Lowell said... Liz, after reading your post I wanted to disagree with you, but then found I had some trouble doing so. That led me to a couple more questions that I do not readily have the answer to.
The first was I wondered why I had immediately reacted negatively to the claim that architecture without use is devoid of meaning/significance. I think in some sense use can be a dirty word in architecture school. I think to some extent after four years of school I've been left with the impression that to focus so much on use means to relegate your architecture to that which is boring, uninspiring, or even utilitarian (gasp, the realm of the engineer). After the initial reaction subsides though, you realize there are plenty of examples where this is not the case, in fact my favorite piece of architecture is essentially an exercise in program. Which brings me back to questioning why I had the reaction that I did.
Secondly I had to question the validity of architecture that has changed uses, if the facilitation of use (generally in architecture projects, a prescribed use) is the architects primary concern. Or even more so, what of architectural monuments that are relegated to sites of tourism, i.e. the pantheon, devoid of any use (and thereby meaning?), outside of the maintenance of its own existence.
_____________________________________
Lowell,
All I meant to say was that buildings (specifically) by themselves are not significant. They cannot carry "meaning" like a piece of writing, for instance. As long as you can read, you can basically understand what is written (linguistically it's debatable that anyone really knows what anyone else is saying, but I mean to say that there is a greater level of interpretation that is needed in architecture to glean any meaning whatsoever as opposed to other human creations.. and because of that interpretation, more-or-less consistent meaning between people is much more elusive). Interpretation is an action that can only be carried out by a human. I consider "meaning" and/or "significance" to be the end result of that interpretation so in the absence of humans architecture cannot have meaning or significance; it cannot be interpreted. Because meaning and significance are not actually embodied by the building itself they require interaction between the building and the person interpreting.
Architectural meaning is like a bacterium that cannot live outside the human body and is transmitted only by contact between people. Meaning cannot survive outside humanity. To have similar understandings architecture’s significance, some sort of collective memory, social norm or explanation needs to be included in the interpretation along with the building itself. The building’s significance requires contact between people. Because architecture is not a system for conveying meaning (like languge is) each building requires a different body of knowledge to understand its significance.
"Use" is the interaction between a person and building. I don't mean to say that use is necessarily occupying the building one way, or the way it was intended. I simply mean that any way of interacting with a building is "using" it. I think that even studying a building remotely through text, pictures, model etc without visiting is "use" because it's being used as an example. There is an interaction that the person has with the building. On the other hand, "use" does not have to be academic or thoughtful. It may be utilitarian or even ignorable. Any non-architect that passes through any built space is "using" it, and thus giving it meaning and significance. Significance might not be revolutionary, but it is how we interpret and understand the world. It is only because we walk through doors that they signify entry and exit points.
I disagree with your assumption that monuments or centers of tourism are not used. They're used as destinations, as places to learn about history, as places to anchor grief and memories. Even vacant buildings can be used by people. A vacant building that defines the outdoor space of the street or of a yard is being used, just from the outside. It signifies a boundary or point. It still defines spatial experience, it’s just not lived-in. A vacant house in the woods, however, that is never visited or passed has no meaning or significance until someone finds it.
What I was trying to get at with the first assignment was the fundamental discrepancy I see with what architecture IS. The word is not just a synonym for “building” it also covers an idea about meaning and the process of creating both the building and its significance. It seems to me that architects are aiming to create meaning, significance, experience, but can only create a physical building. (Actually not even a physical building, construction documents don't even outline how to make it, just what it should be like in the end). It’s as if architects are trying to make a cocktail, but only have the ability to cast the glass. You can suggest that someone make a martini by shaping it a specific way but ultimately the person drinking it decides what to pour into the vessel. Furthermore, for them to understand that this is a martini glass and that a martini is a certain mixture of beverages, requires some other knowledge that is not actually existent within the glass itself.
I concede that there is some tenuous relationship that architecture has to significance but it is not through the building alone. Drinking a martini from a nice glass and from a solo cup is indeed a different experience. They will both, however, get you equally drunk and the conception that one is fancier and demands a different demeanor is more dependent on culture and interpretation than the artifact. The artifact merely queues an existing conception.
We are calling both the glass and the martini “architecture” while fundamentally, architects will never be the bartender.
No comments:
Post a Comment