Responding to msg by KevinC8954@xxxxxxx (Kevin Coffee) on
>Buildings are a social product. It seems very
>reasonable to attempt to organize one's thoughts about
>buildings in relation to the larger social
>organization.
>
[Elision]
>
>I would appreciate some examples of practical or
>theoretical architecture that reside entirely outside
>all other disciplines...
[Elision]
>service the building properly. One result was that the
>building was very hot in the summer and very cold in
>the winter. During a tour of the building (with
>reporters present) Helmut Jahn was approached by an
>office worker who complained directly to him about
>these conditions in the building. Jahn responded "quit
>your job."
>
Kevin,
The example of Helmut Jahn's rude remark, seems to confirm my
point: he answered rhetorically because he had no ready
architectural answer.
My point is that other disciplines reside in the world of
architecture, for language, concepts and credibility (as well
as for shelter), more than we architects choose to see. We
seem to have become overly modest about an architectural world
view because we are ashamed of the stigma of the arrogant
architect, say, like Jahn.
There is more strength in an architectural apprehension of the
world than is given credit by architects. The complaint I hear
from philosophers, psychologists, architectural historians,
political scientists, sociologists and the like who address
architecture is that architects too often misundertand the
epistemological potential of their field. They wonder why
architects don't see the benefits of a field which mixes theory
and practicality so effectively without inept borrowing of
abstract theories. They say architects admire the abstract
disciplines more than those who practice them.
It may be that this occurs because architects ususally try to
interpret architecture with concepts from other fields with
which they have limited competence. My own parallel study of
philosophy and architecture seems to show this.
I find that few architectural theorists grasp philosophy as
does a philosopher, and vice versa. Jacques Derrida, for
example, shows greater modesty about discussing architecture
than Mark Wigley shows in discussing philosophy. For some
reason, the less some architectal theorists know about
philosophy, the more authoritatively they apply it to
architecture, at least among architects. This amuses the
philosophers themselves.
I observe that the abstract disciplines often turn to the
practical ones for metaphors and concrete language to make
their ideas better understood. Philosophers bemoan the need
for something as grand and elegant and specific as
architectural nomenclature for their own field, which is
overabundant with theoretical musings lacking a language of
credibility and specificity. They freely admit to lifitng
terms like: foundation, underpinning, structure, framework,
support, window, doorway, opening, on and on, even the term
architecture itself. Architecture indeed is their favorite
hunting ground for concepts, words and metaphors to make
abstract ideas concrete.
For this reason, I think architects may have a better implicit
grasp of the world than some of the disciplines they study and
turn to for justification. It's just not fashionable to say
this.
We could benefit from noting what language, and documents, we
use in dealing with clients, contractors, banks, materials
suppliers, co-workers and others in the field. It is specific,
it must be as clear as we can make it, and it must deal with
the matters at hand. Whether programming, designing, producing
construction documents or administering construction, the
language must be very direct and effective; if not, it will be
misunderstood, ignored or litigated.
This kind of effectiveness at dealing with so-called real world
situations is what the abstract disciplines continually aim for
and claim to miss. Abstract and rhetorical language just
doesn't work unless it is embedded in the practical
communications. This is constantly emphasized by philosophers
these days and is the reason some of them copy us. They
reportedly envy what we take for granted.
For me, the exchange between architecture and philosophy has
been mutually supportive so long as neither predominates.
Architecture can justify philosophy as much as the reverse, as
with other abstract fields, a point I like to make in
architecture's favor from time to time.
More on this would be welcome.
John
>Buildings are a social product. It seems very
>reasonable to attempt to organize one's thoughts about
>buildings in relation to the larger social
>organization.
>
[Elision]
>
>I would appreciate some examples of practical or
>theoretical architecture that reside entirely outside
>all other disciplines...
[Elision]
>service the building properly. One result was that the
>building was very hot in the summer and very cold in
>the winter. During a tour of the building (with
>reporters present) Helmut Jahn was approached by an
>office worker who complained directly to him about
>these conditions in the building. Jahn responded "quit
>your job."
>
Kevin,
The example of Helmut Jahn's rude remark, seems to confirm my
point: he answered rhetorically because he had no ready
architectural answer.
My point is that other disciplines reside in the world of
architecture, for language, concepts and credibility (as well
as for shelter), more than we architects choose to see. We
seem to have become overly modest about an architectural world
view because we are ashamed of the stigma of the arrogant
architect, say, like Jahn.
There is more strength in an architectural apprehension of the
world than is given credit by architects. The complaint I hear
from philosophers, psychologists, architectural historians,
political scientists, sociologists and the like who address
architecture is that architects too often misundertand the
epistemological potential of their field. They wonder why
architects don't see the benefits of a field which mixes theory
and practicality so effectively without inept borrowing of
abstract theories. They say architects admire the abstract
disciplines more than those who practice them.
It may be that this occurs because architects ususally try to
interpret architecture with concepts from other fields with
which they have limited competence. My own parallel study of
philosophy and architecture seems to show this.
I find that few architectural theorists grasp philosophy as
does a philosopher, and vice versa. Jacques Derrida, for
example, shows greater modesty about discussing architecture
than Mark Wigley shows in discussing philosophy. For some
reason, the less some architectal theorists know about
philosophy, the more authoritatively they apply it to
architecture, at least among architects. This amuses the
philosophers themselves.
I observe that the abstract disciplines often turn to the
practical ones for metaphors and concrete language to make
their ideas better understood. Philosophers bemoan the need
for something as grand and elegant and specific as
architectural nomenclature for their own field, which is
overabundant with theoretical musings lacking a language of
credibility and specificity. They freely admit to lifitng
terms like: foundation, underpinning, structure, framework,
support, window, doorway, opening, on and on, even the term
architecture itself. Architecture indeed is their favorite
hunting ground for concepts, words and metaphors to make
abstract ideas concrete.
For this reason, I think architects may have a better implicit
grasp of the world than some of the disciplines they study and
turn to for justification. It's just not fashionable to say
this.
We could benefit from noting what language, and documents, we
use in dealing with clients, contractors, banks, materials
suppliers, co-workers and others in the field. It is specific,
it must be as clear as we can make it, and it must deal with
the matters at hand. Whether programming, designing, producing
construction documents or administering construction, the
language must be very direct and effective; if not, it will be
misunderstood, ignored or litigated.
This kind of effectiveness at dealing with so-called real world
situations is what the abstract disciplines continually aim for
and claim to miss. Abstract and rhetorical language just
doesn't work unless it is embedded in the practical
communications. This is constantly emphasized by philosophers
these days and is the reason some of them copy us. They
reportedly envy what we take for granted.
For me, the exchange between architecture and philosophy has
been mutually supportive so long as neither predominates.
Architecture can justify philosophy as much as the reverse, as
with other abstract fields, a point I like to make in
architecture's favor from time to time.
More on this would be welcome.
John