Mortality Is for Losers
11:40 AM
The Death of Marat, Jacque-Louis David, 1793
Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Belgium
In hindsight for Architecture, the turn of the 21st century marked a worrisome time. With the global economy growing at rates unprecedented in centuries, Architecture decided it was time to hoist up its own petard the white flag of surrender. In defeat, the discipline sought to jettison the realm of theory in favor of more technical and technological aims. Architecture’s intellectual heartbeat was deadly low: barely a murmur could be detected. The discussions at this time were sad, as theorists like William J. Mitchell posited overly-positivistic approaches to the implementation of theory that proffered a condition in which the nuanced and academic aspects of designing an environment are watered down in favor of situation where theory is relegated to a secondary-role in the realm of computer aided design.[1] This is the moment of praxis. This is the moment where the discipline has to justify the implementation of theory in tangible work by economic means. When this happens, capital dictates the ways of the discipline: it sees that theory is something that is extraneous to the production of built work and impedes on the ability to earn more money. Capital assumes that theory is only perceptible by those who have the training and that the majority of those who experience architecture will not understand the intricacies employed in a design. Praxis is that moment when theory is diluted by the demands not of making a better condition, but making a better profit margin. To continue down this tract, architecture will fall fallow, as its means to experiment is limited. On this path, capital ‘A’ Architecture will die. Survival comes through the ability to challenge the status quo: not by accepting it.
Architecture’s revulsion to theory at the start of the 21st century in some ways does not come as a surprise. The Thermidor of the early 2000s came in response to what people saw as problematic in the “critical project” of the 1980s and 1990s where architects employed to great lengths the writings and ideas of critical theory. For many, the texts, dense with their word play and syntax, became impenetrable when linked to the built environment. The self-referentiality of these moves that manifested in architecture privied themselves to those who were knowledgeable: they were in essence indexing ideas and concepts that few people knew. Moreover, it became hard to justify these moves in terms of profitability. Simultaneously, the rise of computer aided design allowed for accelerated production of designs, which in turn allowed for more billing opportunities in offices. When compared side-to-side, the long-term goals of advancing architecture through theoretical discourse at the expense of complexity lost out to making more money. It is a moment like this, that Architecture forgets that it is a profession and not a trade. The end-goal should not be how to make the most money, but rather how to make the present condition better.
Without critical dialogue in the discipline, Architecture cannot go forward. We have seen the backlash that follows when indexical criticality is applied. Such a theoretical criticality, to be honest, does exclude a significant part of the population. That being said, theory should not be ruled as something undemocratic: rather it is quite the opposite. Theory has the ability to enlighten a populace and be a force for liberation. Eschewing indexical practices that rely on the past is the first step. If we are to use theory as a means to move forward as a collective, we must implement ideas that encourage forward movement. It is at this moment that we push aside the demands of capital – for it will eventually follow our steps – and work towards the conceptualization and eventual implementation of environments that encourage society’s advancement. The technical aspects of architecture will of course be there and they can exist in concert with the theoretical. However, what emerges is that using theory as means to move a larger collective forward make the discipline relevant as a game-changer once again. It can stave off the mortality that looms when theory is dropped or watered-down in the face of market conditions. Theory can bully market forces. Theory can push forward.
If Architecture wants to remain both an academic and professional pursuit, it will need to be aggressive. Aggressiveness manifests through dialogue that emerges out of critical discourse. In this moment in time, Architecture can choose to either go down the route of mediocrity and eventual mortality, or it can fight against the present condition and improve upon it.
[1] cf. “Theory, A Very Useful Engine” which appeared Architectural Theory and Education at the Millenium, Part 5 in issue 11 of Architecture and Urbanism.
0 comments