Silvetti expressed some concern in the manner in which architecture today is produced and taught. He expresses his opinions about contemporary blob architecture as unintellectual, and without reason. at least, besides the fact that "we can." He expresses disappointment in the mindless embracing of such architecture and in some respects addresses it as the most weakening formal development of contemporary architecture. He suggests that we do not use insights of other fields as literal translations of architecture, but as metaphors to enrich meanings.
I believe that his opinion of contemporary architecture is too narrow. Some examples of blob architecture make strong connections to their site, and are thought out through flow of circulation, as well as other dynamic expressions that cannot be contained in orthogonal confinements. The relationships made in some literal architectural buildings are a progression of metaphorical insights. And this research of change and advancement of architecture, while perhaps a little unorthodox, responds to conditions that architects have never before responded to so directly. We must first properly analyze the influences and effects of these buildings on human productivity, and experience before we judge the intent, and acceptance of these buildings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think Silvetti's concerns are legitimate, but I agree with your point on his narrow scope of contemporary architecture. There are more areas to be studied and engaged in the field of architecture.
ReplyDeleteYour opinion on analyses of influences and effects of archtiecture on people should be encouraged. Nonetheless, experience and happiness should come before human productivity..I think.
I think it is more of a modernist way of looking at the design intent of a form. That the function should drive the project and not the program. Silvetti is trying to encourage more architects to take control of their projects and to allow the design be determined by the program. Blob architecture is another point he was hitting on that most of them have no relationship to the site. So at this point you have designers on opposite ends of the scale, the ones who allow analysis to control the design and those that completely control design and do not allow the design to be informed by the culture of the which the project is to stand.
ReplyDeletesome architects believe that their work has more of a relationship to the site than many other buildings because of they are not restrained to orthogonal rules. Also, shouldn't site analysis have a strong influence on the project instead of the sheer will or intent of the architect?
ReplyDelete