Was the Modernist Architect Becoming too Authoritarian and Dogmatic - Research Paper Example

Leon Krier once declared, “There exists neither authoritarian nor democratic architecture. There exists only authoritarian and democratic ways of producing and using architecture. A row of doric columns is not more authoritarian than a tensile structure is democratic. Architecture is not political; it can only be used politically”. A building cannot be sexist, racist, or violent: The building process could be, its position could be, but the building is a building. Architects in the 20th century chose to enhance authoritarian social relations, sought to enhance social control in general and their proportion of social change in specific, and embraced many dogmas to enhance their professional importance. While architecture must use advanced mathematics to construct a building, and certainly architecture is artistic insofar as it is representative of a society's preferences for spaces and is a statement of intent or design on the part of a person, architecture itself must be defined socially in a particular fashion. “[W]hat characterizes architecture today is its capacity to be studied as a system of significations that establishes different levels and layers of meanings and sense and constitutes one of the symbolic spheres instituted by society” (Hays, 2000, 277). Hays argues that since 1968, architecture is a “technical-ideological practice”. As a consequence of this, Hays concludes that it is absurd to call any individual architect or even architecture as a whole “hermetic” or “elitist” or authoritarian because it is like calling rain wet: Architecture as an institution is a collective arranging of power as a technical-ideological collective. But architecture, unlike other areas where there is a monopoly of technical power being exerted, must be brought under special criticism because its designs move into the public realm (Hays, 2000, 277). And certainly the products constructed should be socially constructive. The idea of the architect is by definition a monopolisation of technical and temporal power in the field of building construction and artistic vision. It is true that architecture is always art, but in the 20th century, this was ascended to the idea of the architecture being an artist. These are two immensely different concepts. To use a political analogy: Clearly, decisions must be made, but when those decisions are made by one person, it becomes authoritarian. The model of the architect as artist is thus structurally and intrinsically authoritarian, because the idea is that the architect's vision as to how to implement stakeholder needs is implemented and other people in the chain such as customers and workers are irrelevant. Each worker, each customer, each visitor, each policy-maker brings their own touch to the art that is the final building, sometimes a vital one. The architect tries to form order out of chaos, a chaos that it assumes into existence but has no independent reality, just like all other authoritarians, and does so by trying to make it so that others in the process merely carry out orders and directives or by managing their perturbations and deviations from his ideal vision. Doesn't this mean all art is authoritarian? There is a truth to that, but the authoritarian nature of the self is also called “autonomy”. When a painter is authoritarian about their process, they are committing no great wrong. They are the only person directly involved, and a customer is free to accept or reject their painting. But architects are far from this. An architect will build public spaces that must be used by people who had no direct veto power or influence into the style being built. This becomes especially true when one considers the idea of artistic spaces being imposed upon people because they are artistic, to enrich the philistine. This attitude is fundamentally elitist: If most people don't care about artistic spaces, then imposing that onto them is anti-democratic. If an architect built a building being used by one client and did the construction themselves, there would be no need to be concerned about authority. But the moment more stakeholders become involved is the moment where the architect's insistence on artistic vision is an authoritarian one disempowering workers and citizens. A classic example of this problem is the University of California, Davis “Death Star”, or Social Sciences and Humanities building (Harrison, 2006). “Most buildings are seen but never noticed. They lend themselves to function but rarely to art. Lackluster edifices with four sides and eight corners just seem to fade into the background no matter where they are located. With its innumerable facets and distinct character, one thing is for certain: the UC Davis Social Sciences and Humanities Building designed by Antoine Predock is nothing like most buildings” (Harrison, 2006). From the air above, it is a representation of the geographical map of California. But that caveat is exactly the point: From the perspective of the architect, there is a cohesive, elegant design and artistic approach. From the perspective of the end user, navigating it just as difficult as navigating the real Sacramento River and Sierra Nevada. People are lost in the monstrosity all of the time, finding it very difficult to make office hours on time. Even the Chancellor of the school has gotten lost (Harrison, 2006)! The idea that Predock had, that it is up to him to create and explore and simply up to others to actually live in the creation no matter how impractical, is perhaps the quintessential example of architectural authoritarianism and elitism. Social critic and architect Lebbeus Woods submits that, “Architects who monumentalize authority are part of authoritarian repression: 'Architecture is deeply implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center...” (Rattenbury et al, 2004, 1992). He argues that architecture built for authoritarian ends, like the World Trade Center's lionization of top-down corporate structures or the Pentagon's symbolic and literal relationship to repressive militaristic and imperialistic global capital, are behaving in an authoritarian fashion. But Woods himself is showing a degree of authoritarianism in his anti-authoritarianism! He views himself as at war with society, trying to fight against social trends. This may be laudable when the social trends are authoritarian, but it has the unfortunate consequence that, once again, the architect is determining unilaterally what must be done, and all ye poor unwashed masses must follow. The best that an architect can hope for, even if they do bring to the table multiple stakeholders and create an inclusive vision that serves the community rather than the architect, is to combine traditionalism with something new and thus create a new trend (Johnson, 1994, 267). “Architecture is a conservative discipline” (Johnson, 1994, 267). It tries to offer its services to the community, but since architects are considered to be more creative, they are afforded additional leeway. The problem is that this is exactly how authoritarianism always grows and escalates out of control. There is some specialized expertise that is needed. Leeway is given to those with that expertise. They find that it is possible to use that expertise to enhance the scope of their authority and to create more and more situations where their expertise applies. Credentialism and monopoly power settle in. The number of people who can join the club shrinks, and talented challengers are kept at bay unless they play by the rules. Finally, the people who allowed some degree of leeway must allow far more because they have been locked into being unable to think or create for themselves. Architects like to claim that they are not dogmatic (Rybczynski, 2009). This flies in the face of all evidence. “Architects are unbending in their judgments. My Modernist friends hold multipaned windows, ogee moldings, and wallpaper beneath contempt; my Classicist friends deride bare walls, uncomfortable furniture, and pipe railings. You'd think that in a world of shoddy and mindless building design—of ugly, big boxes and airports that resemble bus stations—any attempt to raise the architectural bar would be appreciated. Instead, the verbal rockets fly: self-indulgent, irrational, and trendy from one side; nostalgic, retrograde, and derivative from the other” (Rybczynski, 2009). The proliferation of architectural theories and design philosophies such as modern, classicist, art deco, postmodern, feminist, conflict-oriented, fractured, etc. etc. shows how deeply dogmatic the industry is. Dogmatism in an artistic industry is overwhelmingly used to enhance the prestige and power of people: If only this tiny clique has the right design, then of course they must be employed. “Why are architects so dogmatic? Partly, it's because architecture is a zero-sum game. A publisher of novels doesn't have to choose between Tom Clancy and Tom Wolfe, but a building client must choose one architect. Thus architects are obliged to compete. It helps to convey an air of inevitability about one's design. In fact, there may be many acceptable solutions to any particular building problem; architecture is not engineering, after all, but acknowledging diversity risks making the architect appear whimsical, a creature of fashion. To convince the client—and perhaps themselves—of the rightness of their ideas, architects are best off being dogmatic. There is only one right way—my way” (Rybcynski, 2009). There is thus an intrinsic connection between market structure, philosophical dogmatism and the ultimate authoritarianism of the profession. Even progressive ideologies within architecture are often riveted with various forms of elitism (Nesbitt, 1996, 470). Universalism, the idea of trying to serve everyone's needs, sounds wonderful, and indeed it has many laudable elements like avoiding sexist, racist, etc. architecture, but the problem is that universalism obliterates true variation in culture and living spaces. The world is not univeralist, and treating it like it is overwhelmingly will elevate those with power over those who don't, whose difference will be then wiped out from consideration as just nostalgia or clinging to the past or even them being racist! Architecture is complicit with racism when it builds suburban houses for white flight and projects for inner-city blacks. It is complicit with sexism and classism when it designs beautiful civil and parliamentary buildings then ugly, blocky front-line bureaucracies and welfare agencies. It is complicit with classism when it is designed to need expensive transportation to travel. Architecture is constantly reinforcing existing trends because it is fundamentally conservative, which makes it fundamentally complicit with social oppression. There are attempts at countering these trends. Anarchist architectural theory, for example, tries to bring in stakeholders and democratize architecture. Take Blackwell's “anarchitecture”: “Blackwell's architecture attempts to engineer a radical perspective shift which might render static power relations more open and fluid. The result, as Antliff compellingly argues, is a unique form of anarchist architecture which refuses to remain trapped within the cultural logic of capitalism” (Call, 2010). But, again, these theories can only do so much to avoid authoritarianism. Ironically, much of the ordinary working class populace is likely to respond to these changes as being more crazy art. In any respect, the rise of the architect as artist in the 20th century guaranteed that there would be authoritarianism and dogmatism within it. Architects must embrace complexity and democracy: They must make it so that the poor and disenfranchised are part of the process, and that stakeholders like the public and workers are involved in the art, not just a self-appointed expert. Works Cited Call, L. 2010, “Post-anarchism today”, ADCS. Harrison, M. 2006, “The Love-Hate Building”, UC Davis Campus Views, October 1. Hays, KM. 2000, Architecture theory since 1968, MIT Press. Katarxis. Number 2. Available at: http://luciensteil.tripod.com/katarxis02-1/id27.html Johnson, A. 1994, The theory of architecture: concepts, themes & practices, John Wiley and Sons. Nesbitt, K. 1996, Theorizing a new agenda for architecture: an anthology of architectural theory 1965- 1995, Princeton Architectural Press. Rattenbury, K., Bevan, R., and Long, K. 2006, Architects today: Volume 2004, Laurence King Publishing. Rybcyznski, W. 2009, “That Dogma Won't Hunt”, Slate. Read More