the internet helps us view all these images of all these great works we may never see. sure, study abroad will let you see the Parthenon etc. if you pursue that, but there's limits that mismatch with our post-technological globalization. it's interesting: how educated of global architecture was the pre-internet, working architect? i mean, of course they definitely went to Rome too or something like that but there's a change there with the internet's democratization of information.
anyhow my point is simply that there are endless buildings, and this isn't about how you'll never get to see them all, but rather about how being able to see them through print&digital may skew how we think about architecture, how we think about this field. again, I think the most untrained eye is attracted to the big buildings. on the way back from campus one of the routes we take passes by the charlotte national bank building, driving right by it I always look out the window and upwards towards those huge columns. scale is everything in these cases. or more examples: the UNC Charlotte DuBois Center building near that bank building. or even more prominently, all the skyscrapers populating downtown!
those examples of architecture make themselves literally prominent, they aggrandize themselves with their grandiose designs, with the money that was able to finance such designs, with the labor that made such designs tangible.
but somewhere — actually if you look anywhere else — you find the strip mall, you find the smaller downtown buildings, you find endless old houses draped in masonry, you find etc etc. all of that is also architecture, yes? it's just our eyes gravitate towards the "better stuff".
I think another form of this is an interest in... forms. interesting unconventional forms, the kind of shapes you have no idea how theyd be built in real life. so of course, when we do see real examples of built unconventional buildings, we can be attracted to them. i
definitely feel this way. again, my past projects have gotten pretty conceptual and abstract and as part of that I was specifically really getting into the works of eisenman and libeskind. I used to have a book on Deconstruction. and you just observe these works that are just as real as the local strip mall yet much more interestingly built, to the point maybe someone else you show it to may not like how complicated, messy, etc. it is.
but again, not all buildings are these unicorns. those who can travel to them do so for a reason: they're pretty uncommon. not every state, city, etc. is blessed to have some mind-bending project in it. so while yes it is nice to escape and observe the great marvels, whether classical monuments or contemporary experiments, i worry that this is another case of indulgence that may not reflect what you'll do in the field. yes, I'd love to design something nearly as interesting as House III, or The Crystal, etc etc
but also I accept if my future career as a designer and eventual architect does not cross those paths
like confronting your own mortality I'm just confronting my own limits
life is so unpredictable
especially studying this profession where it feels like you only know 10% of 10% of the knowledge it demands
like what would happen if any bachelors degree class of architecture students had a pop quiz on the ARE ? that'd just be cooked for us
VI. LIKE WINDOWSHOPPING, THE BEAUTIFUL BUILDINGS AREN'T WHERE YOU LIVE: the internet helps us view all these images of all these great works we may never see. sure, study abroad will let you see the Parthenon etc. if you pursue that, but there's limits that mismatch with our post-technological globalization. it's interesting: how educated of global architecture was the pre-internet, working architect? i mean, of course they definitely went to Rome too or something like that but there's a change there with the internet's democratization of information.
anyhow my point is simply that there are endless buildings, and this isn't about how you'll never get to see them all, but rather about how being able to see them through print&digital may skew how we think about architecture, how we think about this field. again, I think the most untrained eye is attracted to the big buildings. on the way back from campus one of the routes we take passes by the charlotte national bank building, driving right by it I always look out the window and upwards towards those huge columns. scale is everything in these cases. or more examples: the UNC Charlotte DuBois Center building near that bank building. or even more prominently, all the skyscrapers populating downtown!
those examples of architecture make themselves literally prominent, they aggrandize themselves with their grandiose designs, with the money that was able to finance such designs, with the labor that made such designs tangible. but somewhere — actually if you look anywhere else — you find the strip mall, you find the smaller downtown buildings, you find endless old houses draped in masonry, you find etc etc. all of that is also architecture, yes? it's just our eyes gravitate towards the "better stuff".
I think another form of this is an interest in... forms. interesting unconventional forms, the kind of shapes you have no idea how theyd be built in real life. so of course, when we do see real examples of built unconventional buildings, we can be attracted to them. and you just observe these works that are just as real as the local strip mall yet much more interestingly built, to the point maybe someone else you show it to may not like how complicated, messy, etc. it is.
but again, not all buildings are these unicorns. those who can travel to them do so for a reason: they're pretty uncommon. not every state, city, etc. is blessed to have some mind-bending project in it. so while yes it is nice to escape and observe the great marvels, whether classical monuments or contemporary experiments, i worry that this is another case of indulgence that may not reflect what you'll do in the field.
either way .. i think architecture often feels like a vessel for everything else .. a house, pessimistically described, has the only purpose of housing people. it's just the place where you live, right? and then we see all these examples of architecturally RELATED things .. boundary markers, sculptures, art, mosaics, etc..
again the self-aggrandizing monumental works DO exist .. you just have to go to them if you even can. because most of us do not live in a building that is most conventionally impressive to look at .. we lived in insulas and now we live in apartments .. we looked up at the Arch of Constantine and now we look up at museums, courthouse buildings, skyscrapers
i think what this makes clear is that there are no huge towering monumental breath-taking buildings without wealth, without money, without just hella racks (sorry for phrasing it that way). and also without a lot of power too .. the average lower-class individual in the past was never going to be the one with the power to say "hey, let's build this huge impressive tower whose gigantic scale makes you feel special and tiny and otherworldly"; such an individual was the one hired to help make it. and that's still very true now. we still compete. literally so, as given by the concept and existence and culture of architecture competitions (that's a whole world i've yet to even step into ...)