ah, the wonderful knowledge that nobody is paying attention. whether it's on a drafting board, or in a kitchen, nobody seems to be following the recipes. take for instance, the wonderful work of joshua prince ramus. ramus is, truly, a masterful architect in that he actually is an architect. or better put, he's a client's architect. to ramus, the vision is thoroughly ancillary to the client's needs. "do," he says, "it's much more powerful," adding, "i've never seen a client give a shit about my personal vision."
ramus is not the example of ignorance - he may well be the anti-example - but rather the causal effect of it. too often, one hears the words "conceptual development" propounded by elite schools of design. whether it be in fashion, writing or cooking, a personal statement seems to be the underlying message sent from an older generation to a younger, more interconnected one. this sentiment is a sign of the times - after all, contemporary architecture expresses the individual as much as the building - however, it can (and does) leave designers with a seemingly fundamental question: what is a concept?
it's an answer best left to the pocketbooks. simply put, a "concept" is so poorly defined, that quality architects, such as ramus, advocate process in design over conceptual development. it is more economical to design with a solid program and be fundamentally absurd, he argues, than it is to "have a vision."
this all raises a question - is there a problem with conceptual development? or more likely, is there some pedagogical complexity in arriving towards a foundational "concept?" for chefs today, molecular gastronomy seems to present this dilemma - namely, how do you teach molecular gastronomy? The lack of proper insight, or understanding of the science of taste, makes the most well-thought menus seem fundamentally childish, or child-like, in approach (depending on the skill of the chef).
it's as if an entire nation of artists sat down for an exam, answers in hand, and only a handful of them could recall the order of operations to each particular problem. as a young designer, i could care less for those answers (after all, they're just numbers or words), and could care more for the recipes, which although forgotten, are not entirely lost.
i'll say first that i'm not a designer who is inherently creative. i'm more of a minimalist in that if someone shows me an idea (particularly other students or close friends), where they add, i tend to subtract. this is why i find ramus so enlightening. not because i agree with him, but because through his hegelian candor he's at odds with the liberal approaches young designers are taught. "ideas [should] get torn apart," he boldly asserts, "the more interesting an idea, the more aggressive the tearing apart."
the success of this idea, and of his firm, OMA, should not come as a total surprise. he's practically darwin at a drafting table, and it's hard to argue against the overall success of evolutionary theory.
from contracts to buildings, from conception to maturity, ramus is doing far more for the realm of design than other proponents of "organic" design. "biomimetics" ultimately seems too long of a shortcut for designers to get anywhere. It often involves laborious contracts with consultants too often not relevant to the execution of a project. "green" design or sustainable design seems to have some footing in the LEED AP process, but it's critics argue that at best, this form of design is in it's nascent stage and has yet to truly be tapped.
ramus, as an architect, embodies the ideal that anyone can be creative if given their shot. i won't kiss his ass and say he's a great architect - his project in louisville screams thinker and not designer - but he's smart enough to belabor himself to the position where he, and those he works with, can "tear". essentially, he's listened to the fading voices around him, found the recipes, and started from scratch. it's why he's a force to be reckoned with. the famed american theologian paul tillich once quoted that "the first duty of love is to listen." it's architects, like ramus, that "do."
No comments:
Post a Comment