That was fantastic. Thank you Mr. Ytterberg. Mr. Hosack has been in need of a fellow defender.
What Mr. Hosack has been saying, from my best interpretation, is that architectural excellence will require better degrees of real measurement of fact, complete with peer reviewed research, not so unlike what I have seen preached by the "evidence based design" camp. Somewhere in there, is a comment I think, where he wants these facts to be very dense, because more facts per square foot would mean a better result. Could be wrong, but that's what it sounds like, said in far more words.
In some ways, I agree. More 'stuff' in a design tends to be a good thing. Research is also good. No arugment there. However, what he considers valid and invalid for consideration is where we part ways, and I believe this represents a huge, historical divide in our architectural profession. Similar to your comment, he has basically written off any artistic perspectives as pure opinion, which can't hold a candle to the true "validity" of proven scientific facts, or perhaps in your case, of true client desires. Supposedly architects can only reach higher ground, when their 'facts' put them beyond reproach and above simple, vaccous "opinion." Or in your case, where the fact most perfectly mirror the desires of the client - another flowed model. For those of us who seek to defend our ground from an artistic basis, we are labeled cut off, arrogant, and selfish. That is a very common conclusion used by those who attack art. I expect it from clients, but it always surprises me to hear it from architects, who I personally believe should know better.
My response has been that this is an extremely flawed point of view that will never lead to better architecture, because a particular concept used in science is being used like a blunt instrument, being "uniquisitive" (to use your own words) to huge branches of knowledge that do not fit this very narrow model. There are 3 ways to attack this position. Well, actually more, but these are some of the big ones:
1. Functionalism, especially client based 'desire functionalism,' as you just proposed, is a very
unprofessional approach, because if you study how design innovation actually works, it's hardly
based on client desire. The worst car manufacturers in the world, if you haven't noticed, are the ones who have become so completely stupid on how to design cars, that their entire business model becomes "we know what the client wants." Each year, as they go down the tubes further, they say, 'well, we haven't listened to our clients yet. But now we will. Then we'll be good again.' I got news for you. Clients are not car designers. They are customers. How can they know more about how to design a car than a real car designer? Do you know more about surgery than your surgeon? Here's a phrase from a competent car company that shows they don't reduce themselves to what the client wants, but instead, far
exceed what their clients can ever
imagine. That's real innovation. Remember the phrase "the car that sells itself?" That's a concept based more on real professionalism rather than simply giving a client what they want. It also lines up with a concept I heard from Frank Ghery a while back, accusing architects of doing bad work because of their obsession of trying to 'serve the client.' We could write a whole book on this topic alone. Well, actually, I
am writing a book on this topic. But Frank is definitely on to something that separates the great designers from the poor ones.
2. Science, as peer reviewed tested 'fact' is another problem we have to address by all of the functionalists who think they can prove their way to a great design via some sort of double blind study. For those who see this approach as the end all to all reasoning, have not carefully studied primary philosphy of science, and all of the large flaws and limits that any kind of scientific theoretical construct processes. Peer review is a great model. Don't get me wrong. I'm not denigrating the model as something useful to scientists for particular purposes. But I am critical of people who push it to Godly levels that it doesn't quite possess, trying to get it to replace everything else in sight. It's not unlike those who take Darwin's theory of Evolution and apply it to everything else they know from economics to spanking their kids. Others do the same with free market capitalism theory. I think sometimes people get so impressed with a particular construct, they don't know how to let go of it enough to broaden their base to other ways of seeing things. They suddenly thinkg they 'understand'
everything via their 'facts.' One more reason all architects really need to study philosophy, as I have stated earlier, so they can be careful about trying to sum up the world in such simplified ways. The fact is, most of what we do probably has more to so with the social sciences, where real human interaction is - which you alluded to. And that is never something we can ever be sure of when we go the route of trying to prove anything with hard facts, because you can never do a completely controlled study in the social sciences. So using Mr. Hosacks only model of validity, we could say the political science, economics, psychology and philosophy are of little use to excellence in architecture, because you can't really completely prove anything scientifically in these fields. It's just opinion.
3. To accuse
art of being a baseless route to excellence because it's only 'opinion' is huge denigration of a body of knowledge. If that is true, then we may as well eliminate art departments from universities because it's just opinion. Why give grades? Why even teach it? We have enough problem with certain clients who see art this way, but it's made far worse by architects who seem to be just as distant. Art has strong links to science, as serious thinkers have shown, for those who care to read about it. The links between constructions of scienctific equations and math have many roots in metaphorical construction, which has links to how art functions. Art, as an abstract form of communication, has links to our origins of language. Art has links to our biological thought processes, as shown in anthropology. Art knows more than just about any other educational model about discovery processes, because art is almost 100% discovery process. Art and science, together, are the extremes of the human brain. We can't just lob off half the brain, and count off the other half has just opinion. The most uncreative designers in the world have typically been the ones who see the world in very strict, objective terms. I believe they are simply wearing their pants too tight. And then they accuse those with access to creativity as being arrogant. That's a very common conclusion, but flawed all the same. . . . in my
opinion. Architecture staddles art and science. It's a very priviledged position.
-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Architect
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------