ARCHINECT DISCUSSION OF CULTS ARTICLE

http://www.archinect.com/discuss_cgi/groups/1646.html

bRink (pseudonym)

November 2002

 

What Salingaros' argument is about, I think, a certain tendency within dominant architecture communities to "push ideology" (to indoctrinate/brainwash others).

Salingaros was merely pointing to Modernism as a particular example where "the cult" came out in full force: there was, in the architecture of the 20th Century Modern Movement, a certain separation between the rhetoric and the reality. The Modern Movement was the reference to proclaimed "moral principles" such as "honesty of materials" and "honesty to the spirit of the age," and used all kinds of rhetoric about "science and progress" only to justify a Modern STYLE, and exclude all others. Despite their moral banterings on social responsibility, the Modern Movement was really less about social ethics than about defending a particular subjective aesthetic style. Most often, the high-modern houses were objects for the elite.

It could be argued that many of the "Great Architects" who we read about in history books pushed ideology not because it was necessary logical, or sensible, but rather to establish their place in architectural history. We all have a pretty good idea from history books what 20th Century Modernism was about, and who the big players were … But then again, why do we keep talking about the same people over and over again when 99.999% of the world population has never seen one of their buildings, and couldn't give a rat's ass about them? What percentage of buildings within the so-called "modernist era" really fit with the architectural timeline that we read about in the history books? Were there other 20th Century Modern Architectures that are not a part of our "architectural education"? What about 20th Century Eclecticism, or the New Classicism?

Nikos Salingaros raises something that I think should be reasonable to anybody who has experienced the rituals of architecture school, and survived the perils of indoctrination with their sensible open mind intact.

As for those who were rolling on the floor laughing at Salingaros' article, ask yourself this: Did you ever question your mentors while in school, or were you a "good student"? Did anyone in your school ever design anything "classical"? What would have happened if they had? Why is classicism bad? Are you in good standing within your architectural community? Do you and your architecture colleagues generally agree on what is good architecture? Have you ever tried to explain something about architecture to a normal lay person and had them look at you like a certifiable nut?

Salingaros' point is not necessarily about Classicism or about Modernism, but about "cults of architecture" … The architectural "education" of normal people, which causes them to lose their minds, and forget what it is to be a sensible and logical human, and transforms them into the Establishments' monkey-drone architects …

While I can see where Salingaros makes his argument, I am not sure I agree with his own perspective on architecture, which like Modernism seeks to propagate "universal truths" or "laws" … Salingaros is defining his own architectural morality based on "a humane alliance of science and religion … " That sounds a lot like the start of a new cult to me … I would be nevertheless curious to read some of his arguments on that topic before criticizing him …

QUOTE FROM ANOTHER COMMENTATOR ON SALINGAROS' ARTICLE: "I wouldn't deny that there is a certain "cultish" quality to architectural education, and an obsession with new forms and innovations in the academy, even when they aren't reasonable. But the academy has always been about that, and always will be. It stimulates the rest of the profession in very positive ways -- it provides a nice enclave where one can dream, before entering the world of regulations and stylistic codes."

I'm not sure I agree with this positive outlook on architectural education. … I wonder -- does the system of architectural education really provide a "nice enclave where one can dream"? I would argue that most architecture schools are not the free forums for innovation and creativity that you are implying. From my own experience, the line between "the academy" and "the profession" is actually quite blurred. "The academy" of which you speak is not as open as you say, but is often comprised of members of an already established architectural community … My feeling is that most architecture schools are strongly ideology focused, and that they aim to "educate" their students according to their own specific ideology. A student who goes to Columbia will get a different "architectural education" than a student who goes to Cranbrook, or a student who goes to the University of Michigan, or a student who goes to the University of Notre Dame School of Architecture... I think anyone who has taught at an architecture school will admit that there is always politics involved...

I think Salingaros' conspiracy theory may be a bit more real than most people would admit … My feeling is that architecture has always been full of tight circles of professionals/academics who pat one another on the back, aim to exclude others, invent their own jargon, and aim to "recruit" new members to their clubs … It is these professionals/academics who run architecture schools, and who write our history books … All this is simply to maintain a power structure …

My feeling is that the most innovative architects are often the ones that were not the "best students" or who sought alternative architectural education … Those architects who were good students in school most often were the ones who fit with the ideological bent of their particular mentors/school, and were easily assimilated into "the cult" …  Like all cults, architectural cults aim to strengthen their numbers, and do not like to keep an open mind, or to question …

Think about it: Are you a member? 

"'Invented tradition' is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past … However, insofar as there is such reference to a historic past, the peculiarity of 'invented' traditions is that the continuity with it is largely fictitious. In short, they are responses to novel situations which take the form of reference to old situations, or which establish their own past by quasi-obligatory repetition." -- Eric Hobsbawm.

I think when talking about tradition, we should be aware that 'tradition' is often related to a present day construction of the past … Eric Hobsbawm argues that oftentimes, traditions are invented to:

1. establish or symbolize social cohesion and collective identities,

2. establish or legitimatize institutions and social hierarchies

3. socialize people into particular social contexts

In a way, I think Architectural Cults so often seek to invent traditions, or produce histories which seek to legitimize their own power or ideological school … The Modernists in a way have invented their own tradition in Architecture … one cannot deny that most histories of Modern Architecture aim to construct a lineage of "architectural progress" … At the same time, what many people call "traditional architecture" likewise seeks to cling to older extinct traditions and "reinvent" them for new purposes …

It's kind of funny … this struggle for power, legitimacy and for a place in history …

I think what Eric Hobsbawm was describing was not "tradition" as you define it. He attempts to make a clear distinction between "Invented Tradition" and "customs" which have developed over time and which are responses to real existing circumstances. I think what Hobsbawm recognizes is that oftentimes real, meaningful customs lose their originary meaning yet are continued as ritual practices whose significance becomes more about maintaining a continuity with the past in order to legitimize/establish an institution or social hierarchy, or to establish/symbolize a collective identity. It is this moment when customs fail to have their original meaning and where individuals adopt them as a response to new circumstances that customs become "Invented Traditions".

At another extreme, some traditions may have no authentic historical roots whatsoever, but are simply the constructs of a group of people who invent totally new traditions for their own present day purposes.

I simply think that we must keep in mind the way that historical knowledge is produced, and examine the value and authenticity of tradition when we apply it to a present day context.

As for whether those legitimate "handed over" traditions are of relevance to architecture today, I think many of them are. I would admit that there seems to be a certain meaningfulness and attention to craft in many Classical buildings that gives them a sense of timelessness and humanity that is lacking in many Modern buildings which often feel rather disposable. I'm not sure, but perhaps it has to do with the process of building, the evidence of the builder …

In any case, I can appreciate and relate to this point of view, but I think that when we attempt to follow 'tradition', it requires a sensitive understanding and deep reflection on what tradition really is …

In a time when our present day technological realities are constantly and rapidly changing, and where the economic and contextual realities, the pace and method of building are quite different than in previous eras, it becomes much more difficult to design with tradition … Attempts to design with tradition may run the danger of producing an architecture which is far from humanist, but which employs historical reference in a way that lacks meaning and is not understandable by anyone. Not all "traditional architecture" is humanist architecture.