Sorted by date | |||
page184from Nordic Architects Writes
Recently
we have been able to learn from the excellent Animal Architecture exhibition
that the structures of the animal world, developed during the long evolution of
nature, are supreme achievements compared with the efforts at building produced
by the human race in its short history. Even the finest steel constructions
cannot compare in tensile strength with the spider’s web. Nor can any
ventilation adjustment that we control compare the complicated but clear
functioning system in a termites’ nest. Against this background, it is of
course paradoxical that in the last blink of an eye in human history, also
referred to as the “Age of Technology”, the construction sector has finished up
in a situation that is in many ways untenable.
Modernist
architect included the essentially sound idea of applying advanced technology
to building, but it was also associated with a blinkered approach to
experiments with new material and new technologies. In architecture and in
other areas of culture, the romance of the machine age, which made a fetish of
technology, was more or less an expression of puberty. The buildings that were
manifestations of the wonders of technology did not always show control of the
technology – far from it. It is worth bearing in mind that at a time when the
silicon chip and the micro-cosmos of the circuitry contained within it would
already have accurately described the state of technological development,
fashionable high-tech architecture still expressed the steam-age aesthetic. In
this context, it should be pointed out that the environmental reality that
horrifies us all today has not arisen from some untenable architectural ideal,
but from much greater and more corrupt social vectors. The sanctification of
technology and the machine in architecture was, however, a clear reflection of
a worldview, a vision of a simple mechanical order, of mechanical domination of
the world.
In
recent years, the counterpart to this techno-architecture has been the
architecture of chaos. It looks as though popular discussion of chaos theory
has found reinforcement for this kind of explanation of the world, that is,
that the world is now mixed up and without any fixed points anywhere. From
recent trends in architecture we can easily recognize interpretations of a new
superficial worldview. Rudolf Arnheim, 90-year-old Harvard emeritus professor
of the theory and psychology of the history of art, recently commented wisely
on the fashion for chaos. He said that the atmosphere today is very similar to
the atmosphere that existed when Einstein’s theory of relativity was published.
The popular interpretation then was that the theory showed that nothing was
objective, nothing was certain. Arnheim points out that the interpretation was
completely at odds with the actual content of the theory of relativity. In
fact, in the early years, Einstein had tried to call his theory the “invariant
theory”. Invariance, fixed points and some kind of fragments of order were what
chaos theoreticians were probably looking for when new, more multi-dimensional
fields of view were opening up in front of them. Architects, too, should scrape
together the fragments of order into their own profession rather than building
unsustainable scenery from a trivial interpretation of science and technology. The
challenges that are facing us of developing building and putting it on a more
sustainable foundation, call for a new kind of integration of the work of
architects and engineers. There is a great deal of research and development
|
|||
|
|||
|