If this were real...That’s how I begin criticism when I’m at my students’ desks
coaching them as they work to become architects. If this were real...It’s an
invitation, a hand extended, to enter a possible world without ever leaving
this one. It cradles the comments to
follow, and offers information that the student should know—indeed will need
to know in the real world--but may not have to deploy at this point, because it’s
not real…yet.
Emma’s project had a courtyard sunken about 6’ below
sidewalk level. An awkward dimension if you imagine yourself either above or
below, but it served many purposes in her project: gave access to a Metro station, conveyed an
archaeological narrative, and gave light and air to the lower levels of her
museum. She imagined that it would be a
protected and quiet space in the city. I looked at her model and in an instant
a series of scenarios passed in front of my eyes, just as if I were looking at
a real place. If this were real, I said
to her, I would be concerned about the eddy of space at the Metro entrance; it
feels unsafe, unsurveilled, in perpetual shadow, and hidden. I’m trying to get
her to see what I see, to flash forward to an unintended future architectural
failure: abandoned space, closed cafe,
vandalized concrete walls, vortices of trash and dry leaves in the dark,
mildewed corners, flying in contradiction to everything that Emma fervidly
wishes for her world.
She hasn't learned yet how to see the spectrum of possible
worlds play out from a single arrangement of fictional walls, floors, and air, to
bounce these possibilities, to reflect and referee them, off a mental archive of
good and bad precedents, a taxonomy of realistic assessments of human nature, municipal
budgets, and the meager staffing capacities of non-profits. I see all that in the
cardboard corner of a sunken cardboard space in a cardboard city. If this were
real, Emma, you would be making a place doomed to a future completely counter
to what you imagine.
Writers of fiction often talk about their characters as if
they’re alive and not completely under the author’s control. They say and do things the writer didn't
completely intend; they steer the story off the well-planned course and wreck
deadlines. These characters remain
safely within the book though, only as real as words. When an architect’s
characters—the places, elements, and material—become real, develop agendas, and
take a bad turn, they do these things in our
world.
Design is as fiction, until it’s not. That is an
extremely difficult concept to grasp, whether you’re a student, an architect,
or a future inhabitant of a place. A lot
can happen on the way to reality. Fiction allows the author to create worlds
that could or could not, should or should not, exist. But it’s rarely her intention to execute any
of these speculations; a novel is not a set of instructions for making a world.
it could have been otherwise... |
If this were real…That’s a subjunctive phrase. The
tip-off is, of course, the “were.” You’ll certainly hear people—not me, mind
you--say “if this was real” because
we English-speakers have become grammatically casual. We don’t attend to how we choose our words, particularly
in speech. I stick to the subjunctive
structure because I've been writing (but not yet publishing) about it as a mode of architectural drawing. I've become
quite partial to it; as an architect I appreciate the snug fit of the right construction
to convey the sense of the sentiment. I’m a subjunkie.
If this were real…if I were you…If this were due tomorrow…These
expressions liberate architectural criticism from the dull blade of the
imperative. Simply ordering my students
to do or not do certain things-- don’t ever put a door there; never make
entrances like that--is no way to cultivate learning or imagination. And don’t even start with the future
indicative…That won’t work.
This is a better approach than the one i use "if this were the final review, here is what I would say." That seems to get their attention. I like your strategy better for future architects -- places them into a new perspective. this gets at Jeremy Till's critique of arch school which seems to take a cavalier attitude towards constraints - including gravity and climate.
ReplyDelete