Architecture and the People

“A doctor can bury his mistakes, but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines”.

Frank Lloyd Wright

The institution of architecture supports a world that is grounded in disbelief. It has no intention to recognise a world that is founded on truths that would stretch the imagination beyond its normal capacity. Indeed this aptitude of examining space is the prerogative of the architect who exercises the risks that acknowledges their practice of architecture. The climate of handing over the architects discoveries to the people is not to make them masters but to learn from the architects mistakes. If beauty functions then function is beautiful and together we are lost in an all together different version of architecture that god intended. The difficulty for an architect to appease the people is that it is a form of sacrifice; that there has to be a willingness to believe that the materiality of their architecture will be enough to guard the mind of the architect; where there is a distinct path of mental inquiry and development in the underlying myth of utopia. It is this will to life that fosters the architect that the people are not willing to grasp; that it is intrinsically embedded in the art of architecture, while it challenges the cognisant reasons of our governed reality. Naturally architecture has follied with its practice as a pastime for the people when they are financially advantaged, and it plays into architectures given narrative, but these notable works have stemmed from wagers that have formed part of our history. The people have a duty to inform everyday life as much as they have been given architecture to play in; to be theatrical and perform the arduous task of birth, life and death. The architect now has other ideas; firstly their work is in beautiful function and secondly there is still more work to do. We must not confuse the profession of architecture as an economic adventure.; it is where you exercise your own ability at staying real when everything around you is singing a different song. Certainly there are real life concerns, but like a building detail you work them out and make them fit for purpose; and perhaps that is the best rapport between the architect and the people; on the construction site, discussing terms of craft with the trade. After all one must not waste words and be political or religious; the architect has drawings. And this is the factor governing activism; it is where the foundations of a belief have stirred, while architecture has been leading the force for good since its conception. There are many different sorts of architects as much as there are different sorts of people, that all have differing opinions on how to live and forge a future. While we are keen to accept a universal solution to our identity and problems it will never be the case; our genetic traits have circumnavigated our own ability at making choices. If there is a guide that can conglomerate opinion between both parties it would appear to be nature, as this has the metaphorical ability to support law and survival, although it seems that the rubric of architecture and cities is to oppose it, by way of hiding the horizon. Architects are lucky, they can read the built environment in so many ways so that it is truthful; an interpretation lacking in the people that have been sold on the end of the world. If there is an end it will be by design and by all accounts the concept is natural. Whether we are determined to offer a legacy in the light of this questionable fact is the burning issue for an architect. It is not about giving the people what they want, we are all none the wiser. Sure, function plays its part, but it’s senseless beauty is killing us. The issue that is being addressed is can the world rebuild itself in a way where we can augment a common idealism that is no longer black and white; where there is a language that utilises the economy of architecture in lieu of its entertainment. This is an ideology of social realism that puts wind to the elite by harbouring an intellectual challenge so that a level playing field can be administered; a root of creativity that would demystify the pretence that both architects and architecture have played amongst themselves for generations; to procure a client that qualifies the need to give the architect the benefit of the doubt, especially in a time where the populism of architecture needs to expand its vocabulary beyond the notion of a hermetic perfection. It is this tune that has been caught by the population, both televised and mediated, that casts a shadow over the architect at work; where their troubles are belittled as insignificant since they are pioneering a spirit to cast light on the idea of individuality. For it is individuality that has aspirations beyond the realm of reason and is regularly championed by the people because it entrusts that they have a chance to usurp the principles of governance and instigate change. For an (star) architect to assume this role is far more challenging as they must eradicate the meaning of god by institutional means and present an unfaltering belief structure that embraces a contemporary narrative to engage a chosen audience. Indeed this state of mind is created in order to intentionally topple; a kind of baton that is passed along a line of fire taking the pinnacle of architecture and its discipline of history into a further developed and more succinct analysis into the origin of its time. The contention that regularly exposes itself between the people, architecture and the will to want is one of qualifying this order of significance; where the attributes of learning equate with the need to honour execution. While we are surrounded by an unlimited wealth of ideas this is not the same as our economy and the principles of its exchange are regularly marred by the nightmare in the art of bureaucracy.

If there is a mechanism for change it is only determined by exposing the fear of the alternative, as addressed by the ideas of political activism, but architecture has no alternative; it must be as it 'is'. And it is this 'is' that is in doubt. Can architecture be seen as daisies in a meadow, just like god intended? Can we justify the force of natural geometries to inform and encapsulate space that we can occupy and class as architecture, or are the principles not abstract enough? If architects are simply the intermediary between the developer and the people why are they to be blamed? Perhaps there is some latent jealousy in the preservation of life; in the establishment of lifestyles; in their ability to draw a reality out of thin air; to be able to use architecture as a mirror of our challenging cultural predicament and present a mechanism for change; to encourage plagarism.

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”

Oscar Wilde

Architects design many things, but they also look at many things; they learn that design is a tool to communicate a message for perpetuity, for without this the world would end; that the meaning of life needs to be designed to be understood and that its scientific mysteries are just as much tantamount to being questionable truths intent on justifying a profession other than architecture. It is perhaps the architect's passion for architecture above all else that has led to this friction with the people, who have settled with critiquing our weathered built environment as the work of catastrophe and point the finger squarely at you know who. Post-War architecture has taken the force of this argument, whether the architect was to blame or the methods in the quality of construction, but our memories speak about the hardship we were all experiencing and justifiably the architecture was needed, it just did not know how to be lived in. It is not to say we are all better now; that we have learnt to take more care; that architecture is a pleasure to be with. We are still shown contempt between the dichotomy of the modern and the traditional that stagnates any idea of progress that can be forged for a better world. It is this paradox that breaks the circle of trust that is instrumental in the force for change that the people have to recognise; that the people have to relinquish in order to avoid the shock of the new. If there is an avant garde in architecture, it is telling us that the world has changed but no one is talking about it; that the instruments of time that have been learnt and are being challenged by a new generation intent on building upon our fictions as a last resort to restore the world and its architecture to its former glory. If there is a story to tell, then architecture is the narrative, as without architecture we will be left to the cycles of seasons and the general fall into the sadness of our autumn years. Architects have mulled over the ceremony of mortality for generations, much as they have engaged themselves in the design of fireplaces - “The fireplace?” Frank Lloyd Wright once wrote, “The heart of the home itself.” He knew that fire evokes a primal sentiment in people, drawing us close to the warmth of the fire and closer to each other. - it is fire that maintains our contemporary relevance; of the imagination; of our renewable energies; of our sun; the cosmic consequence of being serious about nothing other than the way it 'is'; to repudiate misinformation as an idolatry scandal that we have all at some stage of our lives been influenced by and subject to, much to our own amazement.

While we now sit in our new found island awareness it bears mentioning our inherent Englishness towards architecture. Not adamant against the tradition of the Grand Tour, Europe has had a far better relationship with architecture and the people. The forceful thrust of building exhibitions have been an exemplary procedure in the development of new architecture for a new society without too much complaint; housing being its main proviso. They stand testament to the fabric in our architectural education and have made the idealism of being an architect seemingly achievable. I sincerely worry about public-private partnerships in this country that lose the attention and the importance of the architect, in keeping the channels open between the practice of architecture and its scholarly education, when the impetus is primarily based on retail experiences and exercising an authority outside the income bracket of any ardent student. This both stifles the idea of commercialism and prepares the awakening of an architectural 'terrorist'. It seems as if the people have demanded it; to outwit the elite from within; to make architecture popular and the architect to boot. But that still leaves us with the question of how far are we allowed to aspire; to what aims; for what gains and to whose loss. While the world is simply black and white we can not just claim for the mean of grey or any other shade for that matter. If there is an idea that supports the meaning of the world whether justifiable to the people or the architect, it must be heard and stand the test of time; mediocrity is not going to help us in our hour of need. Political placation in the attributes of restoring nature by means of architecture does not suggest that technology can support this future because it is future orientated. It would accept nature as a machine that can be mechanically fixed, and while architecture has honoured this concept, it would need to be declared that this is an instrument of war built to recognise an opponent that has no need for faith in architecture, but that of the economy, where their aptitude of controlling the excesses of chaos have proved exemplary. For if architecture was to be as forthright as a stockbroker we would not have time to think; we would have to be cunning and find the missing link in the urban vocabulary; a highwayman that puts the notion of our social security on a knife edge in order to eliminate plurality; a people's hero that can take the footing away from history and make something remarkable. Perhaps this is only available to architecture and why architects are so precious about it, so as not to be scorned for not being called to action; but we are now at a time when the world has taken sense of its surroundings and the result is that the people are getting sick and architecture is none the wiser for the moment.

So is it wrong to champion an architect? I suspect the motivation is to determine its opposition, not necessarily ideologically but stylistically, at first. The prima materia of architecture is that there is a magnum opus built out from our collective chaos as a society; perhaps political, social, environmental, all manner of things, but it is about bringing about perfection in the art. It is about the world being able to survive with us in it and architecture being used as the khora. It is not a popular notion to express architecture, but that is what it 'is'. It is a private skill that sculpts society into being part of the machine. It is this that separates architecture from the people; it is a necessary evil to exercise its magistery and while it expresses an elitism this is only the case once the identity of the architect is announced. Then all sorts of issues occur regarding how to familiarise oneself with this figurehead; their name; their precedent; their experience; their education; their popularity. In all cases one would rather let the architecture speak for itself if it wasn't for the need of a scapegoat. But this is the entitlement of music per se that architecture attempts to freeze while the planet freely goes on about its ways in sheer disbelief of the wonder that imbues life. The privilege of being informed by architecture is that while it provides a means of subsistence it has calculated the depths of our collective imagination in order to control the quest of world domination that has summoned various leaders to its cause; to challenge the perfection of nature where all architecture draws its materials. The people need to know this; to acknowledge the crisis in the mental health that each architect approaches when things start to get godly. This is a fragile reality and someone has got to do it; draw caution to the wind and control the wonder; cast aside the reactionary tales of interjection and pursue a course that will force justice upon governance by the arbitrary quality of self discipline and then real architecture will become visible; reap the joy and plunder the works of the dead so that you can mark the end of time with confidence. There is a civility in being an architect that is indescribable and while the people make strike in deference to their ideas there is a chance that their children may be moved. After all it is family that comes first.