Finding an Identity

Finding an Identity An elastic identity

MSc3 Research Methods Lecture Series (AR3A160) Graduation studio: Chair of Interiors Buildings Cities 4513487 Sehyeon Kim

In my experience of architectural educations, students have primarily been encouraged to work as individuals to establish and strengthen an identity, regardless of the scale or complexity of the project. As architecture is a unique field that struggles to define itself between art and technique, we dedicate much time and energy in establishing our personal positions within architecture. Hence, it is much easier to express or build up our own identities while we remain within education. However, most of us soon start to struggle with this established identity when we begin to practice. The majority of us will possibly be one of a dozen architects in a commercial architectural firm. Within that firm, we will probably be required to work in teams. Within the team, each member might have different positions on architecture, as established during his or her education. Suddenly, our well-established position comes into conflict with that of those around us. This team of architects itself will have their collective identities challenged by various consultants from technical and commercial fields. The client, with his particular background will be another major challenge to the position of the architect. Establishing an identity within architecture will never be free of these factors.

If we position the entire building industry we are a part of, within a global context, then the economical, sociological and political aspects of the globalised world we operate in is perhaps the greatest challenge to our identity as architects. In the words of Anthony D. Smith, elaborated that the globalisation made a major influence on architectural identity. 1 Many of architectural identifications established and appeared in response to varying degrees of globalisation. When architects were responding to globalisation, they created architecture that was free of context and more universal. On the other hand, when they were responding to the negative aspects of globalisation, they relied more heavily on context. In our current political context, one might say many parts of the world are retreating from globalisation back into nationalism. The British Exit, the election of Donald trump, the recent election in Austria and the cold war between China and the US are indications of this phenomena. Even as the general trend is a move away from globalisation, we continue to establish ourselves in relation to it. Since we are neither at the height nor the end of globalisation, it is still important to position ourselves in relation to globalisation.

1

Anthony D. Smith. ‘Towards a Global Culture?’ Theory, Culture & Society. vol.7 no.2 June 1990. p.171-191.

The late 19th century and early 20th century was the beginning of globalisation and many architects responded enthusiastically to the possibility of an industrialising/industrialised world without boundaries. In this future they were dreaming of, traditional forms of architecture were unsuitable. Post-war, industrial society with rapid growing cities required a new architectural language. 2 The rubble of the countless buildings destroyed during the war stood as a reminder of the trauma of the war. Eager to move on, architects were dreaming of a future drastically different from the one they were leaving behind. It was natural that they were afraid of nationalism and hence imagined an architectural language that was free of context and instead stood globally. Using mass production as a tool, they imagined a type of architecture that incorporated the essence of mass production. This was a flexible, universal type of architecture that could inhabit a variety of functions and sit anywhere regardless of context. Ernst Neufert’s ‘Architect’s data’ in 1930s, was a tool that would support the design of this type of universal space. The data included accurate dimensions of spaces and even furniture that would allow the creation of spaces that can be used by a variety of people and in a variety of contexts. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe was an example of an architect who used this idea of universal space and flexibility as the core of his architectural language. Originally he taught and practiced in Germany, until he emigrates to United States when the Nazi Germany decided to adopt the regional architecture of Germany as their official style instead of what the Bauhaus was moving towards. Hence, it was natural that he would imagine a future which was not moving towards dangerous nationalism like in Germany, but instead towards an open, globalised world which could accommodate international and universal style.

However, group of architects started to speak up against this type of industrialised and anonymous architecture. Instead, they advocated for the recovery of humanism. When globalisation turned from a dream of the future into a present reality, society began to feel the negative effects that came with the positive. The world seemed to begin to move faster and like a strong current, uprooted people from their local contexts and thrust them into an increasingly open and global world where it became difficult to establish an identity. Radio and television enabled people to hear news from all over the world, leading to an influx of information. The car was another such element that quite literally sped up life. This sudden increase in pace made people want to ground themselves. Perhaps the easiest and most natural way is to ground yourself 2

Pericles Lewis. ‘Modernism, Nationalism, and the Novel’ Cambridge University Press, 2000. p.38–39.

physically to your local and immediate context. hence, architects began to look to their surroundings more closely. They tried to find the fundamental character of the place and defined the identity of the place as through the term, ‘context’. This method itself formed their identity and architecture as well. Allison and Peter Smithson addressed the issues of historical continuity and renewal and the way technology transforms cities and their communities, and through this, discovered premises for city planning. 3 They introduced a new way of thinking, which they named ‘context thinking’. “...in the context of the existing patterns. In the context of the patterns of human association, patterns of use, patterns of movement, patterns of stillness, quiet, noise and so on, patterns of form, in so far as we can uncover them; and it was taught that a design for a building, or building group, could not be evolved outside of context. ...” 4 This obsession with context was visible even in their drawings. Rubble from the site was superimposed in drawings and visuals.

Even with the proposition of a new building, we are not allowed to forget about the realities of war. If modernism was an attempt to forget the atrocities of the war, the Smithson were trying to remember instead of forget.

There are different ways of understanding context. While the Smithson mostly refereed to man-made context, others choose to look at the natural context, or the true nature of the land itself.

This is especially important in places where you cannot trust the man-made context. In the case of the coloniser, like the United Kingdom (Great Britain), you can sure that the man-made context was not forced upon the land and the people. Hence, you can trust it to be appropriate for the land it sits on. However, this is not the case in colonised countries where the man-made context might have been insensitively forced upon the land regardless of what is appropriate. An example of this is Australia where colonial British architecture were/are not appropriate for their climate. An architect who reacts to this matter is Gleen Murcutt, who has an interesting approach to context where he sees beyond the man-made to the geographical context. He guides his students to observe the surrounding landforms, geology, the course of the sun, wind patterns, vegetation and even the animal life in a site. 5 “... Murcutt has determinedly refused to design outside his homeland, arguing that he wants to understand the physical, climatic and cultural circumstances of his projects 3

Dirk van den Heuvel. ‘As found aesthetics; notes on the formation of the context debate in architecture, Architectural Design Reader 20152016, TU Delft, 2015. p.107 4 Allison and Peter Smithson. ‘Education for Town Building’ Architectural Association Journal, 01. 1961 5

Juhani Pallasmaa. ‘Feathers of Metal’ El Croquis, 163-164, Madrid, 2012, p.31

thoroughly, and have personal control over all the aspects of his work, which would not be possible if he accepted commissions in alien situations outside Australia. ...”

6

With such sensitivity

towards the natural context, it is understandable why Murcutt famously refuses to practice outside of his own context; Australia. Although the Smithsons and Murcutt have different approaches to context, they are both very much concerned by it and believe in an architecture that is tied to the specificities of a place.

Unlike Murcutt, some architects make full use of the current climate of globalisation that allows architects to practice all over the world. For some architects, a global practice is very much a part of their identity. These architects being well known to the public as an architect with their branding and the branding itself becomes their identity. Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) is one of them.

Bjarke Ingels elaborated during his lecture that “...we always trying to identify in a way educate ourselves in a specific problems or specific aspects of the project. ...” They abstract the principles which extract from the site or the project to establish the design criteria and intuitively turned those into a form which is the gesture to express and give an identification of the place or the project.

However, this identification became a branding of the architect. We can see this clearly on their website where icons are used instead to replace the usual text and image. Even the name of the firm is simplified from name of the founder into a word that very easy to remember like brands in various markets such as Adidas, Coca-cola, Google, Samsung and et cetera. With the accessibility of information of the internet today, clients are exposed to a variety of architects. Hence, branding is important to some architects and the branding of an architect themselves like an industrial product is compatible with the climate of the era.

At first sight, this type of practice might seem very different from that of Murcutt’s, who does not publish much, does not have an online presence and works in a solo-practice. However, if we look closer, branding is still present in his work. And Pallasmi called his work as ‘selfreferential’ 7 due to the way he works and the extent of his works. Murcutt does not follow the man-made context so in a way, his previous work becomes what he refers to instead of the other buildings around him. This echoes with what Bjarke Ingels has said about his principle of architectural language as ‘an evolution, not as a revolution’. By this, he meant that he does not 6

Juhani Pallasmaa. ‘Feathers of Metal’ El Croquis, 163-164, Madrid, 2012, p.31

7

Sean Godsell. ‘A conversation with Glenn Murcutt’ El Croquis, 163-164, Madrid, 2012. p.7

always invent new forms for each context, instead, he refers to his previous designs an evolves them according to the site.

From the discourse above, it might be possible to distill four architectural positions in relationship to globalisation. There are many distinct differences between four of them, but there also many subtle similarities that tie them together.

In my context, I would like position myself as a global architect who makes full use of a globalised world to do projects in many different countries. In light of current political events, one could conclude that the end of globalisation might be near as the world begins to retreat behind national borders. Before this happens, I would like to make full use of the ability we still have to practice around the world. By understanding the current political climate of a specific site, the architectural response can choose to either reinforce or make a political statement against this climate. One might choose to view the political climate of a specific site as a positive thing to reinforce through architecture. Alternatively, one could also view it as a negative trend to push back against through an architectural response. Ultimately, this is a subjective choice which comes from the personal political beliefs of an architect. In this current climate, different places around the world are in different stages of globalisation. This means that each country I work in would need a different architectural response.

Many parts of Europe seem to be closing itself to globalisation. This tendency might be one explanation for the obsession with context in our architectural education. Europe is at the forefront of the refugee crisis and it is understandable that some countries feel threatened. They feel a need to hold onto their identities and hence want to root their architecture in its place. The concept of assimilation which is required from migrants to Europe is also very present in the architectural language. A building should assimilate into its context. In this type of climate, ideas of international style might no longer be appreciate or welcome.

Within the same time frame, the exact opposite of this phenomena was my experience of working in Singapore. Heritage is not as important as it is in Europe and even the new building would be demolished in thirty years. In some cases, this would even be forced upon by official planning authority. The style is very commercialized and insensitive to context. Singapore is a composed of a society of immigrants and economically very dependent on the global market and

foreign labour. In a society that is always looking outside of itself to the world, it is natural they search for a more global, commercial style. As building have short lifespans, it seems redundant to design for the buildings around your site, as they might be gone by the time yours is completed.

Even taking the geographical context as a reference is tricky as land is constantly being replaced.

Like the man-made context, topography itself is in constant flux.

In my home country, South Korea, the above 2 cases occur simultaneously, causing unique conflicts and juxtapositions. As country that historically had a single ethnic group for a long time, it strongly believed in preserving context, much like the present situation in Europe. At the same time, this obsession with preservation creates unique challenges when juxtaposed with the politically driven development of public infrastructure and buildings. While all the residential complex or building is realised identically due to economic logic and understandings.

As a person who still want to work outside of this context, it is important to be self-aware of all these discrepancies. Jacques Herzog mentioned during the lecture that “...the traditional form of dialectical thinking which denies any link between seemingly opposed systems... it is important to see them as one thing...” 8 Since we are on the threshold of the room of globalization to outside, need to carefully think about where we positioning to identify ourselves and our architecture. it is clear that many of us with practice with projects in various parts of the world in order to survive in this infinitely competitive market. Each location of each project might possibly have a different response to globalization and our architectural response would change accordingly. In this climate, it is not wise to ground our identities to any on particular way of thinking. Instead, it might be prudent to postpone the establishment of an identity, especially when we are being placed to the unpredictable future. It is still, however, relevant to understand previous responses to globalisation so as to choose aspects from each when necessary. We can choose which ways to be reflected and its extent according to the project or the situation. Architecture as profession, is one that constantly deals with limitations and restrictions. Hence it makes sense that an architectural identity, like water, should be soft and elastic enough to take on any shape.

8

Jacques Herzog. “Poesis-Production.” Lectured at ‘Anyway Conference’, Barcelona, Spain, 1993.

Bibliography

Allison and Peter Smithson. ‘Education for Town Building’ Architectural Association Journal, 01. 1961

Anthony D. Smith. ‘Towards a Global Culture?’ Theory, Culture & Society. vol.7 no.2 June 1990

Dirk van den Heuvel. ‘As found aesthetics; notes on the formation of the context debate in architecture, Architectural Design Reader 2015-2016, TU Delft, 2015

Jacques Herzog. “Poesis-Production.” Lectured at ‘Anyway Conference’, Barcelona, Spain, 1993

Juhani Pallasmaa. ‘Feathers of Metal’ El Croquis, 163-164, Madrid, 2012

Pericles Lewis. ‘Modernism, Nationalism, and the Novel’ Cambridge University Press, 2000

Sean Godsell. ‘A conversation with Glenn Murcutt’ El Croquis, 163-164, Madrid, 2012