(click on above link for source article)
We recently read an intriguing and thought provoking article that brings questions of beauty to the forefront of our design philosophy. The article was written by Karrie Jacobs (a design instructor at Otis College of Art and Design, in Los Angeles) and published on Metropolis Magazine's website earlier this month. It speaks about the idea of beauty and its elusive definition as it pertains to urban environments. The author addresses the fact that even though there are endless discussions on the topic of beauty and of cities, there are no true discussions on the melding of the two.
As part of an ongoing dialogue, TRPinc offers these initial topics on the idea of urban/architectural beauty:
1) The author of Eye of the Beholder asserts John E. Burchard’s statement that “We must face the fact that all the world’s greatest urban unities have been achieved under some form of autocracy...our quandary is how to achieve unity by democratic procedures."
[Discussion Topic #1] Does the "democratic process" hinder architectural/urban beauty???
2) The author talks about classroom discussions she had and that "the student consensus was that the term wasn’t relevant because it doesn’t mean anything. There were no longer universal standards for beauty…”
2) The author talks about classroom discussions she had and that "the student consensus was that the term wasn’t relevant because it doesn’t mean anything. There were no longer universal standards for beauty…”
[Discussion Topic #2] If there are no universal standards for beauty, then who gets to say what is and what isn't beautiful??? A committee, an architect, the client, a magazine...
3) Within the article, the author mentions a quote from Dave Hickey's essay title American Beauty, "I think of encounters with beauty in just this sense, as pleasant surprises, positive moments in the history of our free responses to the world."
[Discussion Topic #3] If ALL buildings within a city were designed to be "beautiful", would that city become so overwhelmed that each building would then lose its "beautiful" qualities? In essence, do all buildings need to be beautiful???
 |
| Chicago skyline (MetropolisMag.com courtesy of iStockphoto.com) |
Charles Taylor, author of The Ethics of Authenticity, speaks about the world being ruled by the notion of “instrumental reason”; calculating the most economical application of means to a given end - maximum efficiency as the best cost-output ration to a measure of that idea’s success.
[Discussion Topic #4] Does beauty fit into this idea of maximum efficiency? Or can this “desire for beauty” aid in overcoming this idea of economical vs. ethical solutions???
[Discussion Topic #4] Does beauty fit into this idea of maximum efficiency? Or can this “desire for beauty” aid in overcoming this idea of economical vs. ethical solutions???
5) There is a closing point within the article in which the author claims: "And I argued that it’s a stronger word, a more inter-esting word, when there’s no consensus about what it means. Beauty without standards invites formal risk-taking."
[Discussion Topic #5] If there was a design competition, and the only rule was to create something beautiful, what would be submitted???
The article in Metropolis intrigued me. It's always interesting, and sometimes quite hard, to hear what people have to say about the work that we (as architects, artists and writers) produce. But, maybe more interesting, is how it made me think about my own reactions to "beauty" and how I must be more sensitive and open to other interpretations.
ReplyDelete