Theory 2 course Final Bog

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.