The 2004 movie, Troy, starts off with the line by Sean Bean as Odysseus: Men are haunted by the vastness of eternity. And so we ask ourselves, will our actions echo across the centuries?.
If we substitute ”Men” for ”Architects” then we can tailor the extract to our discourse. Sean Bean is basically stating the desire of the men and women of each generation since the first homo sapiens, to leave an eternal mark on human history. With this desire comes the belief held by every generation that, in their lifetime, there has to be some finality or climax to a major aspect of the history of our species. Now, maybe, that is most certainly true about our present condition and there is ample evidence, in the never-before-seen precarious mixing of cultures, rates of urbanization, and skyrocketing impact on the environment, to justify such a belief. With that said, what is the role of the Architect today?
I found Tschumi’s text, Architecture and Disjunction, very relevant to this question. Tschumi’s text explores what he believes are three possible roles for the architect in society. The first role places the architect merely as the structural translator of the social, political, and economic conditions of the day. The second role involves the architect being a mere commentator while the third role involves the making of physical statements that prompts society to re-evaluate its problems. One clarification Tschumi makes is that space, by itself, is neutral. This sort of removes one degree of freedom in what the architect can do. He, however, emphasizes the importance of events in giving meaning to space.
Tschumi cites certain examples of architectural interventions in the social and political domain. The 1968 ”guerilla” building by students from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts was a statement which Tschumi believes forces us to examine the role of capitalism in the built environment and realize collective building as a force for unity. Tschumi does admit that in the end, these acts serve merely as propaganda even if they are temporary. Basically, such acts are statements.
What I think is a problem with symbolism and statements, besides its transient impact (I wonder what the guerrilla building really did for workers in that suburb of Paris) is that it represents a huge divide between intellectuals and the ”masses”. When there is this disconnect all intellectuals can do is make statements. I think this divide does exist within architecture and when we look at history we realize that there is a certain danger that comes with empty actions of statements and symbolism (just like the cities of New Urbanism, they never really address the problems).
However, Tschumi also makes a very blunt statement that really exposes the limitations of changing society while acting solely as architects. On page 10 he writes
”I was also aware of the limitations of our position as intellectuals and architects who were unlikely to find ourselves loading guns and hiding explosives in underground networks”
The quote in conjunction with the two other quotes below exposes the blunt reality of how experiential changes in the built environment have actually been made – political action.
The first complementary quote being referred to is found on page 7:
”How could architects avoid seeing architecture and planning as the faithful product of dominant society, viewing their craft, on the contrary as a catalyst for change?”
The interesting thing is that favorable changes in architecture and planning have been made before through mass political action, by Jane Jacobs. She was not an architect and she was not overly concerned with making physical statements but rather she realized the most effective way to preserve urban spaces was political action outside the discipline (she did write books, yes, but she did not rely on the textual spreading of her ideas to stimulate change).
The second quote emphasizing the need for blunt action in bringing about change is found on page 10:
”that the existence of a free place, even if only temporary, is an important factor in the development of the revolutionary struggle, and that the self-defense of buildings endangered by police violence allows experimentation and reinforcement of the means of struggle”.
Here Tschumi seems to be quoting another text which is celebrating the intervention of the students from the beaus-arts as a force for the self-defense of communities plagued by police violence. What I think is a more effective example of the self-defense of buildings, which does not use architectural intervention, but rather political mobilization is the Black Panthers Movements (yes, I know, we can’t all walk around communities threatened by police violence and gentrification carrying guns in the name of self-defense).
I do realize by attaching this sense of urgency to the actions of architects I am falling prey to that same idea that there is a sense of finality to our times. Maybe we are still nothing but specks in human history and maybe we should embrace the fact that statements do make a difference, no matter how small (after all, there’s no rush).
But then again, even if there’s no rush, what exactly is our place in society.
Tschumi, Bernard. n.d. Archtecture and Disjcuntion.
Too long! I appreciate that you always incorporate your own voice into your responses, but you need to practice encapsulating the same message within a much more concise text. With that said, the basis of your argument tends to ‘swim’ a bit, in that I understand the nature of your critique, without knowing more clearly the ‘lesson’ intended from that critique. Also, I think it’s critical to draw a line between “efficacy” and “utility” with regard to these statements.