"You have served the people and the people's superstitions, all you famous philosophers! — you have not served truth! And it is precisely for that reason that they paid you reverence."
— Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
There's something wrong with architecture. Anybody acquainted with this discipline would certainly agree with this, or at least feel it. I deeply believe one can learn a lot by just ignoring what is obviously not true, and relying on what he sees with his own eyes.
We just have to look, in order to see whether or not all these discussions about architecture really make sense. Most of the time, it's not as difficult to figure out the truth as to stop admiring what it is not. In this paper, I will try to clarify the role of honesty in architecture, and to dig up the deep roots of the untruth in the corresponding field of theory.
Firstly, I should explain what I mean by the "problem of architecture". I'm definitely not claiming that the good days of architecture have gone by. On the contrary, while most branches of art have experienced a stagnation period, architecture has been the center of attention during the recent decades. So, what's wrong with architecture then? Isn't it just more logical to interpret the heavy debates on architecture as a sign of the richness of ideas and depth of opinions? Isn't it normal for a discipline, especially an art, to encounter oppositions when it reaches its culmination?
No, I don't think so. The situation of architecture is much different than other branches of art. Maybe it's because of architecture's diversity. Maybe these days the word "other" is no longer necessary.
I'm well aware that these words don't sound very pleasant, but in my opinion, they're even axiomatic.
It's self-evident that architecture is not a pure art; it's also obvious that it's not an expressive one.
Architecture is not supposed to have a meaning. The building is not "of" anything. I believe these words can explain the contradictions of today's discussions about architecture. There is always a valid reason to an argument, and those discussions are not exceptions: an architect should always justify his/her work to someone usually from outside the discipline, and this justification must be worth the cost of the project.
This job is undertaken today by architectural magazines, competitions, and worst of all, by philosophers who are not even architects themselves.
That's a complete catastrophe. It's a disaster for an art to lean on a discipline other than itself. Art is respected for its uselessness. (It could be useful though, but that's not its artistic part.) A useful art is a fragile one, and should be handled with care.
I have to give explanations to those readers who are already indignant at my words, and who believe in the artistic values of architecture. I'm not against it. I just believe that when an argument lasts over a long period of time, it's mostly because some definitions are mixed up, and some agreements are misunderstood.
It's a case in point when we encounter the old question of whether architecture should be regarded as an art, science, or technology? (Other choices are possible as well: is architecture a tradition, process, group work, or personal creativity?) Much to my regret, I must say the only answer that fits this question these days is that architecture is a "profession". I think we must clarify our definitions.
First of all, we should restrict the terms "architect" and "architecture". It's obvious that any text intended to be a poem, is a poem, aside from its quality. However, a large number of buildings cannot be described as architectural works since their architects haven't even intended to do something artistic. It's an absolute pity. No other art is like that. Honesty is often absent in most architectural works from the very beginning. Although judging the artistic value of an activity and figuring out the intention of a creator from his/her "product" might be problematic, there is no doubt that this value is dependent upon nothing but this very intention. From the observer's point of view, the "result" of an artistic activity might be a matter of the utmost importance, but as far as the artist is concerned, only the "process" should be taken into consideration.
On the other hand, this process is also worthless when not followed by an artistic intention. If we believe in this, we must reject this sort of hermeneutics that searches for the meaning in the interpretations of the addressees.
Actually, we should segregate three different definitions of architecture, what the viewer sees, what the building itself is, and what the architect has intended, and then recognize the single definition based on the viewpoints of the architects: a subjective matter oriented toward intention.
In our attempt to make the definitions clear, another contradiction should also be taken into account. This question is also related to the problem of honesty and truthfulness: Does architecture have to express itself, or should it sit about expectant to be seen?
Again, there is a great difference between architecture and other branches of art. In arts, there's a preexisting agreement between the artist and the addressees: art "does" exist. The audiences in a concert hall expect "something". They are not there to just hear "sounds"; they want to enjoy "the music". A painting has this chance to be seen, while the wall it's hanging on is an architectural element that people just look at. Art is always a fake. You should accept the game: a drama or a piece of music is "played", a story is "made up". A story is a lie; that's why it could be truer than life itself.
Only architecture is real. That's the problem.
Architecture must lose its reality in order to be artistic. In these words, pretension is not untruthfulness. I believe any attempt for combining beauty, function, and technology to form a single whole ends up in dishonesty. Because of its inherent contradictions, an architectural work can never reach a total unity.
Unless we recognize the artistic aspect of architecture as a useless — though inseparable and integral — part, architecture could not be described as an art. Nevertheless, one might as well ask, "Do we have to insist on proving the artistic essence of architecture? Would it not be a rather destructive attitude?" Well, I honestly don't know. I even think this option is very likely to be true. Whatever the answer might be, it's almost obvious that we can't consider architecture an art, and at the same time withhold the freedom and the other artistic conditions from it.
