The ever swinging pendulum
The dialectic of architectural philosophy has never ceased to be an amusing field of discussions among architectural students, scholars, critics and professionals. Architectural trends tend to oscillate between extreme ideologies, or as put by Kurokawa Kisho, the pendulum never stops swinging.
Firstly, it is my personal belief that the attempt to draw parallel discussions between art and architecture creates unnecessary ideological burden in architecture. Architecture has been struggling between ideologies and philosophies to achieve the same finesse fine art have. While in art, an artist can produce a great masterpiece out of thin air, the same is not true in architecture. If an architect tries to achieve a certain artistic intention in his buildings; practicality, cost, and function will eventually bog him down. At best he will produce a watered down version of the artistic piece he dreamt of.
Artistic aspect aside, the philosophical aspect of architecture is just as bewildering. It is a modern trend to let human mind run rampant in search of existential meaning. Truth is relative, says one. Anything can be truth, says another. It follows that a building celebrated by some, shunned by others. Man no longer knows what he want.
Learning from the winged scientists.
Tradition has always put architecture in the domain of art. Any scientific approach tends to be limited to technical aspects of architecture. However, in the mood of the new age, where all disciplines should merge into a holistic platform from which we can view the world, I believe we can learn from science on a more subtle level.
Take the most amazing field of science, aeronautical engineering. To fly, we have a variety of solutions: balloons, rockets, airplanes, gliders, etc. However, one thing these solutions share in common is accepting gravity. Gravity needs to be accepted as a factor in the design of these machines. Their success depends on overcoming this factor. As a result, the product of aeronautical 'design process' seldom invites criticism, not in the sense of philosophical dialectic architecture suffers.
I believe in architecture too, we need to agree there are certain factors, which are universal and sublime. Only by respecting these factors can architecture rise to the same elegance these aeronautical machines possess. The daunting task then is to agree on the question of what is 'universal', what is 'absolute'. In modern western philosophy, the universal and the absolute had long been dead. Any attempt to restore them to their former glories would invite derision. However, science had been doing well with 'assumed' absolutism. Today scientists admit their inability to provide a holistic view of the world, nevertheless, by considering the 'absolutes' such as the gravity, they had managed to overcome the immediate problems brought on to their desk. Today they do not claim they know the real nature of gravity, yet mankind has been flying for ages.
Architecture can soar just as high too, if we accept the existence of "gravity" in architecture. The question of what is the gravity in architecture, is the next step forward. What can be assumed as absolutes? It is my belief that a discussion in this direction will prove fruitful for the betterment of the word 'architecture'. Accepting these absolutes as basic predetermining factors in architectural design does not automatically mean the death of creativity, of variety, of individuality. Just as in aeronautical field, the products can be as diverse as a rocket and a balloon. But first, architects all over have to agree on the existence of 'the gravity factor' in architecture.
2 sep 99 mfzbj
Back to Zafom's Homepage