The problem goes beyond the schools, however. The big name architects of our age constantly churn out "special" buildings, each supposedly a masterwork revealing wonderful truths about this or that facet of human life.

Why is this a problem? Haven't I defended this trend towards "aesthetic" design in previous essays? How is it possible to make both of these statements, that 1)aesthetic design is useful by stimulating thought, and that 2)there is too much aesthetic design being executed? it is my position that not only is it possible to both attack and defend the architecture of the spectacle, but that it is required.

The philosophy of Taoism (I believe) developed the yin-yang diagram, and it applies to architecture very well. In order to value or comprehend one side of that diagram, you must also recognize the other; the two are constantly in a state of flux, first one being dominant and then the other. In one sense architecture is like this in that it can be both funciotnal and aesthetic, but on a larger scale the principle applies as well. When one looks at slides of Prague, of Rome, or many other Old World cities, it is amazing how similar the buildings are; the context of the city is almost palpable. Contrast that environment to the Strip in Las Vegas, where context has been traded in for a constant one-upmanship. these are the two extremes which are, I believe, needed for a city to operate: the context and the objects in that context.

On one hand, if everything is identical, the context is overwhelming, and the sense of place is lost. The citizen is trapped in a non-differential environment, with no point of reference or no discernable pattern beyond the blindingly obvious. On the other hand, in a place like the Strip, the context is so far obliterated that the citizen is assaulted not with mundanity, but with cacophony. So much is happening, with no break or background against which to discern it, that again the sense of place is lost; no space is most important because there are so many competing hierarchies and spectacles that they become impossible to differentiate.

As architects, we need to be aware of the need for both context and object; figure and ground. We do our environment a disservice by treating every problem as an object, allowing the context to be eroded in the process. Some programs almost require that they be developed into a contextual building, in order to allow other buildings to become more prominent. If we as a profession can adopt this principle of building both context and objects, our cities can only benefit.

Back to Architecture

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page