The Architectural Condition

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Whoever desires to make any model or design for the vaulting of the main Dome of the Cathedral under construction by the Opera del Duomo – for armature, scaffold or other thing, or any lifting device pertaining to the construction and perfection of said cupola or vault – shall do so before the end of the month of September. If the model be used he shall be entitled to a payment of 200 gold Florins.¹

Thus, on 19 August 1418 came the announcement for an architectural competition for one of the most noteworthy projects in the history of European architecture: the design and construction of the dome of the Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence. Even before architecture began to be institutionalised during the 18th and 19th centuries, the notion of the architectural competition was, apparently, a given. Carpenters, stonemasons, sculptors and even a goldsmith chose to participate. Fifteen competitors submitted models and accompanying material. As is often the case today, the selection of a winner was fraught with intrigue and politics. The promised remunerations were shared between Lorenzo Ghiberti (1378–1455) and Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446), and reduced, yet the competition enabled the realisation of a masterpiece.²

Despite the hardships, unfulfilled promises and moments of frustration, the commission allowed Brunelleschi to demonstrate his genius and assure his immortality. Thus, ingrained within the artist’s ego we find the germ of a malaise; the willingness to embrace uncalculated risks and accept numerous compromises in the hope of realising a vision.

All those who are driven to create, or to practise their craft, face the challenge of how to reconcile their passion with the need to convert their endeavours into a marketable service or product. In the centuries that have passed since the medieval guilds, the various occupations have evolved in different ways in the hope of resolving this elusive riddle. Some, like painters and sculptures, abandoned their institutional coherence in an effort to liberate themselves from the guilds, while others, such as doctors, sought to protect and even expand their domains of responsibility and expertise. This book is about the particular world of architecture: its guilds, associations and educational institutions, its coherent global presence and remarkable vulnerabilities. The aim is to initiate a debate within the field; to analyse some of the most damaging flaws that plague the profession and to propose ways in which these shortcomings may be addressed for the benefit of both society and practitioners.

The most public of the arts, architecture has been experiencing a renaissance of sorts for close to two decades. As a result of technological advancements in methods of design and production, it is not only responding to market forces, but also fulfilling its role as a visionary art form that inspires and reflects contemporary culture. Alongside the major economic and cultural shifts that are reshaping our globalised and digitalised society, architecture is being realised at levels of sophistication, scale and cost that rival any historic precedence. Thus, it is attracting a great deal of media attention and earning global acceptance, with certain architects gaining all the adulation and trappings of cultural superstars.

And yet, all is not well.

As in the case of the other arts, there is an ever-growing polarisation between the few who have risen to stardom and the masses who are left behind with little more than their aspirations. Although architecture is a unique profession, it is not alone in confronting the economic reality that is warped by its public image. Over the years, numerous surveys have been undertaken by academic and institutional bodies that clearly demonstrate the inherent problems of the profession.³ The majority of these reports deal with issues related to architectural remunerations, but also address subjects such as the history and evolution of the profession, the economic and social standing of architects within society and their place within construction, and the role of academia.

The list of discourses within and beyond architecture that have attempted to address its occupational shortcomings is truly exhaustive. However, such reports have generally failed to instigate change. Far less inspiring, accessible and seductive than architectural photos and renderings, they tend to receive limited attention and achieve little in terms of their impact on either the profession or academia.

Faced with the general ineffectiveness of past endeavours to implement the necessary changes within the administrative and educational institutions that regulate the profession, the analysis here attempts to address the numerous shortcomings by focusing upon architecture’s collective subjectivities, its particular mindset and aspirations rather than just confirming what the majority of the profession already knows – that architecture is more a way of life than a viable occupation, that despite the many attempts to expand the parameters of the architectural debate, architects have overwhelmingly clung to their particularly self-referential ethos.

In order to convey the extent of the problem and the urgent need for change, it is necessary to first reveal the structural faults and then to propose ways in which the profession may be enticed to see beyond its current limitations. Rather than being restricted to the boundaries that define the architectural practice, this work speculates on the potential of developing domains of specialisation and expanding the scope of architecture beyond the confines of the profession. The challenges architects are facing are not only a result of market conditions or the reshaping of contemporary society; to an important extent they are self-inflicted.

It is certainly not easy for long-established institutions to accept responsibility and embrace change. And as difficult as it may be to overcome physical obstacles, it is even harder to instil change within the ephemeral habits and instincts of a profession infused with both faith and ideology. One must go beyond the dry facts and find ways to encourage self-doubt so that a more vibrant debate may drive architects to breach the conventions currently crippling the profession.

NOTES

1. See Ross King, Brunelleschi’s Dome: How a Renaissance Genius Reinvented Architecture, Walker Publishing Company (New York), 2000, p 1.

2. 2. Ibid, pp 1–11.

3. See, for example: Aziz Mirza and Vince Nacey, ‘The Architectural Profession in Europe 2010’, Architects’ Council of Europe, 2010: www.ace-cae.eu/public/contents/index/ category_id/228/language/en; IBISWorld Industry Research Reports, 1999–2012: www.ibisworld.com; Kostof Spiro (ed), The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, University of California Press (Berkeley, CA), 2000; Mark Crinson and Jules Lubbock, Architecture: Art or Profession? Three Hundred Years of Architectural Education in Britain, Manchester University Press (Manchester and New York), 1994; Robert Gutman, Architectural Practice, a Critical View, Princeton Architectural Press (Princeton, NJ), 1998.

At the origin of architecture lies the incompressible gift of alchemy – the ability to transform the fruits of the imagination into a concrete reality that embodies within it a multitude of values. There are many ways in which architecture is envisioned; light markings on a page, geometric patterns, abstract models, compulsive sketches and texts are all processes of architecture. Analysis, definitions, composition and even randomness are invariably adopted to develop a concept. There is very little architecture without process, without research into the reconcilement between what is required and what, nevertheless, needs to be expressed.

There seems to exist a kind of defining DNA that sets architects apart in their perception and thought processes. Envisioned within a multitude of scales, architecture requires translation from the drafted to the realised, from the personal to the collective, from abstraction to the scale of 1:1.¹ There is power in the drafted lines and patterns that exist beyond scale. They may be intuitive or numeric markings of a thought process, yet their ability to influence reality is considerable. The role of the personal, aesthetic and intuitive rests partially on the notion that what is deemed beautiful is also correct.

It is not easy to explain the merits of a pattern or the flaws in a line. A discipline that is driven by aesthetics, instinct and personal preferences and enforced by experience rather than structured expertise, often obscures the validity of the process and the means by which decisions are made. The result is a practice that fuses concrete and conceptual issues while succumbing to the perceived beauty of patterns and scales. The straight line may be abandoned for the attractiveness of a curve, while a simple joint is overlooked by the desire to elaborate a detail. Like a secret language that encompasses an entire realm, the architect exists within a coded world of patterns, textures and lines, differentiated by a thought process that redefines points of reference. Ultimately, the architect is seduced by the power of the abstract, and a certain dissonance often emerges between declared and undeclared priorities.

At the core of the architectural debate are the parameters according to which architects invent and create. All innovation and creativity emerges from within an ephemeral sense of intuition, from an ability to assume that something is right even before the analytical process has been completed. What must be addressed at the scale of 1:100 is different from the challenges of detailing at 1:10, yet the process is somehow inseparable. There is often a shadow of differing scales within every process, with a multitude of considerations embedded within the lines or patterns awaiting articulation. Thus, submerged within a world of associations and coded intentions, architects continually shift between processes of creation and translation. Intuitions are revised or confirmed, and associations are abandoned or re-enforced as the process of realising architecture gains inertia.

Invariably, the creative process is surrounded by technicalities, by layers of requirements that constantly challenge the quality of the architectural vision. Within a discipline that encompasses such a profusion of layers, scales and considerations, the likelihood of errors is far from negligible and often inevitable. The design process is typified by successive stages of development, but perhaps the most critical stage in determining the quality of a scheme is to be found at the conceptual level. Almost all subsequent achievements may be traced back to the concept. It is at the conceptual level that architects may demonstrate an ignorance of critical facts and ill-define the aim of a scheme, diverge from the interests of the client, or accept, without question, the function of a project. And it is at the conceptual level that architects most often demonstrate an inclination to filter out issues that do not necessarily align with their intuitive or subjective agendas.

Power and Responsibility

Architecture defines relationships. It encourages or restricts social, cultural and economic activities. Work and leisure, health and education, the collective as well as the intimate occur within the architectural imagination and its manifestations. It is