David Sucher wrote:
>Garry will speak for himself, no doubt, but I don't think he was speaking
>of the 'irrelevance of it all' as if life and architecture is all some
>sort of light joke but about the dangerousness of people (designers and
>critics especially) who use big, fancy, pretentious words to discuss
>concepts and objects that indeed, upon contemplation, turn out to be
>miniscule and shallow.
>
>At least that's what I read in the text.
Close enough. Also:
* Unbuilt architecture has little to with buildings, much to do with symbols.
* That so many people can refer to so-and-so's drawings of unbuilt objects
as so-and-so's 'architecture' says quite a lot about the relationship
between the built environment and elite architects.
* Someone once said that when no-one really knows anything, opinions are
held most strongly. I have often been surprised at the vehemence with which
some critics and architects will adhere to certain beliefs about
architecture and their favourite guru, maintaining them as absolute truths,
when to me they seem just (arbitrary) value judgements.
* There are, methinks, deep parallels between architectural belief-systems
and those of religious cults. Offhand: 1) Belief in a personal
vision/genius vouchsafed to a specific individual. 2) Sanctity of this
vision/genius. To question it shows you are either a fool or evil. 3)
Infallibility of the individual to whom this vision has been given. 4)
Absence of empirical support for the belief-system. Indeed, empirical
support is considered irrelevant and vulgar. eg. "Why should form follow
function?" "It just should, that's all." 5) Absence of rational
argumentation in support. 6) Existence of a special class of (sacred)
people who interpret the vision for the (secular) public (priests =
critics, followers).
* Support for this comes from MacKinnon's work some forty years ago:
eminent architects are very religious people. (I should point out that it
is possible to be a devout athiest, and that Mac's psychological tests
measured religiosity, which does not require belief in a personal God or
whatever) I suspect that 'self-righteous' might be a better descriptor.
* The humour thing ties in there somewhere. Compare the lack of humour in
cults to that of mainstream religions. Judaism and Catholicism, eg, have
rich traditions of self-mocking humour. Bet Darvid Koresh never told jokes
against himself.
* No doubt all this is dangerous Marxian subtext, a remnant of the failed
Sucheresque social critique of the sixties. More buildings for exhibitions,
I say, less (fewer?) for people!!
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
>Garry will speak for himself, no doubt, but I don't think he was speaking
>of the 'irrelevance of it all' as if life and architecture is all some
>sort of light joke but about the dangerousness of people (designers and
>critics especially) who use big, fancy, pretentious words to discuss
>concepts and objects that indeed, upon contemplation, turn out to be
>miniscule and shallow.
>
>At least that's what I read in the text.
Close enough. Also:
* Unbuilt architecture has little to with buildings, much to do with symbols.
* That so many people can refer to so-and-so's drawings of unbuilt objects
as so-and-so's 'architecture' says quite a lot about the relationship
between the built environment and elite architects.
* Someone once said that when no-one really knows anything, opinions are
held most strongly. I have often been surprised at the vehemence with which
some critics and architects will adhere to certain beliefs about
architecture and their favourite guru, maintaining them as absolute truths,
when to me they seem just (arbitrary) value judgements.
* There are, methinks, deep parallels between architectural belief-systems
and those of religious cults. Offhand: 1) Belief in a personal
vision/genius vouchsafed to a specific individual. 2) Sanctity of this
vision/genius. To question it shows you are either a fool or evil. 3)
Infallibility of the individual to whom this vision has been given. 4)
Absence of empirical support for the belief-system. Indeed, empirical
support is considered irrelevant and vulgar. eg. "Why should form follow
function?" "It just should, that's all." 5) Absence of rational
argumentation in support. 6) Existence of a special class of (sacred)
people who interpret the vision for the (secular) public (priests =
critics, followers).
* Support for this comes from MacKinnon's work some forty years ago:
eminent architects are very religious people. (I should point out that it
is possible to be a devout athiest, and that Mac's psychological tests
measured religiosity, which does not require belief in a personal God or
whatever) I suspect that 'self-righteous' might be a better descriptor.
* The humour thing ties in there somewhere. Compare the lack of humour in
cults to that of mainstream religions. Judaism and Catholicism, eg, have
rich traditions of self-mocking humour. Bet Darvid Koresh never told jokes
against himself.
* No doubt all this is dangerous Marxian subtext, a remnant of the failed
Sucheresque social critique of the sixties. More buildings for exhibitions,
I say, less (fewer?) for people!!
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA