Marc Kushner, Mattias del Campo, Joseph Rosa, Tatiana Bilbao, and François Roche discuss the current condition of architecture at the University of Michigan's Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning's symposium Public
September 28, 2012, Ann Arbor, MI
(photo from Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning's Flickr account)
September 28, 2012, Ann Arbor, MI
(photo from Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning's Flickr account)
With the state of the global economy the way it has been for the past five years, the meteoric trajectory that architecture has rode over the past few decades has been curtailed. Nicolai Ouroussoff’s October 2009 article he for The New York Times titled “An American Architectural Epoch Locks Its Doors” is an obituary of sorts for post-World War II architecture. He writes, “A dynamic moment in American architecture […] is officially over. The money has dried up, and who knows when there will be another similar boom.”1 In addition, with commissions slowing only to a trickle into architects’ offices, there will have to be a paradigm shift for the profession to stay afloat. But this is not the first time the discipline has been dealt this hand of cards: the economic uncertainties of the late 1960s created a situation where architects like Archigram, Superstudio, and the like moved away from tangible structures and onto more theoretical grounds. In light of today’s economic situation, architects can do the same, but the context within the discipline has changed. Not only will architects have to reconcile with what the professional demands of the discipline are, but they will also have to struggle with the historical precedent of the previous generation. The discipline is at a turning point where it will have to decide whether or not to continue the trajectory of architectural history set forth by the likes of Koolhaas, Hadid, Eisenman, Tschumi, Lynn, etc., or to proclaim that the current epoch of architectural history is done and start anew.
The precedent that contemporary architects have to work with is born out of the liberal democratic epoch. The designs that are grand in scale and thick with theoretical mechanisms are dependent on the Western model of capitalism. Whether the design is commissioned by those with the economic means or are envisioned as a retort to those with the means, this sort of model loses stability in light of the major crisis in capital that been spiraling out of control since 2008. Therefore, as architects today are now finding that they have ample time to initiate their own projects, they are also at a moment where they can create a new history for architecture. Not unlike the great leaps that the “radical architects” of the 1960s/1970s made, today’s architects should be doing the same.
Between the end of the Cold War and the stock market crashes of 2008, architecture has been in this seemingly perpetual loop where the Starchitect reigns supreme. But when the money dries up, the desire to hire a Starchitect begins to shrivel. It was telling that at the “Public” conference hosted by Taubman College there was agreement over the death of the Starchitect and that it would mean a new generation of architects – namely those who work in collectives – can step up to lead the discipline at this critical junction. And in doing so, there is a trend in distancing the new work from past precedent.2 Similar to the existential crisis that is happening in the contemporary art world vis à vis its relationship to art history,3 the same is slowly starting to seep into architecture. The formalism of Rowe is being eschewed as too limiting, and soon, as Koolhaas’s popularity is sure to wane, the aesthetics of Mies that the Dutchman has propagated will undoubtedly fall to the wayside as the new generation of architects is going to be interested in creating their own forms. The symbolism of the past is losing its currency as the context that birthed it recedes into distant memory as new situations evolve, begetting new outcomes.
In short, architecture is at a critical crossroad. Either the discipline can try to continue the down the path of the 1990s/early 2000s in which the designs, through their bigness and grandeur embodied the ethos of their time all the while being oddly obedient to the past in the homages that architects make, or a new trajectory can be charted where obedience is not needed. It would behoove architecture to do the latter as it would give itself the opportunity to become a relevant field once again where it can engage in improving the collective human condition via new ways of conceptualizing design as opposed to repeating the ideas of the past which would fail to add new ideas to the architectural discourse.
The precedent that contemporary architects have to work with is born out of the liberal democratic epoch. The designs that are grand in scale and thick with theoretical mechanisms are dependent on the Western model of capitalism. Whether the design is commissioned by those with the economic means or are envisioned as a retort to those with the means, this sort of model loses stability in light of the major crisis in capital that been spiraling out of control since 2008. Therefore, as architects today are now finding that they have ample time to initiate their own projects, they are also at a moment where they can create a new history for architecture. Not unlike the great leaps that the “radical architects” of the 1960s/1970s made, today’s architects should be doing the same.
Between the end of the Cold War and the stock market crashes of 2008, architecture has been in this seemingly perpetual loop where the Starchitect reigns supreme. But when the money dries up, the desire to hire a Starchitect begins to shrivel. It was telling that at the “Public” conference hosted by Taubman College there was agreement over the death of the Starchitect and that it would mean a new generation of architects – namely those who work in collectives – can step up to lead the discipline at this critical junction. And in doing so, there is a trend in distancing the new work from past precedent.2 Similar to the existential crisis that is happening in the contemporary art world vis à vis its relationship to art history,3 the same is slowly starting to seep into architecture. The formalism of Rowe is being eschewed as too limiting, and soon, as Koolhaas’s popularity is sure to wane, the aesthetics of Mies that the Dutchman has propagated will undoubtedly fall to the wayside as the new generation of architects is going to be interested in creating their own forms. The symbolism of the past is losing its currency as the context that birthed it recedes into distant memory as new situations evolve, begetting new outcomes.
In short, architecture is at a critical crossroad. Either the discipline can try to continue the down the path of the 1990s/early 2000s in which the designs, through their bigness and grandeur embodied the ethos of their time all the while being oddly obedient to the past in the homages that architects make, or a new trajectory can be charted where obedience is not needed. It would behoove architecture to do the latter as it would give itself the opportunity to become a relevant field once again where it can engage in improving the collective human condition via new ways of conceptualizing design as opposed to repeating the ideas of the past which would fail to add new ideas to the architectural discourse.
[1] Nicolai Ouroussoff, "An American Architectural Epoch Locks Its Doors", The New York Times, 24 October 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/weekinreview/25ouroussoff.html
[2] The groundwork for this departure from precedent has been, in part, been initiated by the introduction of computer aided design. However, unlike the first generation of computer-driven architects, like Greg Lynn and Patrick Schumacher, who first trained by analogue methods of design, the new generation (i.e. those who have never learned how to draft by hand) will encounter a wholly digital means and understanding of form making.
[3] The installation and sculptural works of Matthew Day Jackson are indicative of this break from past histories in a quest to establish a new art history.
