Mr. Schumacher: If you drop the distinction between architecture and mere building, you may spare all your complaining about woke deconstructivism and the freewheeling model. I was taught that architect meant master builder...the vernacular is the actual Zeitgeist.
Mr. Schumacher: was architectural educational dogma so different in your day? You certainly seem to have gone through a very explicitly Woke (ie. Marxist-Communist) phase that lasted well into your 30s…
So perhaps your personal philosophical evolution is inherent with maturation and individuation, as it would then be as well for the next generation. (of course Peter Pans never grow up, and we’ve had no shortage of those for the last few unipolar decades)
But so too may your personal evolution continue, and in the next decades you may well surpass libertarianism to arrive logically at neo-monarchism…
Certainly your firm’s most ambitious and successful projects have been in quasi/neo-monarchical states, and no doubt this trend will continue, as it must
All in all, very much enjoyed your article here. It deserves to be widely read, no matter how narrowly understood
There are numerous valid points in this essay, many aspirational and likely (unfortunately) unattainable in this generation - as implied at the essay's end. However, the main theses that the architectural education establishment, (of which I am a part) has become overridden by narratives in which architecture cannot play a significant role is spot on. The documentation of the points raised in the essay and identified through referencing the recent exhibitions at the Venice Biennale, provide compelling evidence of the destruction of that which is core to architecture.
Cores relate not only to the societal functions and relationships identified, but also to the role architecture plays in anchoring and uplifting the human spirit. That may not always represent a need met through innovation that is stressed in the essay, but the underlying thesis that we no longer have a focus on internal (autonomous?), often language-based fundamentals necessary for the design of advanced and noteworthy buildings represents a necessary call to action.
I don't think architecture has ever existed as an autonomous, theory-led discipline. I don't think that it's clear that this would even be a good thing, even if it were possible. Architecture has always been deeply embodied in the technological, economic, political, and social context of it's day, and yes, in the craft of construction. The best architecture (including that of Zaha Hadid) is usually that which is most the most convincingly and elegantly embedded in these contexts.
It's also a bit of tired cliche to say that the kids just handle criticism these days. I critique students at our local university fairly regularly, and just as it was when I was a student, the reviews are rigorous, constructive, and occasionally confrontational.
I suspect the author is tilting at windmills of his own making, rather than the reality out there in the world.
Similar state in art. Here, early Mark Fisher's "Gothic Materialism" proposition is useful alongside your work, seeking the inherently suggestive properties of new materials (instead of seeking mere social commentary or nostalgia).
Mr. Schumacher: If you drop the distinction between architecture and mere building, you may spare all your complaining about woke deconstructivism and the freewheeling model. I was taught that architect meant master builder...the vernacular is the actual Zeitgeist.
Mr. Schumacher: was architectural educational dogma so different in your day? You certainly seem to have gone through a very explicitly Woke (ie. Marxist-Communist) phase that lasted well into your 30s…
as demonstrated in your lecture from 1997
https://youtu.be/LkiUAA7ouCM?si=xTEkJoR3kDUKF-Si
So perhaps your personal philosophical evolution is inherent with maturation and individuation, as it would then be as well for the next generation. (of course Peter Pans never grow up, and we’ve had no shortage of those for the last few unipolar decades)
But so too may your personal evolution continue, and in the next decades you may well surpass libertarianism to arrive logically at neo-monarchism…
Certainly your firm’s most ambitious and successful projects have been in quasi/neo-monarchical states, and no doubt this trend will continue, as it must
All in all, very much enjoyed your article here. It deserves to be widely read, no matter how narrowly understood
There are numerous valid points in this essay, many aspirational and likely (unfortunately) unattainable in this generation - as implied at the essay's end. However, the main theses that the architectural education establishment, (of which I am a part) has become overridden by narratives in which architecture cannot play a significant role is spot on. The documentation of the points raised in the essay and identified through referencing the recent exhibitions at the Venice Biennale, provide compelling evidence of the destruction of that which is core to architecture.
Cores relate not only to the societal functions and relationships identified, but also to the role architecture plays in anchoring and uplifting the human spirit. That may not always represent a need met through innovation that is stressed in the essay, but the underlying thesis that we no longer have a focus on internal (autonomous?), often language-based fundamentals necessary for the design of advanced and noteworthy buildings represents a necessary call to action.
I don't think architecture has ever existed as an autonomous, theory-led discipline. I don't think that it's clear that this would even be a good thing, even if it were possible. Architecture has always been deeply embodied in the technological, economic, political, and social context of it's day, and yes, in the craft of construction. The best architecture (including that of Zaha Hadid) is usually that which is most the most convincingly and elegantly embedded in these contexts.
It's also a bit of tired cliche to say that the kids just handle criticism these days. I critique students at our local university fairly regularly, and just as it was when I was a student, the reviews are rigorous, constructive, and occasionally confrontational.
I suspect the author is tilting at windmills of his own making, rather than the reality out there in the world.
Well put
Similar state in art. Here, early Mark Fisher's "Gothic Materialism" proposition is useful alongside your work, seeking the inherently suggestive properties of new materials (instead of seeking mere social commentary or nostalgia).