Innovation is harder to come by than we may want to admit.
Design innovation encompasses far more than architecture.
Perhaps "creative" architecture only summarizes the actual
creatvity stolen from other fields too seldom given credit.
Not since graduation have I worked on an "architectural"
project that did not involve a host of people, skills,
disciplines, interests and commitments. Working with all these
has shown architecture to be a compilation of others' efforts
rather than as a solitary creative activity.
As an example, one of the many things I admire about a firm
like Pei's and his successors, is the ability to experiment
with many types of building components within an overall
design. Novel cast-in-place concrete, or large-scale use of
new glazing methodologies, say, are two systems those firms
explored magnificently in several projects, including some that
demonstrated how to creatively fail -- and how to pay the
publicity, legal and economic price for such failure. Pei is a
genius at convincing, or attracting, clients willing to pay for
the risks of innovation.
In contrast, SOM did almost no comparable multiple innovation,
but pumped out buildings like aircraft carriers, bloated and
expensive with minimal creative accomlishment.
And, underneath the architectural accoutrements there are the
amazing innovations of structure, like that of Leslie
Robertson, which allowed buildings to be what they never were
before, even if the form, surface and interior were as banal as
ever.
Even so, someone in these projects, only sometimes an
architect, acted as the arbiter of contributions of all
parties. This coordination itself, or unusual financing, or
zoning code novelty, or envrionmental engineering, or
choreography of materials delivery, may have been the most
innovative part of the work. I now have healthy respect for
all kinds of design, well beyond aesthetic design, that may be
innovative in making a humane, healthy and beautiful
environment.
David Sucher mentioned some days ago that even famous
architects lift ideas from others. I think all architects lift
ideas and rob (ta da) the experiences of others, and rightly so
for that is the art of architecture, its practice and the grand
tradition. It seems to me that genuine innovation is in fact
more unrecognized than honored in architecture because the true
innovators are not often the named architects. They just
expect to get the credit for having the good business sense,
and lack of scruple, to grab good work done by others and
artsi-craftily re-wrap it a brand name.
But, hey, isn't that what made imperialism and its corporate
rip-off great? Sorry, but it's been a long time since anything
innovative happened in architecture that was not lifted from
someone else or from some other field. We are pretty good at
talking the talk though.
Are any of other designers on this list willing to contribute
to this topic?
John
Design innovation encompasses far more than architecture.
Perhaps "creative" architecture only summarizes the actual
creatvity stolen from other fields too seldom given credit.
Not since graduation have I worked on an "architectural"
project that did not involve a host of people, skills,
disciplines, interests and commitments. Working with all these
has shown architecture to be a compilation of others' efforts
rather than as a solitary creative activity.
As an example, one of the many things I admire about a firm
like Pei's and his successors, is the ability to experiment
with many types of building components within an overall
design. Novel cast-in-place concrete, or large-scale use of
new glazing methodologies, say, are two systems those firms
explored magnificently in several projects, including some that
demonstrated how to creatively fail -- and how to pay the
publicity, legal and economic price for such failure. Pei is a
genius at convincing, or attracting, clients willing to pay for
the risks of innovation.
In contrast, SOM did almost no comparable multiple innovation,
but pumped out buildings like aircraft carriers, bloated and
expensive with minimal creative accomlishment.
And, underneath the architectural accoutrements there are the
amazing innovations of structure, like that of Leslie
Robertson, which allowed buildings to be what they never were
before, even if the form, surface and interior were as banal as
ever.
Even so, someone in these projects, only sometimes an
architect, acted as the arbiter of contributions of all
parties. This coordination itself, or unusual financing, or
zoning code novelty, or envrionmental engineering, or
choreography of materials delivery, may have been the most
innovative part of the work. I now have healthy respect for
all kinds of design, well beyond aesthetic design, that may be
innovative in making a humane, healthy and beautiful
environment.
David Sucher mentioned some days ago that even famous
architects lift ideas from others. I think all architects lift
ideas and rob (ta da) the experiences of others, and rightly so
for that is the art of architecture, its practice and the grand
tradition. It seems to me that genuine innovation is in fact
more unrecognized than honored in architecture because the true
innovators are not often the named architects. They just
expect to get the credit for having the good business sense,
and lack of scruple, to grab good work done by others and
artsi-craftily re-wrap it a brand name.
But, hey, isn't that what made imperialism and its corporate
rip-off great? Sorry, but it's been a long time since anything
innovative happened in architecture that was not lifted from
someone else or from some other field. We are pretty good at
talking the talk though.
Are any of other designers on this list willing to contribute
to this topic?
John