A grand utopian aesthetic cannot make a utopia.

(above left: Paolo Soleri's Arcology, right: Vincent Callebaut’s Lilypads)

Whether it’s through a classical, modern or high-tech aesthetic, the style of utopian visions is almost always that of overt rationalism on a grand scale. Visions such as Paolo Soleri’s Acologies, Ron Herron’s Walking Cities and Vincent Callebaut’s Lilypads show future worlds where humans have utilized technology to neatly control and maintain the natural world around them.

These images distort the fact that for a utopia to exist it is not the buildings which need to change, but rather the people who live within them. Architecture is, of course, an expression of the society in which it is built, and it is both influenced and influential to that society, but are ostentatious, high-tech modern buildings really the way forward?

In the countries which repetitively score the highest in liveability, prosperity and happiness; Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland, instances of high-tech, or overtly rational architecture are no more prevalent than anywhere else. Most of the architecture in these countries is stylistically very similar to that of the rest of the world. Internally the design aesthetics of these countries do seem to have some unique characteristics in common; soft tones, minimal visual mess and a subtle playfulness often expressed through handmade or vernacular themed items. In these utopian Nordic countries a high-tech aesthetic is rarely seen. As opposed to the overt rational grandness of most utopian visions the architecture of these countries is typically simplistic in form and materiality and subtle in detail.

For utopia to manifest it would require people coming together and thoughtfully resolving the issues they face, making do with what is available, rather than having to create something completely new. Thoughtfulness and resourcefulness are not ideas expressed by grandiose designs. These designs also fail another important requirement for a successful society; the ability to integrate. For a utopia to be real it would have to fit in with the current context. In many cases dystopian visions, such as the artwork of Daniel Dociu or the 2012 d3 Natural Systems Special Mention project ‘City Rescuer: Detroit’, which display future communities co-existing in the detrital architecture of today’s world, seem to show more promise of creating a better real world than what is typically thought of as ‘Utopia’.  Grand and grandiose designs, therefore, are a fool’s utopia; a utopia which will not and cannot materialise.
In the words of Theo Crosby: 

‘We reject these [modern] buildings only partly because they are crude and ugly. They are now seen to be philosophically and ideologically incorrect and are therefore obscene; obscene in precisely the same way as an over-decorated Victorian building appeared obscene to Adolf Loos... It is not that they are modern, or made of concrete... it is because they represent an intellectual attitude which we now reject.' Crosby, Pessimist Utopia, p8

(above left: Daniel Dociu - Rooftops, right:
2012 d3 Natural Systems Special Mention project ‘City Rescuer: Detroit’)

 

 I finish with another quote from 'Pessimist Utopia'

‘In such a situation everyone is a pessimist. From this situation we have now to make us a utopia – in much the same way as Neolithic man set about cutting down the primal forests with little stone axes, so we have to make sense and romance out of decaying cities, shrinking economies, and unrealised aspirations. The pessimist begins with what is to hand, the ordinary wonderful world.’ p2

21st century architecture; why art thou so oblique?

Why are oblique forms so common in contemporary architecture?

Oblique forms dominate contemporary architecture of the 21^st century just as basic geometry dominated design in the 80s. Slanted walls, shard-like windows and oblique facades can be found on buildings around the world in numbers never before seen. But why is this the current trend?

The Klein Bottle House, by McBride Charles Ryan

Is the oblique simply a manifestation of new drawing techniques? Is the ease in drawing oblique lines and forms on computer programs responsible for their presence in our cities? Are the rotate, taper, bend and skew tools really responsible for such a global trend? This may be part of it but I don’t think this is the main reason.

The Hedley Bull Centre, by Lyons

I believe the current trend is dictated mainly by a lack of understanding in design theory by most young designers today. It’s not that they don’t have anything to say I believe it’s that they are not inspired enough to see that they CAN say something about the world through their designs. Their understanding of design theory is shallow and thus so are their designs. What I believe is missing in design education today is design philosophy. The understanding that design can make a difference and the knowledge of how this can be done.

Oblique architecture to me represents the meek, wanky superficiality of society today. It represents a desire to stand out, to be seen and be stylish, but no desire to actually say something or have an opinion about the world. For too many people I think this is what life has become, it’s all business, all a show, nothing deep, nothing meaningful.  

By why oblique?

I believe the current trend of the oblique stems from the popularity of deconstructivism in the 90s. Looking back, rather simplistically at late 20^th Century design trends it can be said that after modernism had come in and banished all ornament Post-modernism then tried to bring it back. Post-modernism, whilst being quite an interesting style, lost favour as a style and a theory as it failed to really understand WHAT it was trying to say with ornament (in my opinion). Predominately ornament was used by the post-modernists in an ironic way. Irony being used here, as it normally is, to criticise something without actually putting forth a constructive alternative. As the post-modernist began to waiver in the early 90s the deconstructivists started to gain increasing attention. It is from deconstructivism, the works of Lieberskin, Hadid, Koolhaas and the like, that I believe that the current architectural style has developed.

The MAXXI National Museum, by Zaha Hadid

This ‘Oblique style’ can be seen as a stripped back version of deconstructivism. A minimalised deconstructivism if you will. Overall I do understand and see the usefulness of deconstructivism as a style and theory. At its strongest, when it makes us question the meanings we automatically give things, it can be very powerful, but at it’s weakest it’s just doing things differently simply to be different. It’s unfortunate that I think it is the latter where the current ‘oblique style’ has its roots and it is this lack of reason and lack of expression that I object to.

Nothing is safe from the cult of the Oblique.

The next trend? Well looking back at the design trends of the 20^th century it can be seen that major trends tend to play off and rebel from what was before. People inherently find interest in what is new and exotic. If something opposes the status quo it is cool until it itself becomes the status quo. What I think, and hope, is that we’ll get bored of all this bland and meaningless play of obscure geometry and once again will want to see formal and materialistic complexity in our buildings. Perhaps, rather than hiding behind ironic criticism of the past or bland attempts to look sleek and sustainable, designers will start to actually have an agenda again and will be willing to boldly express this agenda through their designs. I also think that, as life becomes increasingly technologically orientated, the rough, textured and the imperfect will come to be more meaningful within our designs. I don’t believe that strict order will come back in just yet, but I think meaning has been overlooked for too long. Of course it is always hard to express ideas and an agenda in architecture since, unlike most other art forms, architecture must first and foremost be functional and meet the client’s requirements. But that doesn’t mean that architects are excused from even trying to express something through their designs. In short architects of today need to grow some gonads and actually say something with their designs.  They need to really look at what their role is in our society and work at making the world a better place, not just a better looking one.