Autonomous Architecture

I first want to start with the definition of architecture:

au-ton-o-my.  noun, plural  1. independence or freedom; as of the will of one's actions.

Christopher Wood tells us in "Why Autonomy?" that "The vision on autonomous architecture descends from the early Romanistic idea that life itself may be thought of as a work of art and shaped accordingly to aesthetic principles."  He then goes on to discuss that artists of the time then began to attempt to teach the non-artists how to live according to their beliefs.  They did this mostly through their buildings rather than paintings and sculpture, leading to an epic failure in the field of architecture.  Failures of autonomous architects will be seen and discussed later in this blog.    
 "Autonomy should not be understood as involving architecture's separation from the social or the political.  Rather, autonomy becomes a way of locating architecture's potential both for development and for criticality.." ("Passing Through Deconstruction", 40).  Architecture seems to be a field that changes as said society changes; we begin to change our building strategies and designs according to what clients begin to wish for, what technological advances we have, and what the general public sees as successful architecture.  What is trying to be accomplished in autonomous architecture is the separation from this norm and expectancy that is dictated by the people who keep architecture alive, clients and the public.
     In "Passing Through Deconstruction" by Andrew Benjamin, we are given the definition of autonomy as:  "the condition in which architectural meaning exists solely in the object."  This quote was given by none other Peter Eisenman.  From examples, we know that Peter Eisenman may be the forefront of autonomous architecture.

Aside from being the typical ass, Peter Eisenman has formed his own style of autonomous architecture.  Eisenman is notorious for having a lack of concern for his clients and designing buildings that he wants to design.  How he has become a successful architect is a wonder in my eyes because he shows no concern for anyone; he's selfish and conceited.  As we know, many of his 'works', in fact, don't even work!  It is Eisenman's lack of concern that begins to describe his autonomous style of work.  Peter Eisenman works "on the will of one's actions", his own.


The Wexner Center for the Arts is thought to be a failure of a building by the majority of our professors; however, it is a perfect example of Eisenman showing his efforts to be autonomous in the field.  The Wexner Center has many flaws that seem to be a lack of concern for function, and a result of Eisenman's personal desire to be himself.  The staircase that ends at a window and the column that doesn't even make it to the ground are two major flaws of the design.  How you can seem to screw up a design that bad is mind-boggling.


  


House VI, is yet another work of Eisenman's that doesn't seem to function or even make any sense.  It is another building of his that is hard to be functional while inhabiting it.  In House VI, Eisenman creates a staircase with no handrail, a column that erects through the kitchen table, and a glass piece in the bedroom that prevents any better larger than a double bed to fit.

Although I have singled Peter Eisenman for his built work, I feel obliged to say that I do respect Eisenman as an architect, but only because of his understanding of the field and his efforts that have been put forth in the theory world of architecture.

I want to conclude by saying that I believe autonomous architecture is a great thing.  It is a great way to approach your works, because who wants to be like everyone else?  I feel that autonomous architecture allows individuality of each architect to separate him/herself from the norms of society and venture off on their own path of design.

Radicals

 

The radical architecture period is the period referred to as the neo avant-garde works of the late 1960s-1970s.  The leading group of radicals at the forefront of this movement was Archigram.  What Archigram was doing was unheard of for the field of architecture.  What they were doing was rethinking the entire field of architecture and they were stretching the boundaries of everything that architecture was at this point in history.  Whether or not you like or agree with what the radicals put forth as architecture, you must admire their efforts for looking at the field unlike all others.  The uniqueness of this group is what catches my eye and makes me at least look at their work because, quite frankly, I'm not fond of their works, but still admire them for being unique.

One project that I do despise is "Walking City".  I do not find "Walking City" to be an attractive work of architecture at any scale.  I do not see how this idea could possibly be functional at all either; however, going back to what I stated earlier:  I do have a level of respect for the ideas brought forth because it wasn't normal to the times.  I feel that people tend to accept what is normal too often and allow what others are doing to dictate what they will do as well.  What is exciting is that architecture is not a defined form or concept, but can be an endless amount of things.  The people that go beyond the norms of society are the ones who begin to change the profession in a new direction.  This isn't the case 100% of the times as seen here because the radicals quickly faded out, but there are some movements that started out as "radical" for the times, but were adopted by society as a new norm.

Out of our readings on the radical architects of the 60s and 70s, I most liked the project by Superstudio called HIDDEN ARCHITECTURE.  I find this project to be really mysterious and sketchy all at once.  What Superstudio has done here is create an anxiety the people that read and follow their architecture.  I personally really wanted to know what project this was that was concealed in their box.  The anxiety that I have about this project is the fact that there is no telling what the project actually is, but it makes nosey people like me want to know even more.  

STEP ON EM ...BEFORE THEY STEP ON YOU!!

In my manifesto I have taken an anti-star system approach where I have used a propaganda method used by the British Army combatant corps.  The original propaganda slogan was urging men 30-50 to join the corps and defeat the Nazis.  Propaganda such as this was common in these times to coerce someone to make certain decisions.  

So my manifesto is as follows:
     ARCHITECTURE IS IN A DIRE NEED TO RESTORE THE BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF DESIGN BACK INTO ITS MAIN FOCUS, BUILDINGS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO FUNCTION WITH SOME REGARD TO THE AESTHETIC EFFECT .  THE STARCHITECTS ARE RUINING THE FIELD Of ARCHITECTURE BY THEIR DESIGN METHODS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED IN THE RECENT PAST.  WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IS ESTABLISHING A SIMILAR APPEALING SIGNATURE THAT IS PRACTICALLY SEEN IN MULTIPLE PROJECTS BY THE SAME ARCHITECT.  THESE ARCHITECTS ARE BEING HIRED BASED MORE ON DESIGN APPEAL AND SHOWING NO THOUGHT AS TO CONTEXT.  THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE ARCHITECTS ARE BECOMING FAMOUS FOR WHO THEY ARE AND CLIENTS BELIEVE THAT HIRING A CERTAIN ARCHITECT WILL GIVE THEIR BUILDING MORE VALUE.  IN THIS ESSENCE, STARCHITECTS ARE BECOMING A MORE WIDELY KNOWN PUBLIC IMAGE RATHER THAN A RESPECTED  ARCHITECT.  WITH THE FORTUNE AND FAME CAN YOU BLAME THEM?  HOWEVER, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE IF WE CONTINUE DOWN THE CURRENT PATH IS A MEANINGLESS ARCHITECTURE THAT CANNOT BE ADMIRED AS TRUE ARCHITECTURE.  WHAT WE ARE SEEING AS A RESULT OF ALLOWING OUR PROFESSION TO VENTURE DOWN THIS ROAD IS LESS IMPORTANCE OF FUNDAMENTALS OF ARCHITECTURE SUCH AS THAT OF CONCEPT, DIAGRAM, PARTI, AND CONTEXT.   WHAT SEEMS TO BE OCCURRING IS ARCHITECTURE THAT HAS NO MEANING.  

AS FOR ME AND MY FUTURE IN ARCHITECTURE, I WILL CONTINUE TO DESIGN ACCORDING TO CONCEPT, DIAGRAM, PARTI, AND CONTEXT.  I FEEL THAT THIS IS WHAT ARCHITECTURE’S ROOTS ORIGINATED FROM AND I FEEL THAT IT IS THE RESPECTFUL WAY TO TREAT THE APPROACH TO DESIGN.  I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE STAR SYSTEM MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS QUICKLY RUINING THE VALUE OF ARCHITECTURE.  
   DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE!!