Fighting for Art

If I may choose a phrase to describe why the Design Thesis exists, it is to “Fight for Art”.

We have heard before : Architecture is both Science and Art.

Well, what does that mean? Apparently, you have to use or work or live in architecture. There are users involved. The Science of Building -  making it buildable, livable, usable, safe etc is part of Science. So, science have a big say in it.

But then who’s big idea is it to say its also Art. Why does Architecture need to be beautiful?

If we want to approach the argument via Vitruvius’s often quoted phrase of: Utilitas, Firmitas, Venustas (Commodity, Strength, Beauty), we can, of course. But not today.

Today, I am approaching it with Jeannette Winterson in mind, referring to her book – Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery (1995) where she says:

Art does not imitate life. Art anticipates life.

Surely as a designer, we need to appreciate and understand Art. We can learn from other disciplines – writers, artist, designers of fashion and products, etc.

Another quote from Winterson (1995):

We seemed to have returned to a place where play, pose and experiment are unwelcome and where the idea of art is debased. At the same time, there are a growing number of people (possibly even a representative number of people), who want to find something genuine in the literature of their own time and who are unconvinced by the glories of reproduction furniture.

In Winterson’s quotes, I want to find the grounds of argument for Art in Architecture. At first, when I talked about Aesthetics, it is more to do with the skin or surface, ornamentation or proportions in form and so on. In traditional arts, my post-graduate students had reviewed that Aesthetics and Function go together. Ancient people do not view beauty as separate from utility, and strength is expected. To build to last. That is why we just could not ignore historical buildings of the old.

What is Art?

Why must Art imitate Life? (Reproduction furniture…)

Why must Art anticipate Life? (Originality…)

In Architecture, we have got to anticipate Life. Aesthetics and Function are one and not separated. Through the design process, we explore Life, anticipate all the numerous possibilities that can emerge from our study on Life, and all the ideas that comes with it, flowing freely and then the form will emerge. Rather than being form-driven, to find originality, we need to be driven by the process.

Going through the motion

I believe that many architecture students do not really like architecture but they have to complete the course nevertheless.

Why I am saying this is that – I was really into architecture and now I still am. I noticed for some students they would do anything (distract themselves silly)… but architecture and they got through the course because they can really draw well and good at graphics. It is easier now than before due to all sorts of computer aided drawing softwares and tools.

I see some students avoid talking about architecture and have very little desire to know more. They are more concerned with periphery issues and other concerns. Why does architecture comes second for many of the students.

I suppose when we had to do manual drawings before (time before CAD and computers), the ones that did not like architecture could not fake it, as the effort to draw and to draw like a computer or at least competently was immense, unlike now which is “effortless”.

I suppose the number of students liking architecture to the students disliking architecture could be the same then and now, but the “gloss-over” or “faking-it” could be easily done now than before.

Why does this concern me?

For starters, I do not really want to help people who are not interested or dislike architecture and are just going through the motions. I mean, why should I? It is a vocation and the teacher that I am would only be interested to teach people who would really appreciate the subject and not just to pass.

Wouldn’t you?

Politics

I am not engaging in politics at the moment. I am taking a rest. Perhaps I am still, but not “out there”. Quite invisible. And certainly not the pawn broker…

Well, talking in riddles is nonsensical. Do not want to go into details as that would constitute as “gossip”. Providing canon fodder for the trigger happy ones.

Just want to sit back and enjoy the show.

Student’s Culture

I am no expert on students’ culture at our architecture department. I am talking about the learning culture rather. I believe that we need to create a togetherness, in terms of vision for the school. As much as you want to get your vision across (to your head of department or dean or peers), there is in existence a vision of what the students perceive the school to be.

One of an important element is the winning mentality. The hunger for success and the drive to excellence. What is in students minds? What and how do they see this school evolve.

In UTM Skudai recently one of the design thesis student won an international competition. (Link) UTM has been striving to win comptetions since way back then. So I am not surprise about them winning a big competition like this.