emails

hi Art,

ive decided i am quite interested in posing something to the extent of 'why is architecture becoming obsolete?' this sort of question would then not only require a definition of term 'architecture' as well as allow for instant debatability - at least i should think. i could see this being too vague still, but since im interested in thinking about thesis from a global to personal scale, maybe a series of of questions with intensifying specificity is what i need. ill plan to have the others for tomorrow

ive been reading a lot of sanford kwinter, some merleau-ponty, manuel castells, mark taylor, etc.
i found this to be one of many profound kwinter statements: 'Speculative or inventive urbanisms, it seems, are simply not meant to be as volatile, inspired, and complex - and certainly never as dangerous - as those expressions of the unleashed and unpatrollable forces of modern urban reality whose inherent immoderateness is naturally and inexorably both of continual and promiscuous inmixing' [far from equilibrium] i find this ripe for an attempt at the radical.

for me, this is why architecture is becoming obsolete. architecture is too passive, too submissive to the requests of the consumer, of the client, of the current trends and lifestyle. architecture is no longer influential. its no longer ahead of its time or even the definition of its time - its become about making ends meet and about improvement from the non-sustainable problems created in the past 100 years or so by the profession.

obviously im not interested in simply designing a station. and i dont think its enough to have this idea about transitory space without coupling that with other ideas. i do find the idea of experimenting with the transitional provocative in that it is rather ambiguous in its potential, and something im interested in exploring in an expressive way. i was thinking it would be interesting to think of the transitional space as a typology within itself - exploring transitory elements in a spectrum of scale and function. but this is not so radical... yet.

to me, a radical proposal is one that not only questions the normative, but goes on to suggest something entirely uncomfortable, repulsive even - in the sense that it is absurd and yet without lacking logic behind it. this is different to an innovative idea i think because innovation is often inherent in the integration or evolution of thoughts - and often entirely logical in its approach, but still has a degree of newness. i appreciate innovation, but my interests lie more in the radical. this calls to mind the essay by peter eisenman the end of the classical, the end of the beginning, the end of the end, where he claims that modernism is actually classical etc. in fine art and in music, we define new from old stylistically - im sure it is the same in architecture, however im less interested in creation of style. and - as im sure the fine arts would  agree - the projects that begin to question current trends are the ones worth remembering. i think it comes down to interpretation and translation.

the other thing is too, my thesis cannot be presented as though it is radical - it must just be - as much as possible anyway.

a few motives:
-in response to the commercialization of architecture - i find that proposals become submissive in reaction to anticipated desires of the consumer which i believe are to a greater degree unknown than what is usually projected in architecture.
-in response to assigning specific programs. i understand that architecture proposals are nothing more than paper suggestions - and in realized work, original program rarely remains throughout a buildings lifetime.
-in response to issues of scale - i find that the most provocative work [the work of robert smithson comes to mind] has the ability to think expansively - so that the single project impacts or responds to issues at a global scale as well as the most local micro scale
-in response to architecture thesis assignment at cmu - architecture is not only a building, and does not require program [i.e. the removal of materials, to me, is as much architecture as the additive process of construction] also, if architecture is about articulation of spatial experience, then i dont find it necessary for it to be an enclosure or something which is necessarily inhabitable either [i think architecture can be a device]. also, i would think architects should have to become more creative without the expensive output of buildings in the bind of current economics.
-in response to process - im not sure what i mean by this yet, but i have a problem with many ways architects go about design - ill have to discuss this more
-also, im interested in integration of infrastructure - more than the simple idea of using the bridge to structure the station, but also - what happens to highway networks after the high speed rail is implemented? i just think infrastructure offers much more opportunity than it provides by simply functioning.

well, so i plan to have some images by late this afternoon - if so, id like to talk to you then if theres some time left after all the wednesday people.

im looking forward to friday. if its a debate, then i think its important to focus on narrative of the description of the thesis. i know i struggle with this, so itd be good practice. im thinking of a lecture i once went to where the lecturer described an entire city - culturally, temporally, economically, politically in terms of analyzing a single crack on the facade of a building in that city. he called it forensic architecture.

kaitlin


hi,

in response to the review, ive come to a few conclusions. although i honestly find a station to be extremely relevant and a quite interesting yet typical program, i find that its not the best to support the discussion of obsolescence. so ive been thinking what would be more fitting is actually a monument. a monument to the inevitable extinction of architecture as we know it. when i speak about architecture becoming obsolete - i dont mean its history or the existing urban fabric or the functionality of architecture. im wouldnt say i am pessimistic, but i dont think it can be saved and im not interested in idealizing architecture, nor would i begin to make any sort of argument for some sort of heroic proposal. i guess im still working on articulating what i mean by the question - maintaining its potency is important.

what i do find interesting is the idea of designing a monument to architecture, or Architecture, rather. i find what becomes important then is defining terms in the field that im interested in responding to, for clarity but also as part of the process. what becomes interesting in terms of designing an inhabitable monument is its contextual relationship to site [im interested in the same pittsburgh site as before], but also issues of authorship, of aesthetics, of utility of nothingness, of identity, of contradiction... also responding to ideas of the consumer, commercialization, mundanity, spaces of allowance, ...

furthermore, i guess a way to put the idea of architecture becoming obsolete into context would be to understand all objects and subjects that have become and are becoming obsolete as well. also, Art seems skeptical about choosing a site with bridge/infrastructure. i think its important to have a site that includes land, water and overhead infrastructure. im imaging the scale of the monument to be, well, monumental - so i dont think the bridge would take away from it, actually my gut feeling is quite the opposite.

for now ive been reading about monuments in art - mostly about artists robert smithson and morris, and judd, etc. i suppose it will be important to define monumentality

so we have a second review next week - mine is friday the 25th 4pm MM403 if youd be interesting/able to come. i should have a first stab at the schematic design by then. and since its a building - there shouldnt be any issue with the occupancy studio credit thing.

i would really appreciate hearing your thoughts in the mean-time. i dont really know much about precedent for monuments.

thanks,
kaitlin


in response:

i do think architecture is becoming obsolete. however, i don't think it should be obsolete. i think it is, in fact, necessary.

Architecture, to me, is the intellectual practice recognizing potentiality in a context/situation/history/projection and develop a response in terms of rational, spatialization, speculation, innovation, and expression to be manifested, physically. there are probably better definitions i could use instead.

i find the use of 'becoming' to be important to suggest that architecture is not yet obsolete. the difference between endangered species and extinction is rather extreme

Buildings wont ever be obsolete. but i don't think that building and architecture are the same thing. perhaps architecture can result in building, but building is not necessarily architecture....? but the necessity of building cannot be impacted by the digitization of society, or infrastructure - we need to inhabit built objects i think.

Furthermore, architecture that exists cannot really become obsolete - in my mind. even with loss of use - these icons of history and of identity of place, could not possibly be obsolete. Greek ruins have more meaning as architecture than a high rise. the pantheon will forever be architecture, and is not obsolete.

What is becoming obsolete however, at least in my mind, is the idea that design is necessary. the architectural response to current social and economic situation. commodity and economics are a strong influence - I'm not sure the general public appreciates the intellect behind a project [or the architecture of it] enough to find it necessary. it seems like architects are in business in order to impress other architects

i don't really know, but i suspect there is a growing gap between architecture and buildings, at least in terms of today's economy and social values and priorities. for me, its more of a concern with the relationship with societal values than the use of digital methods - that may play a part, but i don't find digitization to be very interesting i guess - its just technological advancement, bound to happen and enforce other change

The other day in ethics, Omer said that architects are evaluated in terms of three things by the public: cost, schedule, and quality. in that order too, if i remember correctly. that is either the least inspiring or most inspirational statement about the architecture practice I've heard yet [least in terms of passion for the subject, most in terms of desire for change].  i don't think architecture is simply about improving living conditions, especially not only in terms of cost, schedule and quality - its more complex than that isn't it? but the general public view is the majority, and so is that what architecture is, or is it what we think it is?

And honestly, i think what the general public values as highest priorities are money and sex. I'm not sure where architecture would fall in the list. but, i mean, the entertainment industry has no threat of obsolescence any time soon.

i also think the fact that less than 7% of realized buildings are actually designed by architects argues for architecture becoming obsolete. i also have been archiving quotes from sources that i think get at the core of the argument, much more articulate than i can.

Then i suppose the question of obsolescence, for me, is in reaction to scarcity of built projects designed by architects, to 'bad' architecture [how do we objectively categorize bad from good anyway - can success be measured by some sort of aesthetic-to-utility ratio?], to architecture as commodity - the control of the consumer [clients are in fact how things get built, or are never realized...?] and therefore to commercialization [I'm rather interested in, for example, the difference between the intellect behind design of a laundry detergent label versus a classy perfume label - both of which are hyper-rational and produce a perception in the eye of the consumer - what does this mean in architecture, does this - can i call it a paradox(?) - even exist in architecture?] this probably makes no sense.

In regards to satire - i agree. the thesis becomes more and more about its own narrative
and then still results in a serious assemblage of construction document/drawings.... i think

kaitlin



for clarification

the design is not determined to in any way prove the death of architecture, but respond to this statement. i am not interested in a thesis that is simply an argument, but rather a dialogue within the project. the building design becomes an embodied response.

to me, the statement that architecture is obsolete is only strong in that its abrupt, debatable - nothing more. it is essentially a one-liner, in which case the entire thesis cannot be about supporting the simple statement. what is interesting, however, is what it means to make architecture in an environment that has no desire for it, Furthermore, the statement is in fact a question, that i intend to answer. the proof will be in the argument, the answer should be embodied in the design.

im not interested in saving architecture, or proving its a dead discipline, or memorializing the romantic historical perspective of Architecture. however, i am interested in potentiality - people always talk about what was and what is, but what is most intriguing is what could be. this is the very reason im in architecture - im a dreamer...

however, in order for architecture to reach its potential, or even grasp for it, desire for its existence is required.

resultant

as i am not interested in an idealization of the discipline, i am interested in an exploration of potential.

i am not interested in proving architecture is a dead. in fact, i dont think that is the point of what i am speaking about. the parthenon is not obsolete. the work of herzog and de meuron is not dead. building is not dead. however, i believe that desire for the discipline of architecture is becoming obsolete. i still think the word becoming is important. hand-written letters sent via post are becoming obsolete.  the idea of marriage is becoming obsolete. whereas, the sound of a telephone ring literally ringing, or the sound of static is obsolete,dead. typewriters are obsolete, extinct. its the difference between endangerment and extinction, not at all a subtle difference.

i am interested in definition of architecture in terms of perception. there is a greater understanding of what the makeup of architecture is. i would like to question all of them. for example, i am interested in questioning the meanings of enclosure, structure, permanence, function, form - not through a narrative but through the medium of building. this is the intention of the design. it is not a monument, nor is it a memorial. it is not a critique. it is not proof.

it is a representation of an idea. an idea for the manifested exploration of meaning - questiong the accepted definitions, the popular definitions - not to the extent of returning to an origin, but more importantly to explore potential.

kaitlin