Architecture is a Mirror

The World is full of Architecture, and Architecture is like a mirror of the world. The pace of the world has a direct reflection to architecture. Architecture is the background of 80% - 85% of our daily activities. That is what architecture is to me, it is a backdrop, it is an atmosphere, alongside with being a disciplinary discourse and profession. Architecture starts absorbing the culture of the city to create an apt background or other times to pushes the limits of culture and familiarity like the “Vessel” in New York city, by Thomas Heatherwick. It is an interactive piece of art that stands as a backdrop to many New York public pictures, it is trending as things to do when you go to New York. This architecture pushes the limits of culture and is highly debated for aesthetic appeal. Some even call it “mythical giant’s waste basket” and “an instagram friendly panopticon”[1]. Designs for public spaces like this generate discussions among architects, and the discussions lead to designing the skyline of a city.

Perry Kulper mentioned in an interview that, “Every project is a cultural project. What’s relevant? What’s appropriate? What’s the scope of things to work on?”[2] As said by Elena Manderdini in a conversation with Erik Czejka for What is Architecture series, “Architecture enters the cultural product of humanities.”[3] This is where architects become important because they have to answer the cultural needs of the public and create something in the process that feels like it fits right in the city skyline. This also means architecture is very vast. What you see for miles comes under architecture; the green fields you see when flying – are rows of cultivated ground; the city you see when landing is urban planning; the building you live in is a piece of architectural design; the restaurant you go to, is interior designing; and the malls you go to….

            Architecture is strongly built upon its ability to hold a discourse. The history of architecture is surely one of the piles of its foundation but discourse is the foundation slab holding all the piles together and getting the site ready. For discourse the project is not so important but the discussions generated by the project are essential, the same applies to architectural pedagogy. In log 28, I am for tendencies, Jeffrey Kipnis talks about his views on pedagogy and says, “Theory and pedagogy are the same idea. The reason one has ideas and develops ideas is that it produces a pedagogy. The goal of an idea is not to produce a project or a form or a building. The discussion turns into a pedagogy. Pedagogy is the most important thing.”[4] For any discipline pedagogy plays a key role, it shapes your thinking and ability to question. For every profession one has to be a student first and has to have one to multiple mentors. What the mentors do is, start to get you to question and think about the normally accepted or develop your opinion.

The discussions broaden your bank of topics, by either talking more about a person or introducing you to a person in the field. History for architecture can be demarked by era’s and styles of architecture, but discourse is led by the members who’ve played key roles for the styles to have augmented. It is through discourse that we realize the problems and as architects attempt to provide a solution to it. The studio project this semester required a deep study of the site considering elements that are generally overlooked by architects, say rocks, or birds or the history of that site. This study was possible because maybe at some point David Ruy would’ve had a discussion with someone and realized that there is something extremely wrong about the way we showcase an architect’s plans. It needs to be more inclusive of the site.

The study was fairly easy as it was easy to do a right or wrong analysis and compare with it what architects would draw. If it is something architects would draw then that is something not to be looked at. But then came the stage of representing it, that was a tough one. Luckily, that was the week of getting introduced to Perry Kulper, and his drawings. In his writing “A World Below” he describes his version of constructing a drawing, “Design in this sense is fluid, weaving heterogeneous ideas, discussing one disciplinary set of questions in relation to another, and through the rehearsing of design skills in the drawings themselves, fusing visualisation and thinking as a relational and synthetic practice.”[5] Design has no limits, everything we do can be called design, in that sense architecture through the lens of designing challenges it’s limits and boundaries every moment. Perry Kulper literally treats his drawings as a canvas, and images or texts as post-it notes. He mentions everything he notices, it may sometimes be useful, sometimes not. Just like I did in the studio project, I picked up all evidences on the site, right from images of the trees and used google scan to tell me the name of them to flying birds and the grids on the walkways. Everything wasn’t necessarily used in the project but it surely made me feel intimate with the site. I knew the site better now. I recognized the space strongely than ever before.

Culture and architecture, go hand in hand, it is sensitive and yet merciless. Cultures vary from country to country, the culture in Europe is very different from that of England, and yet the skyscrapers can look very similar. Architecture through the international style attempts to merge it all together, but the curtain wall facade is not the same as the engineering marvels of massive castles. In an attempt to bifurcate, Can culture and architecture co-exist? or are they constantly in a struggle to eat the other? Can they sit together like adults on the big table? or are the two tables separated for them under one roof ? Can we ever have a kind of architecture where curtain wall systems and massive stone walls exist in harmony? What would it mean for architecture if we were to pose the question of synchronized architecture?

It is a similar question to what Kipnis asked in “The Cunning of Cosmetics: A personal reflection on the architecture of Herzog and De Meuron”. He gives an example of the Signal Box project, it is obvious that the simple form means it is a minimalistic project, but the copper bands fit the definition of architectural ornament. So under what category would the project fall: Ornament or Minimalism? Just like, curtain wall systems are used all over the world today, so it is obvious it is a part of the international style. But we treat the international style as something new, some sort of a new concept. While ages back when stone walls were popular, the entire world used the stone walls for their fortresses, why isn’t that called international style? Why is that called ancient or historical architecture? “Prior to modernism ornament and decoration were part of developing articulation of the surface, early modernists stripped back this surface and since then ornament and decoration has been seen as an excess or add on.”[6] says Rachael McCall in Seeing Architecture: Theories of Architecture and its Appearance (Page 49). But then who defines ornamentality? Isn’t brick cladding also an ornament?

Kipnis raised some very thought provoking questions on Page 431, “Is architecture forcement therapy or does it play a role in redefining, undermining, exploding, erasing?” and “Does every situation have a correct architecture?” My response to that is, architecture is ambiguous. It is forced, when it comes to budget and you only have the budget to use exposed concrete on the exterior of the facade. It is forced, when in the middle of nowhere you decide to make a living arrangement for Airbnb. It is forced, when the labor is not willing to understand your complex geometrical design and you have to re-design. It is redefined, when you as an outsider critique the Venturi house and the color of it. It is undermining, when you judge the exterior because that is all the access you have to a building, and you assume the inside is drab and boring. It is exploding, when there is no space in the Times Square and yet you want to design a proposal. It is erasing, when you completely forget the culture and make concrete your best friend. No, every situation cannot have a correct architecture. The meaning of correct is “free from error, in accordance with fact or truth”, we are humans, we tend to make mistakes, we cannot work with 0% error. Knowing the entire truth is impossible, there are always multiple sides to a story. You may approach to consider one story and design based on the needs of that, but then you are doing injustice to the other stories. Given this, architecture is about building stories, it is about designing spaces to have visual access to create an element of mystery. Architecture shows concern for visual flows and event- structures, for realism and new formal languages. Also, architecture lies heavily on design, and design is very subjective. 

            Architecture - Design - Aesthetic - Intuition. For architecture to exist it has to be built, to build it, it has to be designed, to design it one must have the skills or the aesthetic understanding, and aesthetic comes with intuition. In conversation with Ramiro Diazgranados, Dwayne Oyler and Russell Thomsen, one of the many topics discussed was revolved around intuition and beauty. Ramiro pointed out intuition cannot be taught. Dwayne said, “true, but people can get inspired to love certain things, teaching tendencies can result in intuition”. Intuition is not something we are born with, it is something we develop over time. Aesthetic opinions are something we develop growing up, family, friends, mentors and instructors are a great source of inspiration. For intuition, the knowledge of the field is also essential, in the process of teaching tendencies, knowledge is also taught and a reason for liking one more for the other is cultivated. Sometimes, we think we have liked something instinctively, but it is unconsciously due to past experiences or an affinity to something. A simple example, liking the Broad or liking the MOCA, I might prefer the MOCA because I have been there once with the whole class, and it feels familiar. Or I might prefer the Broad, because I have never been inside there and I am curious.

I believe along with teaching, the conversations around the topic or the familiarity with the subject is very essential. Also, just like architecture, there are no boundaries to intuition. You like a particular style of drawing because you are more familiar to that style but if you get accustomed to the other, you might prefer that. Intuition is in a constant flux, it might depend on the knowledge you have about it. But then if you decide on something after you have knowledge about it, would  that still come under the category of intuition? Is intuition something that is only instant? But then again, how do you define instant? 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour? In my opinion, intuition is highly based on familiarity, it might sometimes feel like it is instant, and we also many times say that, he/ she has a good instinct or intuition, could be true, could be luck but it could equally be experiences. It is when you ponder more about it, what you realize what it really was.

Intuition, or an instant affinity, today’s Instagram-able world is highly dependant on the trend. One must keep up with the pace of social media. An example, there is a song I heard on Reels, normally if I stumbled onto it on Spotify I wouldn’t have liked it, but because it was trending and so many people had that song up on their Instagram I started liking it. This can be an example of how intuition is taught, but if it is taught then how is it intuition? Architecture must keep up with the pace of social media, architects to survive and get famous must update their feed with what they are doing, what they are thinking, ask questions to the public, keep their audience engaged and entertained. Today, we want architecture to change like fashion changes, or music changes. There are a few lucky works that are evergreen like the flatiron building in New York, but for the others, they have to change. The house I live in was built by my great grandfather, there are 3 generations living in this house currently. My grandfather is happy with the house and never wanted to change his residence. But my father is not and is building a new house. And I am sure as soon as my brother grows up he will want to shift from a bungalow to an apartment, where there is more flexibility to switch often. Interior redesigning is getting so popular, because like Instagram having new filters, everyone wants a new look to shoot more photos and make memories in.

Lastly, I want to end with, architecture is boundless, but for it to be boundless rhetoric is essential, engagement is essential. The more you engage and understand the depth of architecture, the more you realize how deep the ocean is. Most of the times, the discussion that is generated in the process of designing is more important than the end outcome. That’s what the juries are for and taken so seriously in architectural school, they are surely there to see the end outcome, but they are equally interested in the story it has to tell and generate a new kind of discussion or re-structure an existing one to make space for new thoughts. Architecture is a mirror, see the way you like, straight, or upside down or tilted. Every time you look at it, it is sure to give you something new to admire and ponder upon.

​

​

Bibliography

[1] “Why everyone hates the vessel” by Fast Company as on 29th March 2019 https://www.fastcompany.com/90326416/why-everyone-hates-the-vessel

[2] Interview with Perry Kulper from Wash Magazine https://washmagazine.com/Perry-Kulper-Interview

[3] “What is Architecture” talk with Elena Manferdini as on 9th April  2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtGQgvj3IeM&t=77s

[4] Log 28, “I am for Tendencies” by Jeffrey Kipnis and Peter Eisenman, Page 133

[5] “A World Below”, by Perry Kulper, Page 59

[6] “Precis - 1 June 2011”Page 49 by Rachael McCall - “Seeing Architecture- Theories of Architecture and its Appearance Submission Contents.