86.You don’t have to be good part 4: Form follows Taste

So in the last note in this series, I concluded that idea is king and that it trumps everything in contemporary architecture.  In other words, if your idea is interesting enough, you can bypass quality construction and rigorous design. So in this note, I will start with the question: 

What else is trumped by idea?

One of the first things I immediately thought about was this interview with Peter Eisenman.

In this video from  7 (Seven) Deconstructivist Architects, Eisenman’s arguments gives a sense of how he sees architecture: as a medium to express ideas even if it means subordinating function, people and wholeness to it.

When we think of stability in our society we think of architecture, for example when I work with Jacques Derrida, Jacques always say to me:
“What about people...but what about the functions”
and I said;
“what do you mean what about the people?... Do you ever worry about people who read your books?”
He said;
“no, those were books, this is architecture, this deals with shelter comfort things like that”
and I said;
“that's a really funny thing for the arch-deconstructionist to be concerned with shelter and comfort”
But you see what I said to Jacques was;
“You philosophers are very funny because it's alright for you guys to move the whole telos of the society around, but when it comes to an architect you say: oh no! that's got to stay in place. So that you guys can be radical, [while] architecture remains whole.”

So then the standard counter argument to Eisenman is:
Well if you are reading a philosophy book and you don’t like it, then you can close the book and put it away - even burn it if you like - but with a building, you have to live with it!

That’s my initial reaction as well, but here is another way to look at it: If a client wants to pay Peter Eisenman thousands of dollars to design a building that makes them uncomfortable and they are also willing to pay several millions to build it, then obviously they are motivated by his work and they are getting exactly what they want. That’s their taste.
As long as these ideas are not applied to urban design and city planning, why should that bother me?

Purposely ignoring the idea of form following function, Eisenman created spaces that were quirky and well-lit, but rather unconventional to live with. He made it difficult for the users so that they would have to grow accustom to the architecture and constantly be aware of it. For instance, in the bedroom there is a glass slot in the center of the wall continuing through the floor that divides the room in half, forcing there to be separate beds on either side of the room so that the couple was forced to sleep apart from each other. 

Upside down stair.

If you are of conservative taste don’t worry, this is a conceptual house built with the aim to spark discussion and debate about ideas. Don’t look to see anything like this as the future of housing.

Personally I am not convinced by the argument that Eisenman makes which essentially states that architecture is kind of like infrastructure in the sense that no one really pays attention to it. It is just there like background music in a film. In order for people to pay attention to architecture it has to basically confront them, do something unexpected, and make people uncomfortable. In doing so, they will be forced to pay attention to it and ask why? Why is this door placed in such an odd way, why is this building element sticking out like that? And so on.

To be honest, that does not inspire me to go and take up a book and read about deconstructivism. It would just annoy me. But that’s just me.

Eisenman however, makes a good point: Functionality is not, or should not be the end-all and be-all in determining architectural form. Neither should it necessarily be the most dominant issue in evaluating a work of architecture.

Another way to say that is: in architecture, ideas should be free to transcend function and comfort.

If we take this argument to its logical extension (...and especially in light of the previous notes in this series) then ideas should also be free to transcend just about anything: Quality construction and even good space.

I should at this point say that Eisenman's attempt to liberate form from function is not the same as Bjarke Ingel’s attempt to liberate form from quality detailing and construction or SANAA’s attempt to liberate form from quality space and rigorous design. Eisenman’s attempts are deliberate where Bjarke’s was more out of carelessness or capitulation to commercial interests and SANAA’s was more out of either laziness or timidity.

But to get back to Eisenman’s point: Form does not necessarily need to follow function in the strictest sense of the word.

Look at this chair below:

It is a very functional chair: It is a recliner chair with electric recline and massage features. This is perhaps one of the most comfortable chairs money can buy. Just look on the ear-to-ear smile on that lady’s face.

However, in my view, that chair reminds me of something I would find in my grandmother's home. It is not my style and I would not buy it or have it in my apartment.

Now look at these other chairs below:

It is called the One&One chair designed by Konstantinos Pamporis and is basically formed of two distinct pieces and based on the concept that each of the pieces symbolized one person in a relationship.

“The idea behind this project was to create a piece of furniture that symbolizes the relationship between a couple. A relationship is only possible when there exists dependence. The elements that come with dependence are “faith” and “risk”. Because of that fact, one chair has only on one side a leg which makes it automatically dependent on the other one. As soon as you become dependent on something we can talk automatically about might!” 

These are rather elegant in my opinion, and the concept is delightfully poetic, but I would not want to sit on it, especially the one with the pink edges.

Just like Eisenman’s house, this is a concept project.

These two sets of chairs represent two extremes in a goldilocks scenario.

• The first one is was way too conventional; it discusses only function and lacks qualities of ingenuity, playfulness, or experimentation. It is too parochial for my tastes.
• The second sits in the other extreme, it discusses a poetic idea but the notion of comfort and functionality is all but destroyed (albeit deliberately) as a byproduct of the concept.

My ideal chair sits somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. And that’s my point here; I said “my” ideal not “the” ideal.  And there in lies the heart of the matter. It is taste that drives ideas: Form follows taste.


Form does not have to follow function and the most important thing is not necessarily to make the most functional and user friendly everything. Sometimes it’s okay to give up some level of practicality or certain physical comforts for visual or other ones. It is something we all do whether we think we do or not.

How far we are willing to compromise practicality, functionality, good craftsmanship or quality construction for ideas (whether they are visual, philosophical, sociological, esthetic, etc) depends largely on our own personal taste. Consumers of the Mountain Dwellings would much rather give up some of the virtues of quality detailing for the cool and chic that comes from living in a BIG designed apartment, while the people behind The New Museum probably have no idea of what a quality and rigorously designed space looks like even if it fell on top of them like a brick, but they most likely do care about having the white hot Japanese design duo’s name behind their new building and are duly reaping the hype and publicity that comes along with it.

The craftsmanship and quality of the building itself are just there as a supporting substrate for your ideas. As Eisenman pointed out, this is all like infrastructure, stuff that nobody really pays attention to (maybe except for pesky little bloggers like me). What really matter are your ideas (and by logical extrapolation your taste).

Conrad Newel 
NOTES ON BECOMING A FAMOUS ARCHITECT 
Liberating Minds Since August 2007 

RELATED POSTS

84.You Don't Have to be Good - Part 3: It's about the idea stupid.

83. You Don't have to be Good - Part 2: SANAA & The New Museum

82. You Don't Have to be Good - Part 1: BIG, JDS, PLOT

85. Do you really think that all starchitects actively try and brand themselves?

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for the question.

Yes! I do think that all famous architects actively promote and brand themselves. Obviously some do it much more than others.

I am normally skeptical about painting things (especially sociological issues) with such a broad brush, but I have been looking at this for quite some time now (as you can see) and the more I look, the more I am convinced that it is just that way.

Being a famous architect is an extremely difficult thing to pull off. It is something you have to actively work at, and there are many out there who have worked their whole career at it with little or no result. 

To become a starchitect without trying would require a lot of miraculous opportunities to magically fall before you in a perfectly aligned sequence, at the perfect time, while you just happened to be in the perfect places and say just the right things. I am not saying that miracles do not happen or that it is impossible, but it would be extremely rear.

It would be like just whimsically winning the Mr Olympia bodybuilding contest without trying. 

Now if you are talking specifically about branding I will also say yes. Absolutely!. However, when we think about branding we have negative connotations about it. We think of it as some kind of contrived thing that corporations do to deceive people to buy their product; that the brander is really a kind of Dr. Jekyl & Mr Hyde character who brands himself as the good guy meanwhile he is really a hideous monster underneath the cloak. 

This is not necessarily so. Branding, is about putting your best foot forward and making a reputation around your best qualities. It is about standing out from the crowd in light of your most unique and admirable characteristics.

Think about it. You and I brand ourselves all the time without even thinking about it. When you go out on a first date don't you try to show the best side of yourself? You shave off that scruffy beard that you were too lazy to cut for the past 5 days, you take a shower even if you normally shower ever other week, and you don yourself in the clothes that you think you look most attractive in. 

When you meet her, you take her to a nice restaurant that you normally don't go to. You talk more politely than you normally do, and laugh hysterically at things that are nowhere near funny.  

So does, that mean that you are really the boogie man in disguise or that your motives are sinister? No. Unfortunately for some guys it is, but if you are really a descent guy and you are looking for a relationship with this lady, then you go through this process because you want her to come away with a positive impression of you.

Famous architects (and even non famous architects) do this with their careers as well. They build up a public image based on the positive aspects of themselves. If they are very good at it, you don't even know that they are doing it (like Peter Zumthor) and if they are really bad at it ( like Daniel Libeskind) then that's all you see. 

In addition to looking and acting the part (as you and I have done on first dates), star architects have to take their branding/promotion a step further. Since they are courting large communities of architects, students, clients, scholars etc, and not just one person, they have to brand on a massive scale and thus have to use media appropriate to that scale. So they present this positive impression of themselves through publishing, giving many lectures, participating in interviews for magazines, attending symposiums, networking with the right people etc. 

I am sure if you do a little research on Oscar Niemeyer, Kevin Roche, Alvaro Siza,or Eduardo Souto de Moura, you will likely find that they all have done these things as well. 

Best Regards,

Conrad

--

Conrad Newel

NOTES ON BECOMING A FAMOUS ARCHITECT
Liberating Minds Since August 2007

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Carlos wrote:

Comment I've thoroughly enjoyed your blog ever since I started reading it a few weeks ago. I have a question though, do you really think that all starchitects actively try and brand themselves to become famous?

There are certain architects that do seem like they seek the fame, but there are others that I believe are genuine. The people that I'm talking about are Oscar Niemeyer, Kevin Roche, Alvaro Siza, Eduardo Souto de Moura. These are all architects that seem to be to be more concerned with the quality of their work than their fame. I'm very interested on what your opinion of this is. 

Thanks.

Carlos

--

84.You Don't Have to be Good - Part 3: It's about the Idea Stupid!

Looking over the previous two post in this series - Mountain Dwellings and the New Museum - I was contemplating on the idea of quality (...or lack of it ) as seen in these two famous works: Lack of quality detailing and construction in the Mountain Dwellings and lack of spatial quality in the New Museum. So then I remembered this statement by Mies.

 First of all, I was influenced by old buildings. I looked at them, people built them. I don't know the names, and I don't know what it was . . . mostly very simple buildings. When I was really young, not even twenty years old, I was impressed by the strength of these old buildings because they didn't even belong to any epoch. But they were there for one thousand years and still there and still impressive, and nothing could change it. And all the styles, the great styles, passed, but they were still there. They didn't lose anything. They were ignored through certain architectural epochs, but they were still there and still good as they were in the first day they were built. 

The notion of building architecture of lasting quality that he so eloquently described is a very nice idea. It is an idea that I think has escaped a great many of the celebrated architects of our generation. Instead of building monuments to the ages, they seem to be more preoccupied with building monuments to the fleeting moment.

Compared to some in the previous generations of starchitects (Mies, Kahn, Scarpa, Barragan, etc) I think that quite a few of our present generation’s celebrities have sidestepped the notion of quality in the discourse of their work. I am picking on BIG, JDS, and SANAA because I have been to their work and have experienced it for myself, but I suspect that it is a wider phenomenon beyond those stars. I would even argue that it spans beyond architecture and is equally prevalent in other fields such as industrial design. For example, there was a time not long ago when the things that you bought in the store had lasting quality. So much so that that they could outlast both you and your children. It would be normal for people to inherit a cherished product from their parents that they could then pass on to their own children.

Do you remember those days?
Perhaps have you are in possession of such a product?

Of course not, you're too young. Watch the clip below: ( this is how consumer-products used to be, quality-wise).



Now consider this: If that golden watch was made with the same level of detailing and craftsmanship as the VM apartments or the mountain dwellings were designed and made with, how long would you give it to survive up Christopher Walken's ass?

I didn't think so either.

Here is another thing to consider: if Apple were to come out with an i-watch tomorrow, would you imagine wanting to pass that down to your children as a birthright, let alone going through any lengths to ensure that it reaches them?

The standard defense of high-tech low-quality creations is that technology is developing so rapidly that it doesn’t make sense to build things that last for a lifetime. I understand this argument but it is nonsense. Apple could make products of lasting quality, but instead, they chose to make products that are close to disposable. Their products are designed to last for about 3-4 years so that you are forced to constantly buy new ones. My i-phone that I bought 3 years ago is not compatible with a great number of apps on the itunes store and it is almost worthless. Apple does this because they are really not bothered by the idea of having an umbilical cord attached to your wallet.

The technology-moving-too-fast argument does not hold water. I can think of several products that were built in yesteryear that was designed with special care that I can still use and enjoy today; products that gets better with age even though the technology is from another era.

This old record player for example, has a distinct aesthetic quality onto itself both in its sound and its physical design. Not even the latest and most advanced i-pod with the most sophisticated surround sound speaker system can measure up to it, even though it’s technology is mortally outdated.

This BMW from 1938 could never ever go anywhere near as fast as the current models with all their climate control, GPS navigation system etc. but it’s design has made it a thing of lasting quality. I am not a fan of cars and I never was, but it is not very difficult to appreciate and be attracted to the quality and craftsmanship that goes into its making.

This industrial Vornado electric fan built in Wichita, Kansas in the 1940s/50s by the O.A. Sutton Company was not an expensive luxury item like the BMW above. It was just a elegant and thoughtfully designed object. The chips and scratches that it has developed over the years have only added to it’s character.

The technology-moving-too-fast argument is even weaker when we take it back to architecture. The Maison de Verre designed by Pierre Chearu in 1928 is an example of architecture integrated with the technology of its time. More importantly it is an example of quality detailing. Since he started out as a fine furniture designer, Chearu approached the design of the building as such. The result is a meticulously crafted building where even the furniture was designed and integrated into the building. I wouldn't say it was good as the day it was made, but for something close to 100 years old, it's not too shabby.

The simple truth is that quality design and craftsmanship transcends technology.

 So here is my question:

•  How can some of the most celebrated architects and designers of our time get away with designing works of such low-quality again and again and not only come away unscathed, but win multiple design awards and accolades for them time and time again? 
• Why is it that no one is saying anything about the quality? 

There are many layers of reasons that I will cover in the upcoming series of notes. For now, I will discuss the one which I believe is the most relevant. The clue can be found in starchitecture school. If you ever remember sitting in a crit and seeing the reaction when a star student present and compared it with the reactions later on when a regular student present, then you will get what I am saying.

When a star student presents an eye popping project that has little relationship to reality, their professors tends to smile and discuss the novelty of the idea, while when a regular student presents a less spectacular project that is well considered in relation to real world concerns, he gets questioned on all the nuances of his details.

This is simply because the critic responds to the prevailing ideas and themes that the project discusses. They respond to how you talk about your work as much as the work itself. Unless you have made some really obvious mistakes that is so distracting from the idea of the project that it can not be ignored, quality will not be discussed.

If the principal architectural idea of your project discusses an issue rooted in reality, then you will be critiqued based on the rules of the real world. You will be asked questions like:

• How do you deal with the structural issues?
• That building is right across the street from where the local crack addicts hang out. How do you then deal with issues of security, etc? 

However, If you locate your project in the imaginary world of Harry Potter, for example, then it discusses the world of Hogwarts and wizardry. You will be critiqued based on the rules and reality outlined by J.K. Rowling.

You will not be asked about ventilation, crack addicts, security or how your building engages activity on the pedestrian level. Your professors will discuss how the phenomenology of wizardry permeates contemporary society and its ramifications on urban space. And if you are in a real star-architecture school, they will discuss these issues among themselves in front of you as though you are not in the room. Therefore you will not be asked any questions.

Lebbeus Woods once said that architecture is about ideas. He is right!

The significance of your project lies within the ideas that it discusses. Similarly, famous buildings are usually famous because of the ideas that they discuss.

The Maison de Verre by virtue of its high attention to detail and craftsmanship sets up a framework to discuss the idea of quality and craftsmanship. In a critique or discussion of this work, one will tend to discuss the choice of materials, the types of hinges he used or the placements of the elements in relation to the body and such.

Conversely, if the conceptual idea is not directly about quality or the materials, then quality, space, materials, aging etc is secondary and therefore treated accordingly.

The prevailing ideas behind BIG’s projects, for instance, are generally about taking two or more traditionally independent programs and merging them together to make an interdependent hybrid that benefit from one another. Its about parametric design and not the least, it is about engaging commercialism and economy as a robust feature of their design and branding strategy. The most important thing in these projects is to demonstrate that this concept works at least at a basic level, that it appeases commercial interests and that it looks good enough (at least on the opening day). Long-term quality and detailing is not unimportant, but it is less so relative to the larger issues and concepts at work here.

With the New Museum, the main idea is about challenging the way we think about vertical construction. Again as with the VM and Mountain Dwelling Project, the most important thing about the building as far as its relevance in the larger discourse in architecture is to demonstrate that it can be done. It cements an idea in place and time. When historians, academics, students etc discuss and write about the issue of vertical construction in architecture, it will stand on the timeline of critical references along with Louis Sullivan’s Wainwright building, the Seagrams building, etc In this scheme, spatial quality and outstanding detailing is not unimportant but it is less so relative to the prevailing issue of verticality, and the sculptural iconography of the building’s exterior form. Unless it is underperforming in a major way, quality is not an issue.

By contrast, if you look at Meis’ branding strategy and philosophy (prevailing ideas), you will see that it is all about projecting integrity and quality. He derides any notions of temporality (the styles, fashion, etc), he wants to talk about the longer arc of time, material integrity etc. This is where he situates his work and this is what his brand is all about. Below, he talks about his philosophy (and please do not get hypnotized by his branding machine - take it for what it is - an honest observation smothered in promotional whip-cream):

My architectural philosophy came out of reading philosophical books. I cannot tell you at the moment where I read it, but I know I read it somewhere, that architecture belongs to the epoch and not even to the time, to a real epoch. Since I understood that, I would not be for fashion in architecture. I would look for more profound principles. I was lucky enough, you know, when I came to the Netherlands and I was confronted with Berlage's work. There, was the construction. What made the strongest impression on me was the use of brick and so on, the honesty of materials and so on. I never forget this lesson I got there just by looking at his buildings.

If you look at say his Farnsworth house for example, (as with the Mountain Dwelling and the New Museum) the most important thing about the building (as far as its relevance in the larger discourse in architecture is concerned) is to demonstrate that this concept-philosophy can be materialized in the real world. However the core of this concept was about materiality, timelessness, and quality. So to demonstrate that, it had to be designed and built in such a way that it can withstand aging without losing its integrity.

Long term quality, and detailing is at the center of this philosophy. So if any of Mies’ buildings were made nearly as poorly as the Mountain Dwellings or the VM apartments it would have probably been ruinous to his career and reputation. Conversely, if any of Bjarke’s work were as famously over budget in the way Mies’s Farnsworth house was, it would probably ruin his reputation too.

So what’s my point?

The prevailing ideas of your work and branding trumps all. In the grand scheme of the fame game, quality in material and craftsmanship, even fundamental things like quality of space are simply subordinates to ideas and branding. For celebrated works, they are dispensable attributes, not fundamental prerequisites as I previously thought. So, allow me to retort with the title of this series: You don’t have to be good.


Conrad Newel

NOTES ON BECOMING A FAMOUS ARCHITECT
Liberating Minds Since August 2007


RELATED NOTES:
83. You Don't have to be Good - Part 2: SANAA & The New Museum
82. You Don't Have to be Good - Part 1: BIG, JDS, PLOT