Last week I was reeling from hearing a contractor repeatedly referring to Architecture projects as ‘products’ (can you please stop talking about Architecture as a manufacturing industry? thankyou) and from seeing this noble profession hijacked by what one student referred to as ‘technicians‘.
Vitruvius, Le Corbu, are your tired bones spinning in your graves? They will soon design a software that, given site parameters and local codes will design the building by itself (look ma, no architect!). If they are not about to launch it already. As my friend Andrew Duncan said, we are looking at a software company deciding the future of architecture projects in this country, in form of who owns the -increasingly more sophisticated- computer models/simulations of buildings. And thus the nail in the coffin, the relevance of our profession is eroded, while we just sit and watch, and clap at the latest computer wizardry. What is it called when people clap at their impending demise?
I am so tired of seeing the creativity of our young architects being sapped by the grueling process it takes to be a ‘licensed architect’ here in U.S. And yes, it is just here and Canada, because everywhere else in the world you are an architect after having proven worthy of an architecture degree and after a standard, brief, state exam. So we/you are all architects in my eyes.
So as I was saying, I was a bit demoralized. But then, during our Le Corbusier’s seminars, my students put these quotes up (underlining is mine):
I repeat: a work of art must have its own special character.
Clear statement, the giving of a living unity to the work, the giving it a fundamental attitude and a character: all this is a pure creation of the mind.
This is everywhere allowed in the case of painting and music; but archtiecture is lowered to the level of its utilitarian purposes: boudoirs, W.C’s, radiators, ferro-concrete, vaults or pointed arches, etc., etc.
This is construction, this is not architecture.
Architecture only exists when there is a poetic emotion.
…
Art is poetry: the emotion of the senses, the joy of the mind as it measures and appreciates, the recognition of an axial principle which touches the depth of our being. Art is this pure creation of the spirit which shows us, at certain heights, the summit of the creation to which man is capable of attaining.
And man is conscious of great happiness when he feels that he is creating.
Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture. English Ed. 1931
Is it a coincidence that Le Corbusier uses the term Art and Architecture interchangeably?
Construction is for an architect what grammar is for a thinker; the architect should not vegetate there, Le Corb reminds us.
The desired effect is not a mass of grammatical rules, but prose, or even better, poetry, which not only uses grammar, but trascends it.
Now look around you and tell me how many pedestrian masses of periods and exclamation points surround you, and where does poetry happen (does it at all)?
In class we talked about art being the product of the heart, and architecture the product of the mind. I knew then these young men and women believe in Architecture, with the capital ‘A’ – not to be confused with building- and everything that it stands for, everything that our ‘architectural heroes’ tell us through the echoes of time, and whispher with their art, their sketches and drawings, their buildings, their irreverent portraits (just as Keating’s poets in Dead Poets Society).
More importantly, these students believe in themselves. Everything then went right in my world.
So many of the artistic professions are eroding, but the human spirit will never let them die and people like you will not let them.
Enjoyed reading this post, and am a lover of architecture. Very complete blog, thanks for your work.
LikeLike
This is one of the nicest compliments….thankyou…we must rage against the dying of the light.
LikeLike
[…] Thus spake Le Corbusier : The Death of Architecture « […]
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts you have here. But I think you vastly overstate the ability of computers to do the work of architects. Too many people think I just have to push one button and, viola, their changes are done. I don’t think we (architects) are going away anytime soon. Though a hell of a lot of us are losing are jobs in this recession! Two more people in my firm got axed today for lack of work.
Yes we need art in architecture. But we must have commodity, fitness AND delight; not just delight. The 3 must be achieved in balance. And I fully grant you that way too many buildings are not even good enough to be called mediocre in the delight realm.
On the other side of the equation (if I can call it that), way too many designers (or design architects) have little or no idea or concern for how a building is constructed. A simple building, well built, with efficient use of land and materials, is far better than a concoction of corners, curves and a cacaphony of materials. The KISS rule needs much more application in this regard, IMHO.
LikeLike
Dear Joe-
thank you for the thoughtful response, and the apt reference to Vitruvius. I agree with you, but the fact is, architects (and design) are being taken out of the equation in some cases, when 3D models and buildings are called ‘products’, or when we become technician, and not part of a noble profession. What I see in practice worries me, because although pragmatic I don’t ever think architecture is merely a means to an end. I am so sorry about your colleague. It is a time of trial for us all. Thank you so much for reading.
LikeLike
What confuses me about Corbusier, architecture and the profession is that Corbusier hated architects and the idea of a profession, because the more of a profession it becomes the more technical it becomes. Architectural technicians have more in conmen with Corbusier, F L Right and Mackintosh and the modernist movement than professional architects.
Professionals are qualified technicians where Architectural technicians are not qualified.
Architecture in the uk is one of the most academic qualifications you can do this is because of the old adage those who can’t teach and have taken over the asylum.
It as if in music you had to go to university before you are allowed to play music, those who can’t get jobs end up teaching music as a academic subject not realizing to make great music you have to learn to hear music. They then teach music as an academic subject failing all the people who are creative and more interested in hearing and playing music.
Computers don’t understand people, people understand people.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for this comment. You bring up many interesting points for discussion and I pondered long and hard on how to respond. These are points I often discuss with my students. A writer is like a composer: we must utilize words instead of notes, and carefully. I am weighing my words more and more these days to ensure they reflect my intent and thoughts. Here is what I think:
1. You are right in saying that Le Corbusier and FLW were not traditionally trained architects and would scold on the progressive regimentation and control exercised on the profession of architecture. With arid standard applied to any creative profession (and I believe architecture is a creative profession), the soul is lost. Continued education drills (and even licensing exams here in the USA) have nothing to do with becoming a better architect, but merely meet technical criteria set by some board or other. Of course this is a very subjective opinion, and has to do with my interpretation of what is needed to create better architecture and what are the ingredients necessary for the formation of future architects. My opinion, due to my artistic/classical inclinations and my Italian upbringing differs vastly to the licensing criteria set by the National Council of Architectural Registering Boards here in US.
We may have a different understanding of the word ‘Technician’. By Technicians I do not mean to address those who practice architecture with passion but without a title (license). I call Technicians the CAD draftsmen and draftswomen employed in corporate production farms not to think critically, or design, or add any asthetic value or meaning to an architecture project, but to produce construction documents as quickly as possible. These we also call ‘CAD monkeys’. Said ‘CAD monkeys’ are only to blame if they think what they are producing is architecture. Most are victims of circumstances, and actually have original thoughts and even impressive portfolios which unfortunately are not relevant to their everyday job. I am not going to apologize if I hold the opinion that architecture needs to be poetic and elevate or titillate the spirit. Do I sound elitist? Maybe. Do I have a very strict standard of what I consider Architecture? Yes.
By Technicians I also mean those project managers and IT czars who have reduced architecture to CAD standards manuals and who refer to buildings as ‘products’. Basically, Technicians in my view are all those involved in the diminuition of the noble profession of architecture.
2. You refer to very dangerous words: Those who can’t, teach.
I hope to not sound defensive and I warn you against generalizations. Do you believe that architecture education is a case of ‘the inept leading the inexperienced’? Sometimes we happen on mediocre teaching, but I hope you have encountered inspiring, passionate educators in your career who teach by choice, not as a last resort.
You use this adage as in, those who can’t find a job, teach — and I disagree with this opinion. Why? The jobs in academia are far less than the jobs in private companies, and not all those who can’t find jobs end up teaching. Again, there are those for whom teaching is a calling, and I hope you have crossed path with one or two of these outstanding individuals. Their reason of being is to inspire and they are equally devoted to the subject they teach and their pupil, and they encourage and reward the creativity you speak of, gently steering you towards fulfilling your potential and academic goal.
3. On architectural education: is a college education the only way to acquire this education? I used to think so. Now I believe a rigorous training under a practicioner, in a one-on-one setting (mentorship) is equally valid. Unfortunately this old-school situation (master-apprentice) is becoming rarer and rarer these days. I believe this kind of comprehensive training (the teaching of not only construction methods or design, but history of architecture, theory…and questioning, questioning, questioning) is possible today only in established, accredited, schools. Architecture is a life-long learning and a life-long responsibility whose principles cannot be learned by practice alone.
Thank you for the food for thought and for helping me to crystallize the beginning of a ‘personal manifesto’.
LikeLike