The Architecture in Everyday Life Written by the Author Dell Upton - Article Example

Architecture and the Everyday In his article “Architecture in Everyday Life,” Dell Upton defines the concept of ‘everyday life’ as an entity of the ‘other’, as something that can only be defined by what it is not. In making this definition, he points out how this definition can be applied to the concept of 21st century architecture in terms of those areas that connect the spaces but yet are not provided with names as such to define them. In recent years, the concept of ‘everyday life in architecture’ has come to refer to architecture that somehow escapes the commodification/consumption paradigm of contemporary culture and yet remains entirely in keeping with the needs of the client. In other words, everyday architecture is defined as architecture that doesn’t directly feed into the capitalistic structural ideals yet still manages to support it. These ideas emerged with Lefebvre, who refocused the gaze of architecture on the actual social use of space rather than the philosophical underpinnings of design even as he became one of the first ‘starchitects’ of the modern world. “In current architectural history, theory, and practice, then, discussion of the everyday takes place at the intersection of architecture and Architecture – of the study of the material setting of human life and of the narrower concerns of professional design.”1 In other words, architecture of the 21st century is concentrated on the client’s intended use of the structure, the media representation of architecture as art, and the role of the celebrity architect in contemporary society. By examining the concept of the ‘everyday’ in architecture, it is necessary to first explore these concepts and then apply them to a living structure created by one of today’s shining ‘starchitects’. After introducing his subject, Upton launches his discussion of the everyday into a description of how the term has come to be understood within the Architectural field. The big A is used to denote those architects who work according to an idealized, artistic and creative approach to design rather than those architects who find themselves working according to a prescribed set of objectives, such as those engaged in constructing tract homes. “In every case, professionally designed works are credited with a self-conscious sophistication, a subtlety, and a depth that are lacking in other kinds of building, which are consequently defined by what they are not. Professionally designed structures constitute extraordinary landmarks in a vast expanse of the ordinary.”2 This is not to say that other structures have not managed to achieve notice, but they are recognized as ‘primitive’ structures, outstanding because of their intuitive, ‘accidental’ use of design concepts in keeping with the needs of the structure’s use. In coming to the realization that Architecture as an art form is intrinsically linked with the forms of the everyday, Upton points out that the problem of the everyday became even greater as architects still found it difficult to discover the points of cohesion after spending so much time determining the difference. To sell the concept of Architecture to a client, it was necessary to demonstrate how it met the needs of architecture in contemporary social activity.3 While the everyday is full of potential use but becomes anonymous as a result, the carefully designed is rendered merely aesthetic in its specificity. In his examination of the various ways in which the everyday has been interpreted in the Architectural world, Upton illustrates how it is often distinguished as something other than art, yet its value is in its fundamental understanding of the interrelationship between the structure and the environment, the people and the uses to which it is employed. “As a result, when architects try to incorporate the everyday into their work, the results tend to be embarrassingly literal and decorative … In its commitment to old and new dichotomies, Architecture uses everyday life most confidently and most effectively as a rhetorical strategy – or a tactic”4 rather than as a means of actually engaging with the everyday world. It is possible to understand the differences and yet the interrelationship of these concepts by drawing an analogy with the concept of the human body.5 Looking at the human body, there seems to be a clear distinction, or border area, between the body and the rest of the world at the viewable outer level of the skin. However, the more one understands the body, the more it becomes clear that this boundary is actually quite fluid and flexible. As the body breathes, eats and drinks, it is in constant interaction with the world around it, the world of the everyday, in much the same way that architecture, even Architecture, is forced to exist and interact within the world of the common. The structure must be functional in meeting the needs of the client if the project is to be realized. Although the body is filled with the everyday through its interaction with the rest of the world, it remains highly individualized in the personality of the person, the specific shape the body takes and the way in which the individual chooses to use it. This would be analogous to the concept of Architecture and the unique status of architecture as art and the development of the ‘starchitect.’ Thus, the Architecture of the self, one’s individuality and sense of uniqueness, is tempered by and understood by its relation to the architecture of the everyday. Important elements of the everyday emerge as being a concept of space and time as it is interacted with and interacts upon the individual concept of selfhood and society in a repetitious continuum that becomes instilled in bodily memory. Important elements of Architecture include uniqueness of structure, material usage or innovative means of interacting with the surrounding environment. One leading ‘starchitect’ of the 21st century is Santiago Calatrava Vells. Having an early love for architecture and building, Calatrava completed his undergraduate work at the Architecture School and Art and Crafts School in Valencia, finishing in 1975. From there, he enrolled in the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich where he gained knowledge in civil engineering. Following his graduation from this prestigious school in 1981, Calatrava launched his already prestigious architectural career by dedicating himself largely to public works projects, such as the construction of bridges and train stations.6 Always designing ahead of the curve, Calatrava can be said to have captured the central issues of 21st century architecture. Through his work, Calatrava has proven to be either an architect with the soul of a sculptor or a sculptor with the soul of an architect. His influences include such innovators as Felix Candela, who brought Spanish architecture to world attention, and Antonio Gaudi, another Spanish architect who had challenged many of the standards of the Barcelona elite in the execution of his designs. Another strong influence proves to be le Corbusier with his emphasis upon organic forms.7 While Calatrava obviously takes inspiration from these earlier architects, he continues to remain focused upon the human body and the natural world in the creation of his structures, always keeping the elements of engineering firmly in mind as he considers the use of the finished space and the needs of his client as well as the artistic appeal of the Architecture as a work of art. The turning point that made Calatrava a big name in the world rather than just another architect came with his construction of the Montjuic Communications Tower in Barcelona just in time for the 1992 Olympics to be held there the following year.8 The tower is a somewhat minimalist representation of an athlete’s arm as it stretches up to carry aloft the official Olympic torch, a highly appropriate theme as the tower was constructed with the specific aim of enabling television coverage of the Olympic games to be based in that location. Other interpretations have held that it is the exhausted athlete, kneeling upon the ground in physical collapse, yet still holding high the torch of the games. In providing a tower that can offer not one, but two possible interpretations leading to the concepts and symbols involved in the Olympic Games for which it was built, Calatrava has already engaged the community through his work. Although he managed to successfully incorporate these event-specific ideas into the design of the tower, he also kept an open mind about the future of the tower once the games had moved on. The tower is specifically oriented to work with the natural forces of the sun to provide a giant sundial clock for passersby utilizing the Europa square as a means of indicating the hour.9 The tower makes a connection with the past through its employment of Gaudi’s mosaic technique in which broken tiles are used to create mosaic patterns and images at the tower’s base. Thus, Calatrava manages to connect the individual with the symbol of the Olympic spirit itself as well as assuring further connection between the individual and nature well into the future as this icon of high technology, housing satellite dishes and geared toward mass communication, becomes connected in the mind with the most natural of geometric forms in the grace of its curves and the most basic of human technology in its incorporation of the sundial effect. Throughout, the structure continues to serve the needs of the client and the underlying purpose for which it was constructed. The extreme influence of nature upon his architectural work, particularly the natural forms and movements of the other inhabitants of the earth, can perhaps best be examined within Calatrava’s sculptural works and drawings. Rather than rejecting the forms of nature or apologizing for its use as other artists of contemporary movements have done, “Calatrava welcomes the analogy to living creatures, which leaves him open to the charge of sentimentality. His watercolor drawings of human and animal forms manifest this affinity in a somewhat more representational mode, no less rhythmic and fluid.”10 This is perhaps better seen in a comparison between his artistic works and their translation into architectural form as is illustrated in a study of the planetarium in Valencia L’Hemisferic.11 The planetarium serves as a laserium, planetarium and IMAX theater within the larger City of Arts and Science complex. It provides more than 900 square meters of screen for viewing various media and the building itself, undeniably in the shape of an eye, emphasizes this function.12 Looking at the building from the other side of a small reflecting lake, it seems as if the building is looking back with a clear-eyed and open invitation. However, the building retains its man-made, structural distance through subtly altered details giving the building a human-like quality rather than a human one. All of this has been traced in progression through his artwork to his design stage into finished architectural structure. “His wonderfully fluid and varied watercolor and graphite sketchbook drawings make it abundantly clear that his sources are frequently anatomical. His studies of human eyes are progressively simplified and finally vastly enlarged to create the basic forms of the planetarium building of his City of Arts and Sciences … While there are vast differences in scale, consistent reduction of anatomical form (such as the arc of the eyelid) to geometric components, and the altered vantage point of the viewer, the analogy from obviousness is prevented.”13 Calatrava thus establishes a connection with the individual through this very frank and unflinching architectural glace across the placid waters and encourages interaction with nature and the sciences through its structural usage. Thus, he engages again with the architecture of the everyday and the Architecture recognized by the media as an art form, meeting the needs of his client while exploring his individual interests and establishing himself as a ‘starchitect’ of the 21st century. Thus, although politics typically dictate a small budgetary allowance for the construction of a large building and current design practices place a great deal of emphasis on the engineering rather than the aesthetics of a particular work, starchitects today are able to mesh all of these concepts with a design that serves the common man and his need for aesthetic beauty as well as the client and his attention to the bottom line, proving Upton’s point that the everyday architecture should not be and perhaps cannot be separated from the concepts of aesthetic Architecture as a serious venture. The structures created by Calatrava and others can be seen to strongly grasp the importance of showing the structure in engineering and materials used as they proudly displays support structures, glass and tile elements and concrete slab supports as integral parts of the aesthetic and practical design. Through these devices, these designs accomplishe this intense understanding of the need to interact with and be interacted upon by its surrounding environment, including the people it serves. Yet, even as they accomplish all of these feats, they remain aesthetically beautiful structures that inspire the creativity of the local population, encouraging thought and reflection by its simple existence and meeting the requirements of the more aesthetically minded Architects in their need for adhering to theory, philosophy and the principles of design. In their successful design and completion, these structures have accomplished more than many buildings ever hope to achieve in their simple acknowledgement of the intrinsic presence of the everyday in the extraordinary. Image 1 Image retrieved February 22, 2010 from Image 2 Image retrieved February 22, 2010 from Image 3 Image retrieved February 22, 2010 from References Eardley, Cynthia. (February 2006). “Santiago Calatrava.” The Brooklyn Rail. Tischhauser, Anthony, Stanislaus, & von Moos. (1998). Calatrava – Public Buildings. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhouser Publishers. Upton, Dell. (2002). “Architecture in Everyday Life.” New Literary History. Vol. 33: 707-723. Valencia City Guide. (2008). “The City of Arts and Sciences.” Retrieved February 22, 2010 from Winkelman, Victoria & Kami Duncan. (October 7, 2002). “Biography: Santiago Calatrava.” SMU News. Read More