What is an architect in society today?
Patrik Schumacher 2002
Survey appearing in: Hunch Magazine, No.5, The Netherlands
1)
What is an architect in society today?
This rather small and particular segment of avant garde production is nevertheless taken to define the essential character of the discipline and it’s practitioners define the role model of “the architect”. The distinction between avant-garde and mainstream or the high art of architecture vs commercial architecture remains a constitutive undercurrent for the self-image of the architect. This logic can not be overcome by fiat: the Dutch attempt to embrace banality from within the avant-garde discourse can not collapse this distinction. We do not regret this. We think this division of labor makes sense with respect to the promotion of the spatial aspects of the socio-economic development.
However, utopian speculation is rather dubious today. In recent years the very notion of progress and the ambition to project a different future has come to be regarded as suspect. Architecture as a discipline and discourse is faced with a large number of shifting variables and conflicting interests. The complexity of the situation precludes straightforward goal orientation. A playing field for experimentation is required to explore possible problems/solutions. This is the raison d’etre of architecture’s relative autonomy. Experimentation requires a certain distancing from immediate performative pressures and the demand of best practise delivery.
For
innovative production a playing field for formal research and spatial
invention is required where both functional and economic performance
criteria are less stringent than in the commercial sector. However,
research is not institutionalised within architecture – neither as
publicy funded university research nor in the form of research departments
within the big architectural firms. Instead the discipline relies on
two substitutes for proper research : architecture schools and
avant garde architects. The commissions of avant garde architects have
to function as vehicles of architectural research. This
is possible within a special segment of the architectural market - the
segment of high profile cultural buildings.
From
the architect’s perspective such cultural icon buildings demands a
certain type of design office and a mode of working that is not easily
adapted to the mundane projects that are locally around the corner.
It requires a world market of cultural project opportunities to feed
a 50 people strong crew specialized in creative work. Thus also from
the supply side the partition of the profession is reinforced.
Art
centers and other “cultural” buildings usually have only loosely defined
briefs that allow for interpretation and experimentation. Architecture
as a discipline and discourse revolves around such buildings. The public
character and media attention attached to these experiments make them
into vehicles of experimental engagement with a wide array of audiences.
This offers an opportunity to gather feed-back and use such buildings
as focal points for participatory innovative processes. The burden
of argument and proof is – to this extent - lifted of the shoulders of the individual
architect even if written statements that try to make sense of strange,
experimental designs are an essential part of the professional practise
in the avant garde/research segment of the profession. Unfortunately
the next step - the translation of new spatial and formal repertoires
into the mainstream - is a matter that largely takes place
outside the critical attention of the discipline or else is deningrated.
This evaluation of the mainstream in terms of a lack of originality,
or a compromise of tectonic/aesthetic principles misses the point –
the raison d’etre of the division of labour within the profession.
However the exchanges between the two fields are no one-way street. We subscribe to Koolhaas’ method of the retro-active manifesto. Innovations are more than just new and different. Not everything goes. Alternatives have to link up with realities. Also :Innovation might be hidden in the « ugly » deviations of commercial development. Taking clues from aspects of mainstream/commercial developments that are not traces of high architecture but rather enforced deviations is a useful technique of seeking out phenomena to extrapolate from.
Tendencies might also be mutated. The question is how much alterity can be digested at once. The burden of responsibility for success can no longer be shouldered by the architect alone. This would choke the development.
1. One task is to scan society to find architectural problems and define briefs even if no client is articulating them. This updates the agenda of architecture.
2. A second task is to explore new design media and modelling techniques. This is closely related to the proliferation of new formal repertoires. Initially such research should be independent of any stringent brief or strict criteria of instrumentalisation. The task is to untap potentials that might inspire the search of problems on the basis of discovered « solutions ». This reversal of the usual means to ends logic is impossible within professional practise – and highly constrained within avant garde practise. The freedom to post-rationalise is greatest where no specific problem is posed from the outside – the only requirement being that a form – function relationship is established at the end.
The function of this academic laboratory research is to criticise, irritate and inspire avant garde and then mainstream professional practise. The idea that academia itself could establish models of best practise is utterly misguided.
6) If you would educate the students at the Berlage laboratory what would you educate them ?
Once this distinction between two domains of architectural innovation - programmatic vs formal innovation - has been posited the call for synthesis seem irresitable : the pursuit of new agendas by means of new media and new forms. Indeed such a synthesis is crucial. However - neither new agendas nor new forms are readily available and their mutual « fit » rarely obvious. Both ingredients of architectural research require an independent life before synthesis can be attemted. The appropriate technique of coping with this is oscillation - either within a project or between projects.