Paper Space
A little while ago, a wonderful Melissa Pearson and I entered a poster competition. It was called Advertisements for Architecture (2011).
This is our statement about the poster.
“Man does come into the world with eyes, but only by slow education does he learn to see” – Walter Gropius.
We are all born with spatial imagination and awareness. There is a fabulous difference between the world that we create within the flatland of paper space, and the physical limitations of the real world beyond. All built form has the potential to give their inhabitants delight, comfort and joy. These are experiences that you can’t find in a line, but are drawn by an Architect in the knowledge of what the line will mean when the drawing on paper is transported into the third dimension.
The hero shot can sell an image. But this is not a pipe.
What makes architects so important?
An Architect knows the difference.
Great poster, an inside joke turned neatly into a joke that everyone can get!
So those ‘others’ out in meat space are supposed to trust us that an architect can successfully navigate the border between the flatland and the terrifying expanse of spaceland?
Seems reasonable – after all architects have been doing it for quite some time now, and on the whole doing a pretty good job of it!
This is where I come across all ranty. What if the poster said “It doesn’t matter if an architect knows the difference, the law requires you to engage one.”? It doesn’t have the same kind of ring to it, but it is what a lot of people are arguing for. The message of this poster is that ‘you should talk to one of those architect dudes, they know their shit’ which I think is great, and this is what the Advertisements for Architecture competition looks to promote. I’m terrified that we’ll get to the point where the poster has my alternative slogan – where would the incentive to be good at what you do be then?!
I’ve been mulling over this ‘law’ thing over the last little while, and I’m in two minds about it.
On the one hand, having a law that (at the end of the day) ensures that our built environment has the best possible opportunity to turn out OK is a very good thing. Additionally, if it means putting architects at the core of this type of legislation, one would assume all the better for the success of the profession.
However, I’m unsure that enforcing architects into this type of political role will automatically make the profession a respected and ‘necessary’ sector (in the way that doctors and lawyers are ‘necessary’)
Currently I’ve been playing with the notion that in order for the architect’s plight for change in the built environment to be efficacious, there needs to be a demand for it. This demand needs to come from those providing the funds to build the new world- the client.
But how can the architect generate the demand? There are movements like Unsolicited Architecture, Advertisements for Architecture, Open House, Iron Designer (and they go on) which all promote the work of the architect without that work being tied to the wallets of the client; but there still seems to be a disconnection in the minds of Australians between the value a mc mansion creator can provide and what a spatial designer can deliver.
I really don’t know if after that sleepy rant I’ve replied to that comment, and I realise I’m having a picnic on the tip of the iceberg at the moment, but I’m pretty eager to go for a scuba dive.