>>i am preparing to give a talk about how theory at the bauhaus can be used to
>>enlighten theory at writing centers.
>>
>>i've got it all nailed down except what to say about the social consciousness
>>of bauhaus theory -- that which says that one should design in response to a
>>perceived need in society.
[stuff deleted]
>>My colleagues find the parallel too socialist for their tastes. thoughts are
>>welcome.
>
>Well, the Bauhaus was (among other things) quite socialist. Their ethical
>and political agendas seem to have been written out of the introductory
>texts; maybe sometime I'll do some more reading on them.
>
Who was it that said "when architectural ideas catch a flight across the
Atlantic all the political baggage seems to fall off the plane"?
In my own work I take the position that architecture, like all fields of
art, strives for autonomy from everything except its own internal dynamics,
and in particular strives to be subject to the judgements of none save its
own members. If one accepts this, then there is no mystery as to why the
political agendas are written out of introductory texts. Such agendas are
justifications which depend on things derived from outside the field. If,
for example, you say that one should create a socially responsible
architecture, you then submit yourself to the judgement of society as to
whether you have succeeded.
I suspect strongly that you will find that whenever some architectural
school/style/theory starts off by justifying on non-architectural grounds
(eg its functional, its socially responsible, its socialist, whatever),
after a couple of years the rationales are quietly dropped as the natural
tendencies of the field to be autonomous assert themselves.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
>>enlighten theory at writing centers.
>>
>>i've got it all nailed down except what to say about the social consciousness
>>of bauhaus theory -- that which says that one should design in response to a
>>perceived need in society.
[stuff deleted]
>>My colleagues find the parallel too socialist for their tastes. thoughts are
>>welcome.
>
>Well, the Bauhaus was (among other things) quite socialist. Their ethical
>and political agendas seem to have been written out of the introductory
>texts; maybe sometime I'll do some more reading on them.
>
Who was it that said "when architectural ideas catch a flight across the
Atlantic all the political baggage seems to fall off the plane"?
In my own work I take the position that architecture, like all fields of
art, strives for autonomy from everything except its own internal dynamics,
and in particular strives to be subject to the judgements of none save its
own members. If one accepts this, then there is no mystery as to why the
political agendas are written out of introductory texts. Such agendas are
justifications which depend on things derived from outside the field. If,
for example, you say that one should create a socially responsible
architecture, you then submit yourself to the judgement of society as to
whether you have succeeded.
I suspect strongly that you will find that whenever some architectural
school/style/theory starts off by justifying on non-architectural grounds
(eg its functional, its socially responsible, its socialist, whatever),
after a couple of years the rationales are quietly dropped as the natural
tendencies of the field to be autonomous assert themselves.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA