I know that this blog is billed somewhat as a critique of architecture and specifically that of residential planning and design. However, an article appeared in the last issue of Architecture MN that I want to comment on. The title of the article is “Is An Architect An Artist?” by Mike Reed.
This is a discussion that I have considered for many years. Long before I wanted to be an architect I was somewhat of an amateur artist and critic. A lover of all things visual and beautiful, I felt I had an instinct for the principles and elements of design long before I was ever educated about their existence and use.
The main issue, as with most, is one of clearly defining the terms of the discussion.What is an “artist”. There is little question, and Mr. Reed hits on it in his article, that the definition of art has changed somewhat radically in the last 200 years. Indeed, the artists of yesteryear would probably be identified as designers today. Rarely did the great artist of the Renaissance, or Medieval period complete a work without being commissioned. Much of the classics were commissioned by patrons interested in recording historic events and people. About 160 years ago, a radical invention all but eliminated the need for this type of artist. When scientists invented a way to permanently affix an image to paper using light (photography) the need for the skills required to record portraits, landscapes and historical events on oil and canvas and other mediums was all but eliminated. Of course we hold on to the Beaux Arts method of training and any artist who claims the title will have spent tireless hours honing the eye and hand. In the next 50 years, the artists had to find a new way of defining themselves while those who used visual medium to make a living by patronage created a whole new terminology. They became designers and the term artist was co-opted by those left behind.
But where does architecture fit into this discussion. Historically, architecture had been called the Mother of Art. It’s styles and execution is not only considered art by historians but often leads entire art movements. Architecture is probably the most enduring art form. The Egyptian architect (also considered a God) Imhotep still has work standing. If the architect’s of the great cathedrals across Europe are considered artists in historic terms, how will tomorrow’s historians define us? I think the answer can be found above. Like the other artists who performed their trade by patronage, architects have abandoned the term artist.
The industry has a few prominent examples of individuals who attempt to expand the architecture into this new artistic realm. Chief among these is Frank O. Gehry. His attempt to make architecture purely formal can possibly be explained by a frustration with the limitations of usability which confines most architects find crucial to their success. This is evidenced by the fact that most of Gehry’s later works are every bit as good as paper weights as they are buildings. (I’m still looking for 1:10,000 model of the Guggenheim that I can set on my desk). And now it seems, that in order to be promoted by the established architecture periodicals, you have to have in your portfolio a formal ode to the great master of formal architecture.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, there is a place for this type of architecture. It pushes the industry and expands the envelope for the rest of us. Let’s just keep it under our proverbial hat that it’s more sculpture than architecture.
But making architecture something that it is not also goes the other way. There are those, like Paul mentioned when referring to the new urbanists, who think that architecture should be a social tool used to promote, usually a minority view, social economic agenda. This trend by no means was started by the new urbanists. It was the modernists who first engaged in this type of built-environment rhetoric on a large scale resulting in the wildly unsuccessful inner-city projects.
Whether it be for art, or for social engineering, for the rest of us, it’s hard to escape the fact that architecture must exist within the confines of it actually being a building that someone else hired us to design to meet their actual needs and budget. In short, architecture is not a good medium for purely artistic expression or social engineering. Again, the reason is simple. We are commissioned by other people to design something to fit their needs, within their budget and on their schedule which does not usually accommodate our desires for personal expression or socio-economical philosophies.
Several years ago, while sitting through a lecture in my Master’s Degree Site Planning course at Washington University in St. Louis on the evils of the suburban strip mall and similar types of development, someone asked the professor if he could give us some direction on how to better plan a strip center development in order to avoid all the problems he was identifying. His simple answer was that we, as architects, should take the higher road and refuse to take those types of commissions. His logic was that if no architect agreed to do that type of work then it would simply stop being built. Of course this is faulty logic. The truth is that if all architects simply refused to do that kind of work, then we be excluded from the process and our field would take another huge step towards irrelevance. There will always be someone who will be willing to do that work. Sure, we can take a position, but burying our head in the sand and ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. Maybe we should actually find a way to meet the needs of our clients while avoiding some of the pitfalls that plague that kind of development. Otherwise, go hungry.
For most of us, what makes this profession really interesting is that we have these barriers and restrictions. Indeed, the richer solution is the one that creatively meets all of the criteria presented by the patron while expressing not only the architect’s sensibilities but also those of the client, the environment and the demographics of its location. It’s what we call in our office the style of appropriateness. Every project has a perfect solution. (An idea not widely held by those in my field and a topic for another post). In considering all the circumstances, all the needs, all the restrictions and all the parties, there is a perfect solution. My job is to come as close to that solution as I can.While I am still a lover of art and all things beautiful, to me, being a good architect is much more difficult, and much more rewarding.