Image Source: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JmpChd5D0d0/maxresdefault.jpg
From: Notes around the Doppler Effect and other moods of Modernism, by Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting
Critical architecture[1] can be defined now as projective architecture. Where (in Perspecta vol.21) critical architecture was categorized in “Between” the cultural product and individual, politically judged discipline. Now, (in Perspecta vol.33) author defines the projective architecture, which can be seen as an alternative to the largely accepted definitions of critical architecture.
Cultural architecture is seen as a complete product of pre-defined principles. It focuses on methods of restoring its original meanings. The new idea not falling under such principles becomes unacceptable.
Autonomous architecture focuses on formal evolution, in absence of historical concerns. That is valid until proven invalid.
The critical analysis of architecture should be free from preconceived notions/ principles- it is not a comparative analysis of history of architecture. It should be free from resistive or attitude. The mere description as a critique turns out as recording the past or present. Instead, it can be reflective, free from sympathetic engagement, by purging oneself from vantage position.
“What for Hays was then an exceptional practice, has now been rendered an everyday fact of life.”[2] Therefore, Projective architecture now, needs to be analyzed from different parameters than the conventional ones.
There should be this alternative method- Projective architecture, than these pre-described ones- cultural, autonomous and critical. That focuses on effect and includes materials, program, writing, atmosphere, form, technologies, politics, economics and other such disciplines. It considers the multiplicity of contingences and quality of sensibility. The designer may not act as expert of all disciplines but the expert of design affecting economics and politics.
“A projective architecture does not shy away from forms reinstating architectural definition, but that definition stems from design and its effects rather than a language of means and materials.”[3]
Following to McLuhan’s Hot to Cold practice, critical architecture is hot.[4] It is about resistance, it does not follow background or normative approach but it is about prioritizing definition, delineation and distinction, which has hi-definition effect. Perceiving hot is difficult and belabored. Unlike hot, cold (Projective architecture) would be an explicit work, and doesn’t produce high definition effect. It requires the context and interpretation of viewer to complete the understanding of it. Alternative architecture is like cold.[4]
Doppler Effect is adopted to substantiate the position and motion of the source in relation to the perceiver. Similarly, in architecture, we can approach through similar method to perceive emerging architecture. This text suggests perceiving architecture in such way, which can identify the potential of emerging architecture. This is an alternative approach to the cultural, autonomous or critical architecture, more than mere criticisms or literal readings of the architecture in practice.
[1] K. Michael Hays, Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form, published by Perspecta volume 21. (1984)
[2] Pg. 73, Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting, Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism, Published by Perspecta, Vol. 33, Mining Autonomy (2002)
[3] Pg. 75, Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting, Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism, Published by Perspecta, Vol. 33, Mining Autonomy (2002)
[4] Pg. 76, Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting, Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism, Published by Perspecta, Vol. 33, Mining Autonomy (2002)