An “état des lieux” of what contemporary architecture has produced would be perilous, especially as today we are left to ourselves. An “architectural atheism” exists, a state in which a myriad of possibilities and concepts exist, and co-exist. Ethically it is impossible to characterize what is “right” or “wrong” to build, and in hindsight, it has always been – only myths like the houses of Laugier and Semper or the purity of the rediscovery Greek architecture had a certain authority and acted as a fundamental truth on which we could rely on. The unfolding of modernity has only confirmed this state, that the grand narratives have failed, “God is dead” we are truly left to ourselves.
Philosophers like Heidegger or Arendt had already warned us fifty years ago, that culture has been losing it's depthness and that we had lost the “in-between”. It is only know that architects are seeking to re-discover it, and find a “nearness” in our built space.
The speed at which our world evolves ultimately fails to find this nearness, data based methods of urban design show a built space that is of a complexity only very little can equate to. Typically «We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning. » (1) Nonetheless many architects have chosen a path in which they use this extremely complex environment in order to propose efficient and simple projects, that all seem to seek a truth on which we could potentially hold on. This truth they seek lies in the domain of phenomenology and the authentic power of first sensations, but also in the reconstruction of myths and notions such as authority and hope.
Naturally the first question we can ask ourselves : Does architecture still have hope today ? Yes, because architects have chosen to resist and engage, and you can only resist in light of hope. For Roger Diener it is characterized by the strength and presence of his buildings, and for Caruso&St John it has the notion of “critical resistance” (2) a state in which they accept the context, yet in their own means and limits act on it.
Philosophers like Heidegger or Arendt had already warned us fifty years ago, that culture has been losing it's depthness and that we had lost the “in-between”. It is only know that architects are seeking to re-discover it, and find a “nearness” in our built space.
The speed at which our world evolves ultimately fails to find this nearness, data based methods of urban design show a built space that is of a complexity only very little can equate to. Typically «We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning. » (1) Nonetheless many architects have chosen a path in which they use this extremely complex environment in order to propose efficient and simple projects, that all seem to seek a truth on which we could potentially hold on. This truth they seek lies in the domain of phenomenology and the authentic power of first sensations, but also in the reconstruction of myths and notions such as authority and hope.
Naturally the first question we can ask ourselves : Does architecture still have hope today ? Yes, because architects have chosen to resist and engage, and you can only resist in light of hope. For Roger Diener it is characterized by the strength and presence of his buildings, and for Caruso&St John it has the notion of “critical resistance” (2) a state in which they accept the context, yet in their own means and limits act on it.
The mistake of modernist architecture was to think it could create a fully defined living space, hope was a defined image, an ideal with little possibilities to evolve, the failure of the Cumbernauld council can only attest. Modernists had forgotten that they were building in a direct context, and that time even existed, their ideals were fanatic and distant. In France Charles deFoucauld described this kind of hope as “not here, not now, not you”. Immediacy was neglected in the face of an ever moving future.
Attempting to define Hope today means we have to accept it has two faces, a goal that we know we will never attain (transcendent), and an affect that is here and now (immanent), and that is closely linked to Romanticism. Yet again we are close to another metamodern strategy : willful self deceit. - Willful self deceit is a process in which we follow an ideal that we know is artificial, but that we follow, for the sake of following – it is an idealism held back by the knowledge of reality.
Attempting to define Hope today means we have to accept it has two faces, a goal that we know we will never attain (transcendent), and an affect that is here and now (immanent), and that is closely linked to Romanticism. Yet again we are close to another metamodern strategy : willful self deceit. - Willful self deceit is a process in which we follow an ideal that we know is artificial, but that we follow, for the sake of following – it is an idealism held back by the knowledge of reality.
The Apartment Towers Westkaai 1 + 2 in Antwerp evidently follow an ideal of rigour developped by Heinrich Tessenow, the towers are twin towers with a regulated facade : there are only five window types. The mental rigor of the whole project, is toned down by it's real context :
The towers are not perfectly aligned, but stand slightly displaced. The outer surface of the rectangular buildings shines with tremulous or flickering light that changes with the time of day and the weather situation, sometimes contrasting, sometimes complementing its surroundings. Windows with different sizes and shapes are grouped together and cut from the building’s outer skin made of ripple glass and aluminum sheet metal. The arrangement of the rooms inside the building is made apparent outside by the grouping of the windows. The façade’s seemingly random appearance is the result of the systematic combination of the different types of apartments.
Dienerdiener.ch
The towers are not perfectly aligned, but stand slightly displaced. The outer surface of the rectangular buildings shines with tremulous or flickering light that changes with the time of day and the weather situation, sometimes contrasting, sometimes complementing its surroundings. Windows with different sizes and shapes are grouped together and cut from the building’s outer skin made of ripple glass and aluminum sheet metal. The arrangement of the rooms inside the building is made apparent outside by the grouping of the windows. The façade’s seemingly random appearance is the result of the systematic combination of the different types of apartments.
Dienerdiener.ch
We can characterize this process as an “Informed Naivety” or a “Pragmatic Idealism” in the way theorists Robbin Van Den Akker et Thomas Vermeulen describe it in an interview with Robert Peston :
It is no longer possible for Robert to return to “naïve modernist ideological positions” where he tells is that the latest export figures really matter. But neither can he ignore them. Robert can only adopt a kind of “informed naivety”, [...]. Robert learns to be both ironic and sincere in the same moment. Economics is both “coherent and preposterous”.
Similarly, it is impossible as architects to return towards modernist ideals, but we can not ignore their influence either, especially as it was a vision of architecture that embodied hope and the promise of a better future, so we adopt the latter position. “Informed naivety” in architecture could exist as a design process in which the architect attempts to define an own meaning to their projects that simultaneously informed by reality, and yet lies on artificial myths that have been personally or collectively re-constructed.
The recent interest in construction materials and their meanings demonstrate this point of view. Already in the 80's Joseph Beuys wished to experiment the meaning of materials and express the visceral relation he had with them, copper signified aging, felt signified safety, and so on. It is without surprise that he brought only felt with him during the performance “I like America, and America likes me”.
It is an alchemy of materials that architects Herzog&DeMeuron explore, where the traditional meaning of copper in architecture as an ornament is revisited as an expression of an aging and rusting skin, that is itself doomed to disappear. Indeed for them the meaning of the material evolves as the project evolves, leading towards an ideal where the materials have their own language. The own language of the material is based on common external images, but a second look will reveal that the significations are deeper and specific to the project. To explain this we can refer to the Signalbox II in Basel where the copper rusts, as the building decays, because it is in itself the expression of a stone being eroded by the flux of trains.
It is no longer possible for Robert to return to “naïve modernist ideological positions” where he tells is that the latest export figures really matter. But neither can he ignore them. Robert can only adopt a kind of “informed naivety”, [...]. Robert learns to be both ironic and sincere in the same moment. Economics is both “coherent and preposterous”.
Similarly, it is impossible as architects to return towards modernist ideals, but we can not ignore their influence either, especially as it was a vision of architecture that embodied hope and the promise of a better future, so we adopt the latter position. “Informed naivety” in architecture could exist as a design process in which the architect attempts to define an own meaning to their projects that simultaneously informed by reality, and yet lies on artificial myths that have been personally or collectively re-constructed.
The recent interest in construction materials and their meanings demonstrate this point of view. Already in the 80's Joseph Beuys wished to experiment the meaning of materials and express the visceral relation he had with them, copper signified aging, felt signified safety, and so on. It is without surprise that he brought only felt with him during the performance “I like America, and America likes me”.
It is an alchemy of materials that architects Herzog&DeMeuron explore, where the traditional meaning of copper in architecture as an ornament is revisited as an expression of an aging and rusting skin, that is itself doomed to disappear. Indeed for them the meaning of the material evolves as the project evolves, leading towards an ideal where the materials have their own language. The own language of the material is based on common external images, but a second look will reveal that the significations are deeper and specific to the project. To explain this we can refer to the Signalbox II in Basel where the copper rusts, as the building decays, because it is in itself the expression of a stone being eroded by the flux of trains.
We can however express certain reserves towards this specific method because if in theory it works well, the results tend to be “oeuvres”. An oeuvre is when project exists by “itself for itself” (Zaugg). We can also wonder when the expression of an “oeuvre” because a finality in itself for the reason of “oeuvre”.
This approach of architecture using materiality always needs to rethink it's relation with it, but also to think of the image it generates. The architectural production of these last years have shown an emphasis on architects like Zumthor for whom “wood is wood” and where the material is subject to it's context, and in a way, is almost orchestrated.
Such an interest in the brutality of materials and the essence of them finds it's origins in brutalism and the technique of “as found” developped by the Smithsons, where we can overcome an academic thought of the material, we can be free to make our own understanding of the material.
These ideals can also be found in the formal expression of the building, “strong shapes” are bulky and geometric yet are capable of working with their context and question themselves (even re-form themselves), in order create a new meaning, for example the Rudin House, validates it identity by only referring to a slopped roof – As for the materials : a second look will reveal that it is in-fact built in concrete, and that the house is built on a cantilever.
Such an interest in the brutality of materials and the essence of them finds it's origins in brutalism and the technique of “as found” developped by the Smithsons, where we can overcome an academic thought of the material, we can be free to make our own understanding of the material.
These ideals can also be found in the formal expression of the building, “strong shapes” are bulky and geometric yet are capable of working with their context and question themselves (even re-form themselves), in order create a new meaning, for example the Rudin House, validates it identity by only referring to a slopped roof – As for the materials : a second look will reveal that it is in-fact built in concrete, and that the house is built on a cantilever.
The first look allows us to identify a certain amount of elements such as size, location, colour, shape etc.. but there is always an element which can drastically change the whole meaning of the building. A second look would capitalize on this and allow a deeper understanding : A small corner building in Basel built by Roger Diener will be used as an example.
At a glance, the Barfusserplatz corner building is grossly rectangular, has a yellow tint, and large windows – but as we look at these windows we see that their arrangement is not equal, that some show rooms, others the stairway, which could be worrying since the facade is only structured by these windows, in fact the design of the facade is so that the building becomes the street corner.
This visual process is what Martin Steinmann calls “Productive Sight” (3) and can be understood as a method in which the architect creates a project with a meaning, that ultimately will be completed by the ones who see and use the building. It is a call for a contingent meaning that can only be completed in time. In a caveat, this contingent meaning and our implication in it, is already a “nearness” - it is as Brendan Dempsey characterized for art : a contrived depth. (4)
This visual process is what Martin Steinmann calls “Productive Sight” (3) and can be understood as a method in which the architect creates a project with a meaning, that ultimately will be completed by the ones who see and use the building. It is a call for a contingent meaning that can only be completed in time. In a caveat, this contingent meaning and our implication in it, is already a “nearness” - it is as Brendan Dempsey characterized for art : a contrived depth. (4)
So in this day of architectural atheism where we are left to ourselves maybe we actually have the freedom to create an own god. But creating an own god implies that we have to presume a kind of atheism, and that these myths have been already been deconstructed.
This ambiguity maybe best expresses how architects today revisit modern concepts, but yet built these myths on a Post-Modern basis, and can also describe the difficult position in which we are seeking a transcendence but know that accomplishing it will ultimately destroy our built environment. The ultimate status of these myths, is to be an artificial truth on which we can rely on, it has the value of an authority that is needed and that is designed to evolve, one could say these myths are rhizomatic. Finally, let us simply remind ourselves of Bergson, who said that “neither gods, neither animals need hope”
Gregor Watson
This ambiguity maybe best expresses how architects today revisit modern concepts, but yet built these myths on a Post-Modern basis, and can also describe the difficult position in which we are seeking a transcendence but know that accomplishing it will ultimately destroy our built environment. The ultimate status of these myths, is to be an artificial truth on which we can rely on, it has the value of an authority that is needed and that is designed to evolve, one could say these myths are rhizomatic. Finally, let us simply remind ourselves of Bergson, who said that “neither gods, neither animals need hope”
Gregor Watson
1- Jean Baudrillard - Simulation & Simulacra
2- Hal Ingberg - Sampling and Remixing an Architecture of Resistance
3- Martin Steinmann - Formes Fortes
4- Brian Dempsey - [Re]construction: Metamodern ‘Transcendence’ and the Return of Myth
No comments:
Post a Comment