UATION STUFF

"This project investigates social segregation by design. The site analysis has provided us with information that points towards an industry-oriented district of the city. Therefore I have opted to adopt an industrial design approach. Along with a-" Shut up. I’m listening to yet another loser who had been talking sanely for 10 weeks, and now, when it really matters, succeeded in talking bullshit for 10 minutes straight. If I wanted to hear someone talk too enthusiastically about a mediocre subject, I would have gone to Freek Vonk Live. What even is this ‘professional’ way of talking people take on during presentations?

LinkedIn talk is the conversation style that is used by people that want to make an impression. It is often used in situations that involve superiors: teachers at presentations / professors at gatherings / industry executives at dinners. People who use this type of talk are in it for the win. The thicker the skin, the tougher the inside.

There is a prevailing idea that an intellectual conversation style corresponds to an intellectual individual. Those who use fancy words create a certain kind of allure around themselves of authority, and authority is a vital part of presenting to a wider audience. To successfully convince people of certain ideas, the designer must be taken seriously as an individual of knowledge. Otherwise, who is this idiot trying to get me to invest in his design proposal?

But conversation style is not the problem. Renowned architects usually talk bullshit all the time. It is, however, the reliance on presentation techniques that makes me genuinely worry about the quality of architecture in the coming years. The reason why the bachelor’s and master of architecture is experienced as a high workload field is for a big part due to time lost to fancy posters and realistic renderings. A friend of mine told me that on his exchange to Bath, it was even worse. The majority of students were pulling all-nighters to perfect their cute posters, yet having designed the architectural equivalent of dogshit. Are these really the people we entrust to become the designers of the future world?

The other day I was listening to the hundredth person struggling to pitch his story. After stuttering a few times, resort was found in LinkedIn talk. The bloke kept repeating the same word patterns: I have opted to, [...] is situated in […]. Hearing the same phrases over and over again reminded me of a prewritten Sinterklaas poem where only the name and birthday of the child has to be filled in. Only with cute schemes and sections.

What perplexed me (it shouldn’t have) was that this person scored the highest mark in my group. It was a perfectly copy-pasted plan for the Tarwewijk. Rules for urban planning were followed and cute ideas from lectures were literally duplicated. It was a perfect plan, for which the student lost no time to innovative ideas and could fully focus on presentation, rewarding him with the highest mark. But in the Netherlands we have HBO for that (higher profession education). Universities were supposed to push the field of architecture to higher grounds, find new ways to improve people’s lives and to abandon outdated building techniques. The TU Delft and other universities have abandoned this golden standard of education in exchange for rewarding the best photocopier, and the reason is commerce.

The amount of people who rely on their presentation techniques rather than their ability to design usable buildings is astounding in the bachelor's, and the fact that these people are entrusted to become future designers for the built environment is shocking. The funny part is that everyone in their right mind sees through it. Less funny is the fact that the commercial world does not. It seems that nowadays a project merely has to look good to be good, and the popularity of the following firms is proof: MVRDV, Zaha Hadid Architects, Bjarke Ingels Group, UNStudio, Foster + Partners, MAD Architects, Buro Ole Scheeren(!). Some of their projects have been outright humanitarian disasters in urban fabric, yet many of their projects have acquired the firms global recognition in the eyes of the public. Investors are not persuaded to innovate in architecture. Investors really don’t need a lot more than minimum effort, good looking buildings. As far as acceptance goes, the narrow minded scope of the public means that a cute facade is plenty for a project to receive green light.

Innovation does not sell ideas in the abstract field of architecture. Presentations sell ideas (OMA). Facades sell ideas (MVRDV). Shapes sell ideas (BIG). It is sad to see that even the renowned firms of the late 20th century have also lost much of their old spirit in exchange for democratic bullshit. Luckily there are still innovative firms. Mostly the smaller ones, that have less than 20 employees. I guess they have to resort to actual craftsmanship to pave their way in the commercial world. But as long as the big firms remain in their popular position, large housing projects of the 21st century will go down in history as the dullest they have ever been. //

Racist, vandalistic, destructive, disrespectful, homophobic, unsightly, illegal, defacing, offensive, disgraceful, unwanted, antisemetic, decrepit, unsanitary, foul, repugnant, criminal, vile, horrific, horrid, contaminating, revolting, loathsome, hideous, ghastly, ruinous, irritating, grimy, sinister, rancid, distruptive, controversial, misogynistic, mindless, sectarian, filthy, malicious, menacing, grungy, abusive, uncivilized, coarse, crass, hateful, nasty...

If these are some of the most common words used to describe graffiti, whoever started doing it must have been a pretty terrible person. Of course, there is no one person who can be credited for beginning to mark surfaces in a form that resembles graffiti, and even if there was, this creator from decenia ago would not have been able to imagine the state of his creation in the present day. His intentions may have also not been the same as those that we often see now.

Graffiti is one of the easiest ways for us to express our thoughts and emotions in a way that remains in a place long after we’re gone. We’ve probably all done it, marked our initials onto a school desk, or for the more adventurous out of us, maybe even written something in a hallway or on a bathroom door. While this doesn’t necessarily have to be malicious, it is almost always done on someone else’s property, usually without permission. If something isn’t ours, why should we treat it well anyway?

Graffiti often pops up in abandoned places, somewhere that nobody will care enough to clean. We can all imagine a place covered in graffiti. Can you feel it? You can probably smell it. Why does something, often with so much colour and such intricate detail garner such a negative reaction from us? Is it the location? The message? Is it possible, in the complex urban environments that we inhabit, to contribute constructively to the work of architects or is it all just adding to the noise?

Due to the cheap techniques involved, and the essentially free canvas that can be manipulated to enormous degrees of success, graffiti can often be embraced by underprivileged communities as a low cost, low barrier to entry tool to spread political or social messages to the masses. Numerous story tall murals of political figures or commemorations of historic events tower over passersby requiring them to consider and recognise the experiences and conditions of people who they may feel indifferent to.

With its striking ability to catch our eye, with remarkable contrast to its surroundings, should we consider graffiti to be a genuine art form or simply vandalism? We’ve all heard of or seen the multimillion dollar price tags attributed to certain pieces at auction, but is this enough to convince you?

Mixing media is definitely a favourite of mine, and shooting graffiti for this short photo essay has forced me to consider it from various perspectives as I combine the two. No one thing can outweigh another, not the message, the location, nor the colour or the composition. As I carelessly already defined the criteria for success, for graffiti to be productive, it has to constructively contribute to the street scape it is attached to.

Despite the question of legality in the case of graffiti, a person who seeks to contribute to something positively will, I believe, end up doing so. Beauty is, afterall, in the eye of the beholder so it is up to you to see if your outlook on graffiti changes if you pay a little more attention to its ability to inspire. //