Regarding the readings on power & answering why we build, there were a few reactions in the reflection notes that we can discuss in class:
Cringing
I can’t disagree with a lot of the points made in this reading but they make me cringe. ~Valerie
…as the article continues it took the topic into a sad place. Architecture, which is constantly portrayed as something beautiful and magical, just took a twisted turn into egotistical. …Architecture can be beautiful. It can be complex and hold various meanings, but I don’t like deceitful. ~Steph
I don’t like the part of the reading that talked about architecture being driven by the rich and powerful… ~Mike
This abuse of architecture taints the reason why many of us build. ~Kyle
I cannot help but feel cynical at the idea that architecture is being bastardized from its intended use as social commentary/action. ~Bryan
The Use of Ego
“massive ego of the designer”
…Does living vicariously through the architect’s creation legitimize the client’s power? Or is the architect’s creation only a manifestation of the client’s influence?
…Is our desire to build purely our own legitimization of power? Are public service and humanitarian design only forms of self-deceit used to cloud our egos? ~OwenI think that we become architects because at some level we desire control over what people experience. ~Brad
Software billionaires use this language when they make generous donations to a museum to carve their name into its walls, nothing short of what sociopathic dictator would do. ~Gao
Power With
But how about thinking about the “power with,” which consists of searching for common ground among different interests. Although today it seems like there are many rising starchitects, I believe that architecture, as a collaborative profession, has alot more to do with “power with.” “Power with ” is based on mutual support in conjunction with multiple individual talents. Ultimately, it is this type of take on power that actually transforms the world of architecture. ~Amy
I would have liked to take the conversation a step further. Juxtaposition of dictatorship and socialist commissioned architecture…. Another method to go about it would be to juxtapose government commissioned and privately commissioned architecture. ~syb5420
Selina: There is a chapter in the book on the Scottish parliament building by architect Enric Miralles. It is an interesting comparison, and unsurprisingly, it’s not a lot different from the stories of dictatorship. You should check it out!
Semiotics
…If you’re trying to scare me with your authority, you don’t show up in a clown car, you show up in the huge Cadillac. ~Steph
sometimes architecture is pure function ~Scott
we need to separate the form from it’s intention and I think that’s a crucial idea. He’s not saying we forget the intention, however malicious it may be, but that we don’t hold it against the structure. ~Laura
I don’t think this is the case in the US. It’s not glaringly obvious which political or powerful figure is behind the development of specific buildings. Other than banks and city halls attempting to radiate ideas of democracy, I would argue that most buildings are not overtly politically driven. ~Amanda
The Architect’s Role
This leads me to question if we should have any say in the ethics of reasoning behind architecture requested by leaders. Then again, the client is always right, right? ~Tyler
Cordoba mosque (& cathedral!) photo by Pierre Metivier