"Architecture can only intervene in situations which have already been defined as being worthy of intervention. Yet, to fully exploit its potential as a generator of reality, architecture has to position itself in such a way that it is not bound to wait until a brief is presented (which it can then gracefully react to), but rather so that it can produce a brief in any given situation of its own. Architecture's avatistic habit of responding to a brief is then replaced by a practice of scanning reality for situations which have the potential to be acted upon by architecture itself. Escaping the reductive assignment of being the problem-solver, architecture assumes the capacity to pose problems, or rather, issues, that are relevant for architectural intervention. In doing so architecture would ultimately escape the boundaries it has been living with for too long and start to self-confidentially negotiate the limits of its actions in every step it takes."
- Andreas Ruby, from "Reprogramming Architecture," in
Organizing for Change (2007), edited by Michael Shamiyeh &
DOM Research Laboratory.
Much the same could be said for any profession, no?
ReplyDeleteThis litdose resembles the last one. Do these reveal an Architecture, in the face of the starchitect phenomenon, a little self-conscious and unsure of its footing?
The resemblance is mainly from them being in the same book, one that is focused on reassessing the profession via learning from other fields. These two quotes veer on the more radical side of the book's content, in each case lamenting what Rem Koolhaas called the "slowness" of architecture and its inability to sustain itself across changing governments, boards of directors, and so forth. That seems to be the instigator of this "movement." I'm guessing it's also in response to the fact that architects tend to get hit the hardest in recessions, because they're typically at the mercy of somebody else. The quote here points to a more independent state for architects, though the money's still gotta come from somewhere...
ReplyDeleteI think he just described a strip mall.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a very nuanced way of saying that the architect must pose questions of his own besides just relying on tradition and pulling stock plans off the shelf. I like the analogy of the architect to Jackie Chan or karate. We as architects need to be skilled enough to react to any situation--reacting to the NOW. Like the latest extreme sport, parkour, the artist has to work with the building environment around him and create their own art.
ReplyDelete