The quest for autonomy in architecture is a futile search. How can one expect to be completely autonomous when one has had a lifetime of external stimuli of influences exerted on us. Without even being completely conscious of our surroundings, we as humans are incapable to not have the things around us affect our taste, perceptions, opinions, or ideas. This reverts back to the age old debate of nature vs nurture (I'm in favor of a synthesis of the two). We are not born architects. We have to go to school to learn the practice of design. We study precedents, history, and contemporaries alike to develop ideas for our own designs. The only “autonomous” architecture would have to be designed by someone who has never spent time in or around architecture of any kind. Even if you took a someone who has never experienced any type of building, for example, a tribal native, that person has still some conception of what “shelter” means to them. If you asked them to design a building, they may make some kind of simple structure to keep the rain off.
I believe this fruitless quest for autonomy is present in art as well. Originality does not equal autonomy. One can look at history and see that every movement in art is basically a reaction to a previous movement. One artist doesn't like the way things are going, they change their style, create a new trend, and voila—new art movement. Autonomy has to do with a certain sense of isolation. But how much? The only true autonomous being was that first caveman that decided to take pigment to cave-wall and depict his surroundings. Can a person even conceive what art/architecture is if they have never been exposed to it? It would be like trying to explain color to the blind. Although every society has an “artistic impulse” does a human being (as an individual) have a primal need to create? I agree in some sense, but it is with external influences that this is harnessed. Maybe one day a computer program can be created where all we have to do is tell it a program and it generates a building that meets all requirements regardless of outside influences. Even then, complete autonomy may not be achieved in this sense, depending upon the way the program is written. We are a social creature. Architecture is a social thing (it takes many people to create a building). All people are results of their culture, time, and place. So complete autonomy can never be achieved, oh well... But what degree of autonomy is important? To some architects, not at all—others, it may be what they strive for in their practice every day. Becoming autonomous in some ways is to recreate not only the formal design, but reinvent the methodologies that govern how a design is generated. We analyzed a number of architects in class that were considered “autonomous.” Boulee, LeDoux, Schinkel, Loos, Kaufmann, Johnson, etc.. I found it very interesting that we also spoke on Robert Venturi's work. It is impossible to be a post-modernist and not utilize past works as a part of the design. So, is post-modernism autonomous? Even if it is a collection of “things” grabbed from the past, I see it as an autonomous way of thinking. Just like with most other ideas and theories studied in this class, I think it comes down to a synthesis. Balance is important. Complete autonomy may not necessarily create a good thing, but then again, we are taught to think independently in school—but with the help of precedents. We cannot allow to see only the precedent. We must learn to extrapolate knowledge from every aspect of our life (this is starting to remind me of the Rojkind lecture) in order to be a well-rounded, creative, and successful designer.
I believe this fruitless quest for autonomy is present in art as well. Originality does not equal autonomy. One can look at history and see that every movement in art is basically a reaction to a previous movement. One artist doesn't like the way things are going, they change their style, create a new trend, and voila—new art movement. Autonomy has to do with a certain sense of isolation. But how much? The only true autonomous being was that first caveman that decided to take pigment to cave-wall and depict his surroundings. Can a person even conceive what art/architecture is if they have never been exposed to it? It would be like trying to explain color to the blind. Although every society has an “artistic impulse” does a human being (as an individual) have a primal need to create? I agree in some sense, but it is with external influences that this is harnessed. Maybe one day a computer program can be created where all we have to do is tell it a program and it generates a building that meets all requirements regardless of outside influences. Even then, complete autonomy may not be achieved in this sense, depending upon the way the program is written. We are a social creature. Architecture is a social thing (it takes many people to create a building). All people are results of their culture, time, and place. So complete autonomy can never be achieved, oh well... But what degree of autonomy is important? To some architects, not at all—others, it may be what they strive for in their practice every day. Becoming autonomous in some ways is to recreate not only the formal design, but reinvent the methodologies that govern how a design is generated. We analyzed a number of architects in class that were considered “autonomous.” Boulee, LeDoux, Schinkel, Loos, Kaufmann, Johnson, etc.. I found it very interesting that we also spoke on Robert Venturi's work. It is impossible to be a post-modernist and not utilize past works as a part of the design. So, is post-modernism autonomous? Even if it is a collection of “things” grabbed from the past, I see it as an autonomous way of thinking. Just like with most other ideas and theories studied in this class, I think it comes down to a synthesis. Balance is important. Complete autonomy may not necessarily create a good thing, but then again, we are taught to think independently in school—but with the help of precedents. We cannot allow to see only the precedent. We must learn to extrapolate knowledge from every aspect of our life (this is starting to remind me of the Rojkind lecture) in order to be a well-rounded, creative, and successful designer.
RSS Feed