[stuff deleted]
>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
I would strongly question the premise that architecture is like "all fields
of art" and, further, that it should strive for "autonomy from everything
except its own internal dynamics." For architecture, the ultimate and
quintessential task is the interpretation of ideas through physical form
for human habitation. Architecture does not have "natural tendencies," and
any "internal dynamics" that might exist are more related to individual
preferences and politics than to anything inherent to the field.
Architecture is not a filed based on faith or beleif, although it might be
a vehicle that can provide expressions of such ideas.
I cannot accept the notion that function and social responsibility are not
concerns that are integral to architecture.
David.Smith@xxxxxx
>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
I would strongly question the premise that architecture is like "all fields
of art" and, further, that it should strive for "autonomy from everything
except its own internal dynamics." For architecture, the ultimate and
quintessential task is the interpretation of ideas through physical form
for human habitation. Architecture does not have "natural tendencies," and
any "internal dynamics" that might exist are more related to individual
preferences and politics than to anything inherent to the field.
Architecture is not a filed based on faith or beleif, although it might be
a vehicle that can provide expressions of such ideas.
I cannot accept the notion that function and social responsibility are not
concerns that are integral to architecture.
David.Smith@xxxxxx