So if, suddenly, circa-2010, the “human experience” was the new bottom line, then we should inquire: What hole existed beforehand that (some) architects felt compelled to fill? The built environment and the habitable spaces within were now enhanced by their “human potential.” Design itself was now “humanized,” a product of empathy and the beneficiary of indomitable human spirit (or something). Seemingly overnight, the “human experience” was spotlighted as something to be uplifted, elevated, enriched or optimized. Within the last 10 years or so, a noticeable pattern began to emerge among some of the industry’s best-known and profitable architecture practices: newly branded boilerplates and About Us pages emphasized the “human” element in design.
#HUMAN DESIGN ENVIRONMENT SOFTWARE#
When Le Corbusier, that most polemical of modernists, was once asked to explain how he came to a particular design solution, he described “a juxtaposable system of construction according to an infinite number of combinations of plans.” Void of context, one could be forgiven for mistaking these words as ad copy for the latest version of AutoCAD, or just about any design software built to mitigate the consequence of human error.
#HUMAN DESIGN ENVIRONMENT FREE#
Clean, averse to nostalgia, and free of ornament.
The inaptly dubbed Rationalism is another example, as is Futurism, Postmodernism, Structural Expressionism, Deconstructivism, and, for that matter, almost any 20 th century –ism that proffered itself as an avant-garde comingling of logic, functionality, and urban sensibility, precedent be damned.
This is especially ironic, given that so many Brutalist buildings are cultural or municipal in nature. What are the most impersonal styles of architecture? Brutalism comes to mind its signature feature of raw geometric forms intersecting and jutting out from bland cityscapes has always done little to invite civic engagement.
0 kommentar(er)
