Monday, 5 December 2011

Like it!

Walking in the cold light of darkness that now comes into existence around the depressingly early time of before work finishes gives me a generous moment to reflect, or more accurately drift senselessly into whatever my mind feels is most comforting.

But yesterdays moment of day dreaming took me to wondering why I like things, but of course, more specifically, architectural things. You would think architecturally lovely things are typically easy to find; type in “awesome architecture” into google and you’re presented with a ream of architectural beauties, from modernist, to hyper modern, classical, post modern, big twisty computer-y things that are big, and other such glossy big giants. But then you study, and you’re told that these aren’t as lovely, amazing, super cool awesomeness that you’ve told your friends that you’ll one day create. No, you’re told that in-fact Robin Hood gardens is an impressive piece (I agree),  La Torette is a master piece (I wouldn’t have said otherwise), and anything Gaudi is stupendous (of course!). But my first feeling towards these three are, knock it down, does anyone live there, and theme park. But now I’ve read a couple of books, drawn a couple of buildings, and talked to a tutor or three, my line of though now echoes rather than rejects those lines…although Casa Batilo still troubles me.

Now this is the dilemma, or not really a dilemmae, but due to my architectural infancy in theory,  I’m going to “put it our there”. If architecture is meant for everyone, as everyone inhabits architecture in some form or another, then should it take an education on the subject to truly like or dislike it? Or does it take the most educated to be the final word on good or bad architecture. Hopefully this (not so smoothly) segues onto the commentators and critics of architecture…

When ever I look at, or experience a building I…typically stumble through the threshold and neatly forget that I should be really investigating the space I’m in. I’ll simply utilise the build for what it’s for, be it the post office, or bank, home, or work. It is really the architecture that is commentd on, criticed…or blogged about that truly grabs my attention, moreover those written by people of high stature that I find myself asking, “If they like it, shouldn’t I?” These are professors or editors with years of experience, with an ability to articulate beautifully the poetic nature of form, the ingenious resourcefulness of materials, or the brutal simplicity of function and paint which ever building that see fit in the brightest of lights….or verbally raze any creation to the ground. They talk of buildings in ways that I could have never appreciated when I was a youngling devoid of higher education. They consider the all and everything, and I would only feel the something or nothing. But to know whether or not I like it? To really know…well it’s a dam sight easier to agree with the leaders and be lead, rather than stand askew and say the opposing…

They are the lead on architectural propriety; they do not scoff, shout, or moan (omitting publications from the Telegraph) about what they have seen. They deliver considered opinion backed by the publisher their words are printed on, of which the design community laps up. But how many settle to be lead and to agree and share the view of the leaders, and who, for that first reason when they walked into a building and saw opposite to the words of their design journal, turn a shoulder, and sticks with that instinctive thought? 

No comments:

Post a Comment