deadline 30th March 2012
submit entries to
"What is essential knowledge for architecture"
Architecture seems to be a nail and a piece of timber put together. An illusion of necessity. A certitude established along times.
Nature has always been a model to show us how to develop certain rules to adapt all basic comforts to our survival. Our adjustment to environmental conditions and manipulation of its resources has made us capable to combine, copy and react to the external environment for our own protection adquiring the element of tranquility and well being.
The essential knowledge for architecture has long been acknowledged as the process by which we have accomplished such a chimera or illusion. Thus, the constitution of such an idea has developed from our need to establish that certain degree of self-constructed comfort as opposed to carving the natural terrain for shelter. The evolution of this concept has overcome the problem of generating the simple into the complex criteria.
Therefore this essentialism is now just a nonentity; moreover, the idea does not embrace any singularities among the real terms we require to restrict the external shelter needs into a controlled and safe privatized environment.
Humanhood has created its own space to refrain from developing sustainable morphological changes in our bodies, as oposed to most other beings on the planet which have adapted to the variability of environments they chose to live in. It is certain we have changed, but not so much as the rest of neighbouring creatures on the planet. The given capacity to think and study, has permitted us to follow a manipulation of the environment to obtain our own desired comfort. Can someone imagine a rapid morphological adaptation for professional swimmers in developing gills?
The imperative evidence for anyone interested in developing architecture is to dominate the concept of the essential in total isolation. We must, therefore, disassociate the idea of nature and architecture as complimentary. Their relationship has been missleaded and missused throughout history as a tool for designing o scarcity of imagination. The fact of isolating the pure architectural knowledge is rarely observed on the architectural designer when specifically asked to create spaces where to perform certain activities. Should we observe the principle derived from the concept of “use” in a correct architectural environment, one would be forced to analyse the notions that collapse the propper argument before the architectural dialogue takes part as we should know it.
This is why the evolution of the “multidisciplinarity” has been so tremendously succesful in recent times. Designers from other disciplines apply an ample variability of concepts to their designs that have no direct relationship with nature whatsoever, they can get started with base on anything. For us, architects, the development of ideas extracted from nature throughout history has left us with a comon sense of inflexibility, before the white page. It was far more unequivocal. All concepts imagined were forced to follow a natural pattern without further motive. Just because it worked both structurally and performed well a certain issue in nature. That has been what the great architects have used to create form and it is what we adapt, even unknowingly, without thinking any further. Simply replicating the observed.
These concepts cloned from nature have wrongly been applied to architecture, modifying the context in such way that the outcome overcasts unexposed ideas that lead toward a false dialogue between a space a shelter and a necessity. And thus, have inhibited a further and more profound analisys of the developing concept itself.
Nowadays, with the evolution of thinking other contemporary thoughts have been introduced to the formula of design, if such an aspect exists. These can and do create new possibilities for a renewed and more successful outcome. That which emulates the corresponding framework for a processing of an idea generation. The program for a building is no longer necessary. The desire to commit to a specific volume for a determined usage has been erased from the equation with unexpected success. The adaptability of the public to this generated space opens up a myriad of situations and sensations to which the subject user has to readjust morphologically and psycologically himself. Perhaps then, once that is accomplished, we will evolve into a form which will develop new tools to communicate with the natural environment. Always extracting the principles from our own un-contaminated imagination.
The human mind has still unimagined boundaries such as the interpretation of the vast meaning of languages, including elements like poetry, philosophy, music and the variability of creeds, for instance. These simple examples can generate an elementary content translatable into an inherent shape or volume.
The later societies are condensing all necessities for the spaces we require to evolve, but there is no need to use them as the key factors to reshape the conception of our spaces. Necessity is avoidable. What surely is not avoidable is the generating process we determine to establish both human to human and human to environment relationships. Because architecture is that made for and by humans.
These are the real motives which describe the generation of the essential knowledge for architecture. The relationships themselves and not nature itself.