**** WARNING***** Long and tedious post ahead!
In reply to my earlier post, David Lee Smith said:
>
>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."
Slight misunderstanding here, methinks. That architecture is an 'art'
__whatever that might mean__ must be the single most long-lived notion in
the entire history of the field, going back to Vasari at least. Of course,
just what this claim is meant to connote varies from time to time. In
general, it is intended by the speaker to assert that the architect, like
other artists, has access to a higher aesthetic sensibility, 'genius' in
the Romantic sense, denied to lesser mortals. All the privileges which
western society grants to the artist (and these are many, allowing the
artist to function in a special way in society) are then available for
claim by the architect. One of the most important of these is aesthetic
autonomy, the right to have no-one judge one's work save oneself.
Judgements by other persons (eg. clients) can then be dismissed as
irrelevant.
I certainly would not assert that architecture SHOULD strive for autonomy.
I do assert that it DOES so, just as all fields of art do--- and other
fields for that matter, eg the sciences, education, religion. This simply
means that the field, by the nature of the social processes operating
within it, strives to be the sole judge of its own work. Three elementary
examples:
* Tom Wolfe attacks Modernism. Ye Gods, a non-architect saying such
terrible things! I understand that the AIA seriously considered converting
to Islam en masse so they could put a Rushdie-esque fatwah on Wolfe.
* Who gives out the awards, which awards are most prestigious, from whom is
praise most sought? Bankers, developers, realtors, street-gang leaders,
slum dwellers, used-car salespeople, politicians? Or architects?
* Deconstructivism. The most sublime example of an attempt to re-assert
autonomy that I can think of. You almost literally need an architecture
degree to work out what on earth the Deconners are on about.
>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.
Yes and no, I would say. The sum of all these individual preferences and
politics are just what make up the social animal that is the field of
architecture. Architecture, like the rest of society, is not an atomised
collection of non-interacting individuals, but the totality of the actions
of these individuals creates an entity which has an existence beyond the
existence of any one person.
>Architecture is not a filed based on faith or beleif, although it might be
>a vehicle that can provide expressions of such ideas.
Here I actually disagree, odd as it may seem, on two grounds:
1) It seems to me that any area involving some sort of value-system
necessarily involved faith and belief, since values are not the sort of
things you can demonstrate to be empirically or logically true. You simply
have them. So when David says, for example:
>
>I cannot accept the notion that function and social responsibility are not
>concerns that are integral to architecture.
>
... this seems to be a value-judgment, pure and simple. As it happens I
agree completely with it, but I accept that it is my (and his) particular
value-system. If I remember aright, the ideas that 'function' and 'social
responsibility' are integral to architecture date back only to Durand and
Ledoux/Boullee respectively, a bare two hundred years ago.
2) I would have thought that architecture is a field extremely close to the
field of religion in that faith and belief are its very lifeblood. I
believe in Mies, I believe in Corb, I believe in Wright. More gurus than an
ashram. (It is interesting to note that architects score quite highly on
psychological tests of religiosity.)
Well, enough of all that.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
In reply to my earlier post, David Lee Smith said:
>
>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."
Slight misunderstanding here, methinks. That architecture is an 'art'
__whatever that might mean__ must be the single most long-lived notion in
the entire history of the field, going back to Vasari at least. Of course,
just what this claim is meant to connote varies from time to time. In
general, it is intended by the speaker to assert that the architect, like
other artists, has access to a higher aesthetic sensibility, 'genius' in
the Romantic sense, denied to lesser mortals. All the privileges which
western society grants to the artist (and these are many, allowing the
artist to function in a special way in society) are then available for
claim by the architect. One of the most important of these is aesthetic
autonomy, the right to have no-one judge one's work save oneself.
Judgements by other persons (eg. clients) can then be dismissed as
irrelevant.
I certainly would not assert that architecture SHOULD strive for autonomy.
I do assert that it DOES so, just as all fields of art do--- and other
fields for that matter, eg the sciences, education, religion. This simply
means that the field, by the nature of the social processes operating
within it, strives to be the sole judge of its own work. Three elementary
examples:
* Tom Wolfe attacks Modernism. Ye Gods, a non-architect saying such
terrible things! I understand that the AIA seriously considered converting
to Islam en masse so they could put a Rushdie-esque fatwah on Wolfe.
* Who gives out the awards, which awards are most prestigious, from whom is
praise most sought? Bankers, developers, realtors, street-gang leaders,
slum dwellers, used-car salespeople, politicians? Or architects?
* Deconstructivism. The most sublime example of an attempt to re-assert
autonomy that I can think of. You almost literally need an architecture
degree to work out what on earth the Deconners are on about.
>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.
Yes and no, I would say. The sum of all these individual preferences and
politics are just what make up the social animal that is the field of
architecture. Architecture, like the rest of society, is not an atomised
collection of non-interacting individuals, but the totality of the actions
of these individuals creates an entity which has an existence beyond the
existence of any one person.
>Architecture is not a filed based on faith or beleif, although it might be
>a vehicle that can provide expressions of such ideas.
Here I actually disagree, odd as it may seem, on two grounds:
1) It seems to me that any area involving some sort of value-system
necessarily involved faith and belief, since values are not the sort of
things you can demonstrate to be empirically or logically true. You simply
have them. So when David says, for example:
>
>I cannot accept the notion that function and social responsibility are not
>concerns that are integral to architecture.
>
... this seems to be a value-judgment, pure and simple. As it happens I
agree completely with it, but I accept that it is my (and his) particular
value-system. If I remember aright, the ideas that 'function' and 'social
responsibility' are integral to architecture date back only to Durand and
Ledoux/Boullee respectively, a bare two hundred years ago.
2) I would have thought that architecture is a field extremely close to the
field of religion in that faith and belief are its very lifeblood. I
believe in Mies, I believe in Corb, I believe in Wright. More gurus than an
ashram. (It is interesting to note that architects score quite highly on
psychological tests of religiosity.)
Well, enough of all that.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA