WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AUTHORSHIP?
In design studio at the university, we were discussing about one of my student’s weak project. He got it intolerant and took it personal. I tried to bring an example of Iran’s contemporary architecture to make the discussion clearer. “It’s a copy one!” he says sneering. We all have faced with such attitudes toward architecture. We have seen such images of our best architectural works be- ing hallmarked of a copy and we have plenty of inferior buildings around justified on the grounds of a profit relativism. They start their critiques with this term: “Why you think it’s a copy of that?” They quoted from Picasso “Good artists borrow, great art- ists steal” or Jarmusch has said “Originality is non-existent”, but these words do not justify piles of typical clichéd projects around. Aren’t there any borders or limitations? If there are no origi- nal works, then are any Roman façades or kitsch architecture acceptable? Where is the border of professional/ ethical/ legal authorship? What are the differences between adopting, appro- priation, paying a tribute, standing on the shoulders of others, being affected, and copying? As Kant says if we are aware of the source of that “bewitch- ing and beautiful note of the nightingale”, is a boy whistling in the bushes, then we wouldn’t lost our interest in the sound? Or as Umberto Eco says if we have a good copy of a famous sculpture, exactly the same as the original one, then what does the desire for the original mean? Is it an obsessive desire for originality couldn’t be a symptom of a commercial society or a it has a kind of fetishistic value? The vision of the originality has been modified through dec- ades. In the Pre-Modern era originality was laid in meeting the style standards (image 1); After the Renaissance being original together with individualism, was a work hadn’t referred to the past and had to be self-referred, then it took more attention in the Post Modern era author was eliminated from the original- ity criteria, skepticism over the science beliefs that attached to authorship and rationalism were raised so the issue of context was highlighted. Duchump’s ready-mades’ took the attentions to the past ... Here we should consider Iran’s lags, its vision to the West, tradition-modernity encountering. Farhadpour points at Abrams’ Diagram on art works and its directions, takes a look at Adorno’s aesthetics where he ex- plains the work of art as an autonomous whole relating to outer world. We have tried to adapt this diagram to the architecture as a self-referred element relating to outer elements (location, climate, culture, market, history and other architect’s ideas). Adorno defines an artwork through external and internal world. He believes it is able to have a specific logic and concept by interaction among forces and tensions of these two worlds. In the internal world it has its own regulations. If it just has inter- actions in its internal world, it will be isolated from the world and unrelated with it. Most of precious unrealized architectural works are like this. If it just rely on external world, it will be reduced to relational action or be only functional as a political or ethical
manifesto or just a building meeting needs. Adorno’s diagram (diagram 1) has the artwork related to three factors: artist (as a creator), audience (as a perceiver) and the universe. We adapted this diagram to the architecture (diagram 2): architectural work in relation to architect (creator and designer), client and market (who/what makes architecture real) and the universe around (including geography, history, society, culture altogether with whole architectural works and history of architec- ture). Now let’s see what if architecture, unlike Adorno’s vision, goes toward any of these factors forcefully and not considering its internal logic. Client-market: As the work hasn’t found any internal solu- tions to the market requests in the design process, they will be imposed on the work and the building will just be a matter of product and reduced to a response to an economical problem. In an excessive reliance we call it “a market architecture or a kitsch one”. Context: A project based on history, climate or cultural con- ditions. We call it “a low-risk architecture or a good/ethical one”. They are prescriptive projects for ecology or culture. Consider- ing excessively they are hypocritical, as any ideological projects imposed on an specific approach. Architect: When the creator forced the building to be something they like to be, it will represent just the taste of the designer. Past ideas: Persisting on using other projects ideas which are not internalized in the project universe would be like a suit not suited for the one. This would be the ignorance of the real needs of the project (in the idea, approach, form etc.). We call it a copy. Now let’s see what it would be if the vectors orientation reversed (diagram 3) (in the Adorno’s words when the external factors internalized). I think it would be more just a primary referencing (when it is based on personal study and vision) and
كاتدرال فلورانس، فيليپو برونلسكي-2 2- Florence Cathedral, Filippo Brunelleschi
پاويون بارسلونا، ميس وندرروهه-3 3- Barcelona Pavilion, Mies van der Rohe كاتدرال سن ويتوس، پيتر پارله، پراگ-1 1- St. Vitus Cathedral, Peter Parler, Prague
4- A building in Tehran 6- A Chapel in Tehran 7- Yokohama Port Terminal, Farshid Mousavi, Alejandro Zaera-Polo
5- World Port Centre, Foster + Partners, Rotterdam
it can take the idea to challenge or it can develop it. Here are some examples: - Yokohama Port Terminal Project by FOA: They used Kool- haas’s notion of continues surface and developed it. - Domino House by Corbusier fed by his personal vision (as an architect-painter who perceives the artistic streams of his era), attention to the context (socially and economically - the need for more buildings after the world war II) and past ideas (Auguste Perret’s project - such as Musée des Travaux Publics). - Peter Zumthor’s Bruder Klaus Chapel which has come from his personal view and the context (the vision to the place, landscape and his innovative approach to the building tech- niques). - Japan’s contemporary architecture: notions from past ideas (Japan, the West), Market and economics, Japanese architects’ personal views and the context (design codes and regulations and country social space).
* Born 1977 in Tehran, Alireza Taghaboni received his Masters in Architecture from Gilan University and a PhD from the Science and Research Faculty of Azad University. Since 2004, he has been practicing architecture independently and his office, called “Digar” is now active. In his eight years of professional career he has designed more than 40 projects and won several architectural awards including two times first rank Memar Awards 2008 and 2010 (for Villa for a Friend and Amir Villa projects respectively), a second rank Memar Award in 2002 for Koohsar Villa and the first rank in Façade Design Competition 2009 for Building No 93 Tehranpars. He was also a finalist of Barcelona Festival 2011 for the design of the headquarters of Qazvin Construction Engineering Organization. Since 2002, he has taught at different architectural faculties including Azad University (Tehran Branch) and Ferdowsi University, Mashhad. His paintings have been exhibited in solo and group exhibitions.
8- Utrecht Cultural Center, Rem Koolhaas, Netherlands
9-10- Bruder Klaus Field Chapel, Peter Zumthor, Germany
11- Dom-ino house, Le Corbusier
13- Moriyama house, SANAA, Tokyo 12- Museum, Auguste Perret, Paris