Architecture not Revolution?
Well here I go again; to be honest it can be hard to find partners for the conversations I would like to have in this part of the world so I'm blogging. Ever since I attended, the artist, Mary Mattingly’s talk, I have been a fan of the 1 square mile arts initiative in Guelph. I have been really impressed by the art world’s activity in the field of the built environment, actually much more so in some ways than by the normal approaches in the field, that so often to me seem to simply reinforce behaviours in need of fundamental change. Briefly what impressed so much in Mattingly’s talk was her portrayal of chaotic personal circumstance which purposely mirrored a broader chaos in which we could be said currently to live: An image from "Nomadographies"
Last Wednesday a pair of Rotterdam artists Bik Van Der Pol, currently working in Sudbury gave a talk at the Guelph youth music centre. I wondered if they would bring a project they have done called "Love and Happiness" in Almere, (a new town with two experimental housing areas called de Realiteit & de Fantasie on reclaimed land in Northern Holland) to bear on their project in Sudbury. I have always thought this experimental new town, which I have visited, a possible candidate for twinning with Ontario towns, KW or others. The dream of a pioneering life close to nature is never that far away in Ontario. Anyway I was interested.
The talk turned out to be very architectural, their work falls into the relational aesthetics category of current art practice - one project for a bookshop, picked up perfectly on the compressed nature of a tiny London Art Bookshop which exists more or less crammed into the arches of a large raised terrace enroute to Buckingham palace. The project succeeded in expanding the spatial domain of this institution by art practice.
And it turns out that these days the famous Farnsworth house by Mies Van der Rohe floods, despite having been built to avoid this! http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/news/?cat=4 The artists used perceived unsustainability in this work as part of a broader conversation in an art work that replicates the pavilion at small scale. There is a mode of practice for architects whereby the execution of private houses is used to experiment and develop by the architect. These houses are often viewed as elitist, costly affairs although the work done ultimately does reach a wider audience as larger projects in the public sphere are executed with the experience thus gained. It is thought justified as a way to practice and some abuse of a personal friendship by Mies Van Der Rohe in the commission for the Farnsworth House (whose client was very unhappy with the result & famously sued) is thought of rather like a white lie, as fair game. It was said that Mies had a bottom drawer of unremarkable houses that he used to pay the bills and there was some discussion of the ease with which the work of the great modernists was co-opted to heroic but miserable ends in social housing and commercial projects of poor quality.
The question is, what happens if the architect becomes instead more socially engaged, is he or she then not so much an architect anymore? It certainly seems as though art has moved more in that direction and why not architecture too? Is it not possible by not shying away from conversations and engagements one may not wish to have, to achieve fuller realisations? The artists commented that architects, -even the great Rem Koolhaas, tend to avoid issues and subjects unhelpful to their agenda. Maybe there are conversations that need to be had that architects, being commissioned, are often not able to have, not least because they seem to be the last part of a political development process, which is difficult to challenge. Aah the artworld!
Last Wednesday a pair of Rotterdam artists Bik Van Der Pol, currently working in Sudbury gave a talk at the Guelph youth music centre. I wondered if they would bring a project they have done called "Love and Happiness" in Almere, (a new town with two experimental housing areas called de Realiteit & de Fantasie on reclaimed land in Northern Holland) to bear on their project in Sudbury. I have always thought this experimental new town, which I have visited, a possible candidate for twinning with Ontario towns, KW or others. The dream of a pioneering life close to nature is never that far away in Ontario. Anyway I was interested.
The talk turned out to be very architectural, their work falls into the relational aesthetics category of current art practice - one project for a bookshop, picked up perfectly on the compressed nature of a tiny London Art Bookshop which exists more or less crammed into the arches of a large raised terrace enroute to Buckingham palace. The project succeeded in expanding the spatial domain of this institution by art practice.
And it turns out that these days the famous Farnsworth house by Mies Van der Rohe floods, despite having been built to avoid this! http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/news/?cat=4 The artists used perceived unsustainability in this work as part of a broader conversation in an art work that replicates the pavilion at small scale. There is a mode of practice for architects whereby the execution of private houses is used to experiment and develop by the architect. These houses are often viewed as elitist, costly affairs although the work done ultimately does reach a wider audience as larger projects in the public sphere are executed with the experience thus gained. It is thought justified as a way to practice and some abuse of a personal friendship by Mies Van Der Rohe in the commission for the Farnsworth House (whose client was very unhappy with the result & famously sued) is thought of rather like a white lie, as fair game. It was said that Mies had a bottom drawer of unremarkable houses that he used to pay the bills and there was some discussion of the ease with which the work of the great modernists was co-opted to heroic but miserable ends in social housing and commercial projects of poor quality.
The question is, what happens if the architect becomes instead more socially engaged, is he or she then not so much an architect anymore? It certainly seems as though art has moved more in that direction and why not architecture too? Is it not possible by not shying away from conversations and engagements one may not wish to have, to achieve fuller realisations? The artists commented that architects, -even the great Rem Koolhaas, tend to avoid issues and subjects unhelpful to their agenda. Maybe there are conversations that need to be had that architects, being commissioned, are often not able to have, not least because they seem to be the last part of a political development process, which is difficult to challenge. Aah the artworld!
Comments
Post a Comment