Authentic Architecture
 
 
d i a l o g - iteration two
 
 
If you have not, I recommend that you read iteration one of this d i a l o g before the material presented below.
GoTo part One •
On September 28, I received the following under the title: Controversies. These are high quality provocative questions. The reflect serious thinking and authentic concern. They also express concern for both the future of humanity and the planet as well as the student’s future role in this economy-ecology we are shaping largely by default. The ending remarks get to the heart of our failure to adequately prepare young architects for the conditions and tasks they will face as they work to build a practice capable of producing Authentic Architecture.
 
In my remarks, below, I am going to address this issue of practice and “realities of the profession in the present day” - and my experience of this - first, before the questions themselves. The subject of practice is critical. Choosing/developing the appropriate practice model is the greatest overlooked step to building a viable practice and being successful with it. At risk is the investment of a life-time.
 
All of the questions, in the second set, are one question considered in many different contexts. It is the question of the soul-body dichotomy - a particularly Western cultural ailment which is embedded into the very architecture of our language and social systems. This has, unfortunately, been an unintended export from the West along with the more useful and benign aspects of our culture and technology. This export is increasingly seen as, and erroneously called, the Global Economy. It is not a global expression - it is a great regional value rapidly spreading geographically all around the world in want of the necessary richness and balance that can be provided by other cultures. This is a circumstance, critical to many aspects of life and the future of our planet. Its resolution is also key to the emergence of an Authentic Architecture.
 
 
 
Controversies

Your thoughts are very comprehensive and delineate critical definitions in a very explicit manner. I agree that each of these question are processes to observed by every designer today, which is missing. Your thought have provoked me to think more deeper in the topic. Here are some of my concerns, which are a result of discussion with various people in the profession:

1) In this world of globalization where, from food to fashion, lifestyle to human values, everything is becoming international (may be in our case western), is it justified to pose the question of indigenous and authenticity just to architecture?

2) In this world of consumerism, who is fittest to survive, a professional (building maker) or architect (artist)?

3) Technology has molded architecture, we now believe in artificial living condition (eg air conditioning) and have forgotten the laws of nature, we are actually harming it with our actions. When the question comfort comes, can we neglect the role of technology in making comfortable living? Are we ready to get back to nature, but on foot? Who defines till what extent we can take from nature, who has that authority?

4) When man today has no time to spent at home, to adore nature, even to feel emotions, he is busy to compete with the for survival and mechanical lifestyle, is it more necessary to get comfort (better functionalism) or expression in architecture?

5) As quoted by you, “ All buildings express the values of those who build and use them. This cannot be avoided. Architecture is built philosophy. It shelters, arranges and expresses as a means to conduct life while bringing meaning to the life lived. Buildings remain mundane. Architecture turns every activity within it into an act of living art .” Isn't what is being constructed is the a expression of present Hunan value and mechanical life style? Is there a need to transcend the human value or the architectural expression, as both reflect of each other? Mechanical building (mere functional buildings) reflection of the mechanical life style.

I believe each question gives rise to another, and this discussion we all, individually, have to undertake all our life as an architect especially.

It will be nice of you to enlighten us with your experience in the profession. Please in return do ask us questions, so that we are more exposed to the realities of the profession in the present day.

 
 
 
The Practice of Architecture
I am asked to comment on my experiences in the profession of architecture and to answer questions - which I do below - so that the team can be “more exposed to the realities of the profession in the present day.” In doing this, I have to offer a basic qualification. I left the common path early in my career - from the beginning [x], actually - and never returned to the main stream - even today. So, if the topic is the practice of the profession as it is today, I have little experience to offer except as gathered on those occasions when we have worked with architects who could fairly be described as an example of the profession as it tends to think of and present itself [32].
 
I want to state that I never intended to “leave” the profession nor did I approach my career with the intent of reforming its practice model. This happened as a consequence of a series of incremental conflicts [33] until one day, in the early 70s, I found myself standing - for all practical purposes - entirely outside any conceivable contemporary practice of architecture [35]. This is when I stared the Renascence Project [x] which lead ultimately to the formation of MG Taylor [36]. In recent years, architectural work, not directly related to the making of NavCenters, has started to come into the office and this is gratifying. The fact remains, however, I know few architects, rarely talk to one outside of the interactions made necessary by a specific project in which we may both be involved. I am almost totally unknown to the profession and the public who follows architecture (although this is not the case with the thousands who actually have used the environments we have built). I do not read architectural magazines and do not attend professional meetings. I have never addressed an audience of mainstream practitioners or students. I have not worked in a typical architectural office in over a generation. The only thing I know of the profession - as it now is - is based on what I see being built, random reading, and those few interactions [x] on projects in which our work is a part. I am not intrinsically hostile to the profession of architecture and I admire greatly many of its members [37]. I have to say, however, I think its practice model is totally broken and the profession as a whole is doing immense damage not only to the planet [38] but to humanity at large [39]. I do not believe this is intentional. I believe this is the inevitable result of a profession without a coherent theory and a practice model which does not fit in the modern world. It also is an outstanding example of the “tragedy of the commons” where individual actions - even ‘good’ ones - produce a greater result that is contrary to the intent of the individual works [40].
 
I have never desired to confront the profession - in fact, I have avoided dong so. I have gone my own way without portfolio determined to demonstrate better ways to do things. My experience has been that even when presented with overwhelming evidence that better designs can be done, that time and costs can be cut radically and that buildings can sit far more lightly upon the earth, the profession of architecture has been as uninterested as have developers, banks and the general public. When presented with the case for Planetary Architecture [41] the reaction have been evasion and if the point is pressed, hostile. This seems to be changing in recent years [42]. It would be naive, however, to think that this shift will make a move to a more viable model of practice much easier. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to do so.
 
The paradox in all this is that the work that I have build has been overwhelmingly accepted by professional and laymen alike [43] - as individuals - while almost totally rejected and ignored institutionally [43].
 
I suppose that after 52 years of an active alternative practice it is time to write a formal criticism of the profession of architecture as I perceive it today. I will do so in a separate document in addition to my responses to these questions in this document [44]. These questions go to the heart of the divide which I have experienced for 52 years. At their root lies a personal decision of great importance. To me, there is no choice which path is the one to be taken. I have to say, however, that the young student should not choose casually. The consequences socially, on one path, and personally, on the other, can be catastrophic. Beware and choose carefully - and know what you are choosing and likely consequences to your life [45].
 
The Question of Indigenous and Authenticity
Indigenous work has an authenticity of its own by definition. It can be very good. It is rarely, however, art. The attempt at art can become pretentious. Great art is achieved only when intent, refined skills and self awareness combines with the natural impulse of the indigenous to create a spontaneous result. Without stretching the metaphor too far this integration of art and indigenous is like the smooth integration of consciousness and unconsciousness. This is the “sweet spot” in sports, the state of grace in the spiritual realm. Separations disappear and you just perceive and do. Though is action. You know. This state is the well spring of genius. When a group becomes this way it is GroupGenius. [46] [47]
 
The indigenous comes out of someplace. It is the rendering of habit and tradition. It preservers the old values. Consciousness mind is intellect, technique. It seeks the universal, the unique. ART combines these. Art is the consequence of an integrated, graceful state of mind focused by intension. The authenticity of he consciousness mind resides in its innovation, clarity, exactness of function, it search for the universal. The authenticity of the indigenous resides in its memory, history and conservation of proven ways.
 
Fittest- Building maker (Builder) or Artist (Architect)
This is a question which is only possible in our present time. In Authentic Architecture, neither function is fit without the other. The Architect must have mastery in both [48]. This does not means that s/he has to take both these roles in every project. What matters is there is a system integrator and that all the members in the ValueWeb can exercise their abilities to the maximum degree [49]. Today this is not the case. Too often the builder and the architect are seen as two specialists at odds with one another. Generally, who controls the money controls the project and in today’s world this is rarely the architect or builder. Buildings are treated like commodities within a real estate game not concerned with long term value. In this game, the builder and architect are often pitted against the other. Their relationship remains uneasy. There is little valuable feedback between these two facets of making habitat. The system does not learn as it should. Costs accelerate because of unnecessary oversight processes and redundant organizational structures. Unless both are fit, neither are fit.
 
Technology, Nature and the Authority to Decide
The “authority to decide” is an interesting question. The question behind it is who decides now? And, in terms of technology and nature, how did we ever get in the position that the two are seen in opposition to one another? Here again we see the soul body dichotomy always confusing in life and impossible in Architecture [50]. Humans are part of Nature. We are capable of effecting Nature on a greater scale in a shorter time period than most other life forms. This imposes on us the duty to exercise a level of self-awareness and care that so far we have failed to exhibit. We have choice and we have chosen to act as we have. This does not meant that we will be free from the consequences of our choices. Because of how we have decided to divide our activities, we can hide behind theses distinction and ignore what we are doing. This will not prevail. Consequences will out. Our ability to mask them and ignore them simply means, instead of steady feedback leading to small corrections, we will face large scale abrupt dislocations and challenges. These will much more costly to life and treasure than if we had paid attention and done the right thing in the first place. Who decides? We all decide through our actions or lack of them. As a profession it is easy to blame others. This is particularly easy given that architects have abandoned most of the work which historically was defined as their profession. In the end, however, it is an architect’s seal which goes on the drawings for every major building being built in the world today. It can only be concluded that the profession of architecture is satisfied with the results and consequences. Each individual can claim they could not help it. That economics drove them to it. A weak argument at best. What of the profession? What if the profession withdrew its support from the production of wasteful, ugly, buildings?
 
What are the standards? It every building architecture? is everyone with a licence an architect? If so, what is the social responsibility for the profession? If not, Where does that responsibility begin and end? How do we protect the commons? Who is responsible for the the results of millions of buildings being built without reference to each other or the sum of their impacts on a world-wide scale? Does anyone believe that existing codes will result in a coherent, global, economic/ecological solution? Does anyone believe that more codes with improve anything? How do we “manage” emergence of this scale and complexity? We are in the era of Planetary Architecture with no means to practice it.
 
Now, we are saying we should protect Nature. We do not need to protect Nature, we need to learn from her. We need to rejoin nature. We need to collaborate with Nature. “We” and Nature are one. In our present phase of development, “we” are acting like a cancer. Humans, if we do not destroy ourselves, will transform the Planet and very likely much of the universe beyond it. This is not the issue nor the “problem” per se. The “problem” is that we are doing this without thought or taking responsibility for the results. There is no art in our present approach - just mindless exploitation. Authentic Architecture is concerned with the habitat for all life over an extended time frame not just human life as it is manifested today.
 
When man today has no time to spent at home, to adore nature, even to feel emotions, he is busy to compete with the for survival and mechanical lifestyle, is it more necessary to get comfort (better functionalism) or expression in architecture?” Shelter, Arrangement (often miss-called function) and Expression are the function of architecture. Every work, according to its program, has to balance these attributes. To pull them apart is to create a dichotomy which creates a fragmented building concept that then has to be “fixed.” “Time to adore Nature” has to be embedded in every moment and act of life. When we remove this from the commercial realm, we create killer companies which destroy the fabric of society and, thus, Nature. The weight of reflection and action may be different in the office and the home but neither can be absent from the other. If anything, people have to be reminded of the spiritual when at work as it is this environment which effects society and Nature most. The “mechanical lifestyle” is to be rejected in the workplace as much as the home. Mechanical lifestyle can more accurately be called mindless life-work-style.
 
lifestyle, Work, Values Dichotomy
This is what is destroying the world. When humans had sticks and stones, this dichotomy could cause trouble. With the power we have today, the results are increasingly devastating. Generally, people earn their money by ones set of rules, spend it by another and give it away by a third. This is called being practical. [51]
 
We are told from early school that we cannot live by our highest values and employ them in the world of work. Maybe we can achieve them more in our home life and in our private spiritual world. Proof of the practicality of this is offered by pointing to all of the negative consequences that are the result of us not living and working in a way expressive of our values!
 
The world we live in is the consequence of this dichotomy writ large across the landscape.
 
Expression of the Mechanical Lifestyle
The term “mechanical lifestyle” is a good description of the present social paradigm which is sweeping the world. This should not be taken to mean that it is a strictly “materialist” point of view. It has a mental or “spiritual” element although a poor one. It also has a historical driver. Billions of people just now able to grasp the lifestyle enjoyed by some over the last two centuries. There is a youthful exuberance in this which should be respected. This “movement” is a prime example of what happens when means outstrip education and social maturity. Repression of this ambition is not a solution - in fact, it would be an evil act. This is also a systems problem. We have billions of people optimizing their part with little understanding or regard for the total system and knowledge of the many solutions we actually are capable of. On a global level, we also still have billions of people living in poverty paying the price for the excesses of the more fortunate. This is an ethical problem of such scale it is almost impossible to grasp. We are collectively engaged in WWIII - a global civil war fighting over resources no longer critical, power no longer necessary, and ideas whose time has passed [52]. We must learn to harvest from our past not be captured by it. This is crises on a scale never faced by the Human Race before - at least as documented in our recorded history [53]. Our “signature” architecture is a perfect expression of these conditions. In this context it is doing what architecture should be doing except for the moral responsibility to do better than just express the common consensus. The role of art [54] is to not just reflect but to - as Aristotle said - show “what can and ought to be.” If the architecture being built today is “what can and ought to be,” I shutter to contemplate the result [55]. Now, finally building “green,” while good, will not resolve this crises.
 
The Need to Transcend
There is the need to transcend. Not the value of human but our debasing of it. Extrapolate all existing trends and what do we have? When we build buildings which are the authentic expression of our dominate social values - and this is what many of our “better” signature architects are doing - it is good technique yet in the end poor architecture. It is actually embarrassing when you “read” these buildings. Some of our greatest talents have sold out in the making of these towers of exaggeration - these are the citadels of mammon [56]. These are the expression of the human in service to technology, money and power rather than technology, money and power in the service of life [57]. We are in a time when the ethical question arises: when to build, what to build and who to build for; where to build and what kind of building? It is no longer just a question if the result is a good building as a single piece of work. This makes an already difficult set of relationships even more challenging. These are questions of ecology, sound economics and social justice besides what traditionally concerned architecture in the narrow sense. These conditions will cause the coming generation of architects to face difficult choices and challenges.
This planet is going through a sweeping transformation - there is no question of this. It is the outcome which is in question. If humanity will step up to this challenge is in question [58]. Architecture and especially monumental architecture is an expression of the values we are bringing to this planetary exercise [59]. What symbols, messages and instructions will this architecture convey? What happens if architects - the ones who will build the very world we will live in - remain captured by the present paradigm of the human potential and life on this planet? Today’s architecture is a reflection of what you refer to as the “mechanical life style.” This view of the planet (something to be exploited), industry and economy (tools to exploit with), and humanity (exploiters, fellow travelers and exploited) is the ruling model and process. These are harsh words - yet accurate. There is no intrinsic problem with wealth, ownership, markets, technology - there is a great problem with how we have chosen to employ them. It is time that we, as a people, learn that just because we can do something is not necessarily justification for doing it. And, it is time to be far more ambitious about what we can do in the solution of Worthy Problems. Humanity is not longer in grade school. We are a player on a planetary stage and soon beyond the domain of our planet. It is time to grow up and decide who we are.
 
The Questions Not Asked
Is it possible to practice Authentic Architecture today in the world which seems to be emerging? This is not rhetorical question. Neither a negative or positive outcome is a given. What happens to me if I do not or cannot? Does it matter if I do - or not? Is professional success to be pursued as it is defined in present social terms? What am I really getting into if I seek to practice Authentic Architecture? These questions run as a currant under the ones asked above. They are good questions. They possess no easy answer, yet, to ignore them is a prescription for a personal disaster. Architecture is not a simple, everyday job. It can be treated as such but not while maintaining a full state of self-awareness. As any art - and architecture is a complex social art that is the combination of many disciplines - this is a hard master to serve. In any time, this is a difficult and risky profession. In this time, the outcome of a life’s work is not predictable. Authentic Architecture is needed now more than ever. It is a worthy [60] enterprise. Yet, it is important to walk in with eyes wide open. It is necessary to play the game from a life-time perspective and not measure the results only year by year. True, enduring success requires a new model of success and the refusal to attempt measuring it - in personal terms - by the base standards of popular culture [61] and its present marketplace [62].
my_questions
 
 
I have been asked to ask some questions and that is how I will end this cycle of our dialog. I ask these, individually, of each member of the student team:
 
What compels you about architecture? Why did you choose this work? What must you do in order to look back from the vantage point of 50 years of practice and know that you stayed true to this quest and did all that is possible to achieve what you set out to do - even as you learned what this youthful vision truly meant? Of the many genuine ways to practice architecture which one or combination of existing models - or new model - fits your purpose, your skills, your cognitive profile? What are your boundaries? What will you not do in pursuit of a career in architecture? What is you model of change for the rest of the 21st century? What will be the major technical, economic and social agents of change? What new complexities and challenges will emerge from our world of today? How will societies change globally and locally? How will the tools which will become available to you expand and limit your ability to practice? What will be required of you to succeed in your terms? What will be the social and economic costs if your model is not in the main stream of the society in which you live? Are you willing to pay these costs? Do you have a way to reduce the associated risks? How will you engage with your fellow professionals - associates and competitors - in the complex enterprise of making architecture? What is the one design that, if you build it, will constitute a success for a lifetime of effort? How will you deal with “failure” if you do not succeed in your intent? More critically, how will you deal with outstanding success? How will you serve the great enterprise of multi-millennium architecture, and the emergent time before you, while remaining a true human being?
 
How you answer these, in this your 4th year of architectural school, will have a profound effect on your subsequent career and sense of self as an individual. They are not easy questions to answer and it will take years to sort out all of the issues contained in them. The asking, itself, is important. There will never be a permanent, immutable right answer. There will be answers appropriate for a time and place. The social, political, economic, technological change you will experience in the coming period of your practice is likely to be greater than all of the centuries of recorded history combined. You will have to navigate this always changing and challenging landscape.What you do will change the landscape. The making of an Authentic Architecture will greatly benefit both the journey and outcome.
 
There is a third set of questions which got lost in my mailbox and I have ignored until now. They came on September, 26th. These are addressed in “d i o l o g - iteration three.”
 
GoTo part One • GoTo part Three • GoTo INDEX

Matt Taylor
Elsewhere
September 30, 2007

 
 

SolutionBox voice of this document:
• VISION • PHILOSOPHY •
• PROGRAM •

 
click on icon for explanation of the SolutionBox Model

posted: September 30, 2007

revised: October 19, 2007

• 20070930.349279.mt
• 20071006.454501.mt •
• 20071007.090911.mt • 20071008.451100.mt •
• 20071019.546301.mt •

 note: this document is about 95% finished

 
Search For:
Match:  Any word All words Exact phrase
Sound-alike matching
Dated:
From: ,
To: ,
Within: 
Show:   results   summaries
Sort by: