the architecture of sense and concept |
| One
consequence of our modern industrialized society
is that we are dematerializing ourselves and the
world we live in. Physical experience is increasingly
discounted and
substituted for mental abstractions and vicarious experience.
At the same time, it cannot be said that we are cultivating
the intellect [rbtfBook] in
any way that is notable either. We seem to be drifting
into some kind of neither-land of disembodied sensationalism. |
| The
tactile, the visceral, the sensuous [rbtfBook] dissolves
into a world of abstract distortions designed to
sell
things
and fill lives made empty by chasing the tail of
consumerism. “He who rides a tiger cannot get
off”
- the consumer economy is such a tiger, selling dreams
with no substance, moving from extreme to greater
extreme, building a false non-sustainable economic
edifice that has no way out. What kind of world is
it when Reality TV is the hottest thing
going? REALITY? |
| This
society, nor few individuals within it, are grounded. |
| Architecture
- authentic architecture - is one means available
for stemming this tide. Unfortunately, today’s “art” architecture has
long been
on
a flight
of abstract games, talking only to itself [rbtfBook] - head-trip is
the crude, but accurate, description. Architecture
is victim of the very circumstance it is most able
to change - a classic positive feedback loop [rbtfBook].
The consequence of this is not just merely esthetic
and
intellectual
in the
dichotomous
sense
that these have concepts have become; when humans
are not “centered” and “grounded” in
themselves and in
a
place they
become disconnected from the basic experience of
life and themselves as beings. They are
more prone to alienation. More prone to
seek false substitutes for stimulation. Media and
consumption, fine in themselves within rational limits,
become an alternative to direct experience. It becomes
easier to do stupid things like killing tens of thousands
of innocent fellow humans, remotely, via agents,
in
the
name of abstractions
- in the quest of one form of unsustainable
economic well being [rbtfBook] -
while watching the process on the evening
news with relative dispassion. Possessing the power
of gods many in our society are actually
living in fear and reacting as if they are in direct and immediate threat of destruction [rbtfBook]. They are threatened but not in the way they fear. We are in the process of destroying ourselves just as we are developing the means to achieve an incredible planetary success. |
The
liberation of the building from the
street was a first, decisive step
in the progressive liberation of
architecture
from almost everything, a liberation
now celebrated with relentless regularity
on the pages of the New York Times.
Once the war of liberation starts,
you never know where it will end.
After the slaying of the street came
the
whole physical context of the city.
After architecture was liberated
from the history and spatial order
of the
city, it was liberated from the technology
of its own production, because (the
reasoning goes) architecture should
not simply memorialize process. The
final casualty is program - that
is, the actual life contained within
the
buildings and the ostensible reason
people spend money to build them.
In the heady, conceptual world of
architectural
self-reference, nothing is more banal
and deliberating than the idea of
utility. The cartesian space the
Le Corbusier
dreamt of and Heidegger mocked is
the matrix within which these liberated,
ever more “conceptual” buildings
float,
like bits of diced fruit in Jell-O.
Daniel Solomon
2003
Global City Blues
p. 90
|
|
|
| There
are three categories of architecture that can be
considered: vernacular [rbtfBook],
environments that people build for themselves; real
estate,
commodity buildings built as a business
and for business; and, intentional architecture,
art buildings - usually individual residences or
large public edifices.
In the main, architects are involved only in the
last
two.
Each
has a legitimate role and architects should be appropriately
involved, in different ways, in all three. All three
categories
are greatly corrupted today - although, there is
exemplary work going on in each - mostly
they are small individual works and a few notable
large
projects. The
best
work is being done in vernacular and intentional
architecture although
the latter tends to get caught up in its own notoriety.
These two, of course, make up even together the smallest
portion of the built environment and, on the scale
of a planetary development [link],
this work is not even background noise in the experience
of the vast majority of humans. |
| I
do not argue here for the elimination of all the
new opportunities which have become
a part of our capability and lives - these also are
a
form of
experience
- and
potentially
valuable. I argue that we have not learned how
to live with these new technologies and consequent
social alternatives - we are, so far, coming out on the wrong
side of a Faustian bargain we never deliberately
made. I do not argue to go back to some over romanticized
vision of a past that never really existed. What
I am saying is that we can have it all - and we must
- if we are to maintain our nature even as we explore
and possibly push the outer dimensions of that nature
[rbtfBook] . |
| For
500 years, in the western tradition, we have
been living with the soul-body dichotomy. This has
pitched spirit against matter, intellect against
emotion, mind against body, integrity against success,
reason
against intuition, whole (unity) against part (fragmentation). |
| Even
the
structure of our language makes it difficult to
talk about these concepts in an integrated way. There
exists, for most people, a root assumption
of dichotomy. When I started in architecture these
issues where
hotly debated [link] -
no longer. They seem not even to be an issue
today; the debate has faded away
into a default position of “this is the way
it is.” This is the ultimate consequence
and ruin of an anti-philosophical society. |
| Resolving
this dichotomy has been one of my primary life-goals
since I became aware of it in the 8th grade
[link].
What is interesting about this subject is that it
is not simply an issue of logic - it is an assumption.
Given the assumption one chooses, the logic that
follows
can be impeccable and the same data will lead
to opposite conclusions. It is also an extremely
emotional
issue - or was. Back when this was something
that people argued over, the discussion could
get
quite heated
very quickly. Taking the position of integration
could provoke a rain of angry responses as if
people were presented with a life-threatening
proposition. As I have noted, today this is a
dead issue and is treated with indifference
- for most, it has been long decided - if only
by default. I believe this is why so much of life
in our present economy
seems mechanical - a sorcerer’s-apprentice
like-machine: work to make money to buy more
than you have
earned so that it is necessary to work harder
to make more money
in
order
to buy... more.
It is interesting to note that, after 9-11, the
U.S. government promoted the patriotic duty of consuming.
While at the World Economic Forum the following
January (held in New
York to support New York), the last word from
the old and new mayors of
NYC and the NY governor were “go out and
spend!” A message reinforced several times
by president Bush Everyone of us there - arguably a cross section of the most affluent people in the world - were given credit cards (!) with a prepaid amount so that we would leave our police-barricaded building to go shopping. Remarkable. It is interesting to note that fours years later, with the Katrina disaster [link: an unnatural disaster], it was impossible for the government to issue credit cards for people who desperately needed help. Guess they belonged to the wrong club and that somehow fouled up the technology. The fear that terrorism could harm
our economy was a major concern. Consumption
is becoming a new civic duty. What is the American
way of life ?
“Its the economy
stupid” has become the mantra of every
recent US presidential election [link].
In the wealthiest society in known history, a
vast population is in fear of losing their job
with
many doing work they find little value in other
than a source of livelihood - well, it is better
called revenue, not livelihood [link: the natural workplace - democratic]. All this is in
response to a set of abstractions with
little
connection
to the facts of living and work. Who sold this
bill of goods and how did they sell it? Apparently not difficult
once the basic premise of working for a living is granted. A fear-based
society is easier to rule than on based on self sufficiency and free-order. |
| Wealth
is nice to have. It certainly is not worth losing
sleep over, or distorting national fiscal policy
over, or killing over - not that anyone ever would.
Wealth
is a consequence of right action - not a cause nor
even
a legitimate goal. Sustainable and honestly achieved
prosperity is what happens when you do it right in
a social-economic system
based
on
free
exchange and proper values [link].
Sustainable wealth, of course, is based on ecological
and economic principles.
The
prevalent economy-ecology split is an example
of what I am talking about. One of the most absurd
statements in all of human history is, when referring
to protecting the environment, “we cannot afford
it.” What we are really saying, when we say this,
is that we are choosing to eat our capital today
and
are willing to pass on the consequences to a future generation of
players. What would the government, banks, business
leaders say if you declared that you were going
to conduct your personal financial affairs in this way?
Try it. We are conducting our social business in a way that would never be condoned, in terms of how they deal with their own assets, if done by a business or an individual. The system would let them fail - unless, they were extremely well connected and not, of course, unless crony capitalism really does exist. |
| What
does this, one of thousands of possible examples, have
to do with the thesis of this article? It is a matter
of focus and substitution. It is about what you are not doing
when you follow an abstraction rather than experiencing
the reality of life itself. |
| When
I talk about architecture as being fact-based I
am referring to it’s integration of
idea and physicality. The architecture is real.
It requires a considerable investment of time, energy,
materials, money and social organization. In fact,
there can be
no dichotomy between the idea of a work
and what it
physically is.
There can be no compromise in architecture, what
it is is an accurate reflection of the values
of those who build it and use it. If they “compromise”
this is merely the measure of what they,
in reality, stand for. As with any complex
enterprise, the pressure to “compromise” in
the process of creating architecture is great. In
any work there
are always
legitimate trade offs.
Compromise, in this context, is to knowingly “trade-down”
for reasons of expediency, laziness or lack of imagination.
The antidote for this is invention. Integrity
is to “trade-up” in every circumstance;
to discover a
solution that resolves the many competing aspects
of a design challenge; to carry through with inventiveness
and discipline. This, by the way, is a completely
different experience of work than most have. |
| Work
is an end in itself. It does, in an economic context,
often - not always - produce personal and social rewards as a consequence. The experience of
work is the important issue. This is something that
a person can only give to themselves. Work cannot
be separated from the other aspects of living as
is the tendency in our present social order [link: new business paradigm]. In
recent years, the goal has been to take the work out of
work. To make is less physical, less demanding and
more abstract; to break it down into rational
components
and to
lengthen the distance and time between cause and
effect; to
separate design, production and use. In this regime,
producers are subject to arbitrary control (by the
“system” or the gang that has co-opted
control at any given time) over the factors that
effect their
ability to produce. This tendency has nearly killed craft. This
is not
satisfying
nor in
the end,
when
all the
resultant costs are added up, is it productive. Lacking
fulfillment, people find substitutes. If you want
to know who “benefits,” as the old adage
says, “follow
the money” [link]. We are becoming a society
of pampered up-scale wage slaves - at least some are; the rest are just wage slaves if they are that lucky. Just because it
is
is a BMW
instead of a donkey, in the barn, does not materially
change the spiritual equation [link]. Most people are a commodity: bought and sold as such. The “freedom,” in the work-revenue equation, is mostly in how you spend it - there is far less, for most, in how it is earned. Of course, the exception is the true knowledge and design economy - to the extent that it exists. Even here, after the innovation cycle, the new opportunity usually gets co-opted. The quality of experience becomes lost once again in a wave of exploitation. |
| It
is certainly goodness to live well in the material
sense; and, there is no justification for making
work hard
or demanding just to make it so in some kind of calvinistic
process of self-punishment. There is certainly nothing
wrong with knowledge-intensive work - nor
abstractions per se. A mental experience is an experience
as much as the physical thing is. The spiritual is embedded
in the physical. The physical does symbolize and
come from idea. So, what is the core of the issue?
It is when the two
are arbitrarily separated. When they are played one against the
other. When awareness is lost. When distortion rules.
When the capacity for one or both is lost. It is
when action becomes wanton and without meaning - or
only a stylized abstraction without materiality.
The measure
is human health and genuine happiness. Neither can
be faked for long despite the attempt of advertisers
to turn them into a commodity. It is interesting,
is it not, that we can all go to a movie and not
get confused if the characters are happy or sad,
on track or lost, efficacious or fools, of good character
or fake. All we have is our judgment of these
things based on some flickering images and sound.
We hear the words and watch the faces and body language
and get it fairly accurate. We know if someone
is healthy and fit our a couch potato. We may agree
or disagree with the creator’s philosophy.
We may like
the show
- or not. We are rarely confused. Why is then we
cannot walk down a street, ride an elevator, go to
our workplace and see the confusion, loss
and pain that is rampant [link]. Are we really fooled
by the superficial cheerfulness and social “norms” required
to be a member-in-good-standing by whatever club
is dominate in a time and a place? Why is it [link: why is it] that
many of the films clearly show what I am writing
about and we symphonize with those working to preserve
integrity, ideals, balance, sanity [link: the flaw in the american myth]. At least this
was the dominate case until the reality show. Now, it seems that despicable
behavior is in and all reasonable decorum is abandoned.
Now, we discuss things that before were deemed highly
personal. Candor and disclosure are good but is this
what this is? Or, our we indulging in voyeurism? Is
the issue here authenticity [link: authentic architecture]? |
|
|
| GoTo: INDEX - Matt Taylor Papers |
|
|
|
|
|
| Goto:
Noise - the Hidden Polution |
|
|
|
Matt
Taylor
Elsewhere
November 20, 2003
|
SolutionBox
voice of this document:
VISION • STRATEGY • DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
|
posted
November 20, 2003
revised
April 5, 2005
• 20031120.308749.mt • 20031128.999910.mt •
• 20040621.222200.mt • 20050404.333300.mt •
• 20051003.568701.mt •
note:
this document is about 60% finished
me@matttaylor.com
Copyright© Matt
Taylor 2003, 2004, 2005
|
|
|
