Architecture has always been somewhat of a reflection of the political, aesthetic, and philosophical essence of an era. Gothic architecture was an expression of religious piety, the Arts and Craft movement in England was a reaction to increased reluctance towards vices of industrialized society, while Bauhaus struggled to define what the ultimate architecture is to express space-time convergence of modern society. For most parts of human civilization, so-called “great architecture” has always been a prize possession for those with power and wealth. To this day, the topics that professors teach in universities and what historians study in architecture until recently are focused on the architectural trend of the dominant culture. However, as societies proceed to evolve into evermore democratic ones, architecture is following suit, permitting itself to more diversity. Standing on a fine line between art and engineering, architecture is a field that has never been settled with a solid definition of “good architecture.” Nevertheless, the influence of architecture—discussed in equal if not more intensity as “goodness” among those who care about such discourse — is a different aspect that can be studied in relatively tangible methods, apart from the increasingly diverging points of views.
I recognize the lack of attention given to social influence emitted from architecture by the newly emerging, secondary group of developers. It can be difficult to justify an architecture that prioritizes activism. However I must ask, what role does architecture take on the oppressed; in terms of their social struggles and following political protest? What will be the influences on effectiveness, dissemination, the quality and quantity of protests, and the overall result on society beyond? The goal of "research" will be not to define what good architecture is in terms of protest, but to identify the relationship between architecture and social activism. Searching for the influence that protests have had on architecture, and the reaction back from the field onto people will yield solutions. The outcomes and influence that such an architecture has on society will give a solid illustration of the degree of empowerment that our built environment can have on us. In turn, research and community engagements will provide a solid ground from which other scholars and interested parties can develop their practice and theories on design activism through individual application of the findings and further iterations. As mentioned, though this is not about what good design is, at the end of the day, what will be clear is the importance of good design in the social realm.
Background
It has not been so long since architecture began to be recognized as a socially responsible profession. Social activism through architecture first emerged slowly in the mid-19th Century, as industrialization and increased urban density increased as a direct result from migration. It was then that social activism through architecture first emerged as these social issues proposed a new problem of urban housing for workers. The Arts and Crafts movement that centered on William Morris, John Ruskin, and Augustus Pugin sought ways to improve modern living by promoting pre-industrialization artisan craft and good design, with faith in beauty as a solution to the sterile machine environment of factories. For instance, the “Red House” by Phillip Webb in 1859 was a manifesto of this philosophy for William Morris. Though the movement was self-contradictory in the fact that ordinary workers could not afford handmade artisan furniture or a house constructed by skilled craftsmen, it managed to settle down as a style representative of the era. Ruskin demonstrated the social responsibility architecture has through his essay, “The Nature of Gothic,” in which he expressed his social malcontent and desired direction. However, more serious attention to the oppressed did not arise until the 1920s, when housing the masses came to be recognized as an essential constituent of modern architecture and urban planning in Germany. Many symbolic figures such as Jacobus Oud, Le Corbusier, Peter Behrens and Walter Gropius were preoccupied with efficient minimum housing for the public. The depth of study in urban housing for the public deepened during the post-war reconstruction period, with the formation of CIAM (Congrès internationaux d'architecture modern). At this point in history, there was an implied obligation of social responsibility for architects as the defined towns were to “satisfy the primordial biological and psychological needs of their inhabitants”. Then again, the definition of “biological and psychological needs” varied in different states and regions. For instance, the U.S.S.R from the Bolshevik regime to Stalin focused on a constructivist approach to art and architecture, which questioned how they could be helpful to constructing a utopian socialist society. The results were workers' club houses and communal spaces in urban nodes that facilitated social integration and promoted uniformity. While these spaces were meant for all of the oppressed to rise to equal status, they ended up degrading everyone into oppressive destitution. On the other hand, the United States began its endless sprawl of dwelling from urban to suburban environments. The proliferation of motorcars and other fast modes of transportation, along with an abundance of land resources provided the anti-density solution to overpopulation. It was interpreted as the symbol of democracy and freedom, like the motto, “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage,” said by Herbert Hoover in 1928.
Synthesis of Literature
The symbolisms and political re-branding of building archetypes are clear in these two precedents. It is established that architecture has a core relation to social activism and shares interaction with its inhabiting community. Nevertheless, there is a need to define at what point architecture becomes an activist design. Ann Thorpe in her article submission to Journal of Architectural Education formulates the concept of design as method of activism. Further, the general notion of what is good design is challenged as Thorpe writes, “Although ‘good’ design does typically bring about change, in its dominant forms, good design doesn’t usually constitute activism on behalf of excluded or neglected groups.” In other words, she demonstrates how good design is not necessarily linear with design as protest. In a different article, “Activist Architects: Designing social change,” Justin McGuirk illustrates how “Starchitects,” once revered to be the “good” designers of modern society, experienced downfall in their buffed fame, due to the economic crisis in 2008, followed by increased attention to socially conscientious design. The synthesis of Thorpe and McGuirk demonstrates how the definition of good design can change according to social priority, ranging from the corporate environment to the decentralized communities. In analysis of these two opinions it can be vaguely defined that an activist architecture is one that is aiding the disenfranchised side of society in its inherent intent.
コメント