Last semester, I handed in a design assignment, for which I received a 6, where the criticism was that while my idea was amazing, and my execution of that idea from a business and user point of view was 100% spot on, the physical architecture itself was arbitrary. At the time, I was a little disappointed, however I could understand the criticism. Why this is important to reflect on today, has much to do with Isozaki's (1999) article, which concentrates on the work of Cedric Price, and in particular, the Fun Palace.
The Fun Palace was to be socially interactive architecture, interchangeable, innovative and improvisational- it was to change the way architecture was thought of. Its program was different to that of traditional architecture- it was flexible but arranged, and technologically forward-thinking. It was groundbreaking stuff, but its physical form was arbitrary- physically, the fun palace was a container of awesome ideas and systems- a box of moving parts.
Which leads to my point- why then, are we, as students, criticised for doing the same? If architecture is moving past being just about the physical form, then at what point does the physical form stop mattering, and the function become more important? What happens when architects transcend physical architecture? Can it be achievable? Sustainable? Or is it all just mere fantasy, a way to dare to dream beyond our stair detail and wet area elevation realities?
No comments:
Post a Comment