As students we are encouraged to research and study precedents. We are often told that there is no such thing as a new idea, just reinterpretation of old ones. We study these designers in hope of learning from their experiences and ideas. Where do we draw the line between learning from and copying? More importantly, where do we draw the line between researching and worshiping?
All too often many students look at Wright and Gehry’s projects as the way to design. It is argued that Gehry’s buildings waste structural resources, do not adapt to their local climates or cultures and so on. The point being, we cannot look at someone that has established a certain reputation and assume they make no mistakes. As students, we should look at these “great” designs as well as bad designs. In his teachings, Paul Virilio would have students design a bad building that still worked. After critiquing them, he would then have them design a “good” building.
This is a valuable lesson because, in my opinion, there is more to learn from a failed design than from a well designed building. These well designed buildings follow what we are taught in design studios. The ones that fail teach us what not to do. It would be a waste of time to try and teach what not to do in design studios, so it’s important to review these failures in order to prevent the same mistakes.
Most importantly, we all have to get past the infallibility of the starchitects of our time and those of the past. Regardless of your opinion of these famous architects, we have to review their designs as nothing more than what they are…..precedents. Thinking of them anymore than this becomes idolatry, which is the opposite of what we need in the profession right now.
Images from BlueVerticalStudio.com
No comments:
Post a Comment