not. We have no choice but to comply, all hail the Machine!
(As scribbled down on the train back home)
Plug-in-City is a mega-structure with no buildings, just a massive framework into which dwellings in the form of cells or standardised components could be slotted. The machine had taken over and people were the raw material being processed, the difference being that people are meant to enjoy the experience.After the session today and looking at Archigram's designs it is quite scary to me just how close we could be to actually living in an Archigram design. I mean lets look at the world we live in, we have no need for shops, we have Amazon and Tesco's delivery, no need to talk to each other anymore, we are increasingly using texting and social networking sites (I will discuss this a bit more later), we don't need to go to the gym or for a run anymore, we have Wii Fit. Recently at work, as well as the work becoming more and more a case of copy and paste, I have noticed that more and more my boss emails me what work I need to do rather than coming to see me, I do all my work on a computer, look up information online, do I actually need to be at the office? No, not really. I laughed at the piece in week 1 on Zaha's office, how her employees are plugged into a machine, but the scary thought is that we all might not be far off working like that.
So my thoughts on the "Machine"...
I agree with Paul regarding doctors acting as mechanics. Fine by me, I'd quite like to lose the lecture every time I go to the doctors. Yes, I probably do drink more units than I should be, eat too much salt and don't exercise or look after myself as well as I should. But I do pay my taxes, I "conform" to the rules of the machine, so surely I should be entitled to a new liver or any other new part I might need off the NHS every now and again!
Due to advances in technology we are increasing the control the machine has. Facebook, much like windows 7, is the new software upgrade for the machine. Facebook, as well as any other social site, is a monitoring and controlling piece of software that is feeding the machine. People are compelled to tell it, amongst other things, how they are, what they are fans of, where they've been, who they were with...and don't think just because you haven't conformed and created a profile it doesn't know about you. You'll be in there, in someone’s photos, in someone’s comments, whether you like it or not. We have no choice but to comply, all hail the Machine!
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Session 5 - 30.10.09 Las Vegas
So my thoughts on Las Vegas...
"Ducks" are buildings whose very shape are meant to portend the activity carried on within.
Firstly, I found both pieces of writing this week, Wolfe and Hickey, very enjoyable to read and definately did not hurt my head as much as last weeks piece.
This week I choose to write my own 'Paul style' x number of points list as I read Wolfe's piece, so here it is...
My 5 points on Vegas;
1. Signs as architecture - The triumph of adverting.
Ducks and decorated sheds, I remeber this from my theory lectures at degree level, my theory tutor had a soft spot for Vegas too actually, maybe this is a necessaity in becoming one?Hmm
"Ducks" are buildings whose very shape are meant to portend the activity carried on within."Decorated sheds" are fairly unexciting structures (hotels, restaurants, casinos, gas stations, etc.) where large-scale decorations, either as text (e.g., "McDonalds") or as obvious symbols (e.g. the Mcdonald's golden arches) tell the quickly-moving passerby what's within.
2. Original casino's built on ganster-financing.
A trend repeated in the future with Dubai
3. Las Vegas v. Monte Carlo
Vegas never quite matched Monte Carlo, it evolved into its own individual image. Is it now Las Vegas v. Dudai?
4. "Don't make me go to bed attitude"
Vegas is America's adult playground, anything and everything seems to go in Vegas, sex, gamlbling and drugs.
5. The darkside to Vegas
Near the end of Wolfe's piece he shows the extent to which over exposure to Vegas has a negative impact on civilisation.
My personnal favourite bit within both the piece's has to be Hickey's comparison with Vegas to the America as a whole. The point that "Vegas cheats you fair, the payoffs are posted and the odds easily calculatable", I think this is still apt today, wouldn't the world be so much better off if this was the case in everyday life... you'd still be screwed over by the goverment, your employers, but at least you'll understand why...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
