The Old New
John K Melvin
5/12/08
Art practitioners, particularly sculpture/installation artists since the 1960’s have increasingly dealt with notions of site-specificity, place, and sensory experience. Smithson, Serra, and Lin, dealt with the notion of place and their works activated a place by bringing that place into existence. Interestingly enough, in the context of the 21st century, as reception of the Art Market amongst practitioners fades, alternative communication strategies are being actively sought out; from guerrilla biennales to the plethora of web content, practitioners are seeking out a wide array of alternative venues[1]. These communicative strategies utilize degrees of hybridization and cross-discipline approaches in realizing their goals. Hybridization across disciplines, specifically within the context of public art, has produced an increasing amount of practitioners that are not trained in art, but are producers of large scale conceptualizations, otherwise classified as Public Art. Comparatively, these visualizations are on the scale if not larger than those of Serra, Lin, or Smithson. These visionaries are not trained as artists but as architects who, some before they finish their schooling are designing projects that better utilize strategies of hybridization as a product of the inherent community involved in architectural practice[2].
Architecture has for centuries been affiliated with the arts. Art movements often included architects within their ranks, not just as partners, but also as ideological framers critical to the movement’s principles (witness Bauhaus among others); in fact it seems that there is a constant exchange between the two. What has always differentiated the two is the hegemonic view of the artist as hermit where as for the most part, purely out of necessity, architecture required teams of individuals to realize a singular vision. Large scale art-works, paired with technology, pushed that paradigm, notably around the Renaissance, into one of the artist as visionary and teams of fabricators realizing the project; this ideology quickly spread to other genres like that of painting, and with technology, printmaking, followed by film, and other genres. Mostly, however, art and architectural practices from then until now tend to stay within the context of their field: architectural teams are composed of architects and engineers; artist teams or ‘factories’ are composed of artists.
There is a new trend afoot in which team members are intentionally sought out from other disciplines and specialties. In the context of Public Art and Architecture, many of these emerging trends point towards an increased understanding not only of the built environment, but also the strata of information within that environment and what it means to ‘be’ in that environment. The information contained within this environment is spread across a broader range of specialization, and as a consequence a higher and more diverse level of specialization is required. More is known about the site; thus, more areas of specialty are required to understand the site.
The historical precedent or at least evolution as to how we got here is not as direct as would be imagined. Contemporary Artists, continue to evolve and expand the genre of installation by incorporating increasing amounts of information from contemporary culture. Often these sources can be political, sociological, or technological; each source typically utilized by practitioners has a radical if not significant impact on their practice. Progressively more of the sites chosen contain information that is re-contextualized by the artist(s) within the contemporary dialogue. 21st century Sites are no longer the romantic notion of place as they were in the 60’s and 70’s.
An example could be how Serra’s work has a degree of experienciality to it, yet his version is not historicized like that of Lin; both are utilizing an intellectual strategy of achieving or stimulating experience of the viewer, but in comparing Lin’s Vietnam Memorial to Serra’s works, clearly there are different associations. In many ways, Lin, a student of Serra, has picked up where he left off by incorporating not only formalistic concerns of achieving experienciality but also recognizing and manipulating contemporary information as a contextual device[3].
The SF Arts Commission is coordinating a work of Lin’s to be installed at the new Academy of Science in Golden Gate Park[4]; the project will be similar in terms of its scale relationship to site and other formal concerns, and again, the content is incredibly relevant to contemporary dialogue outside the art-world beyond purely formal concerns. Her project will be a 3-dimensional suspended wire sculpture based on a topographical map of the bay area, including the bottom of the bay; what is unique is that she does not denote the edge of the bay, or for that matter the surface of the water, thus the piece will seem as if it is a large cavernous valley[5]. In essence, Lin, with wire topography, is creating an ephemeral map of the bay region that is so often taken for granted; this aspect is one that acknowledges and even confronts the issue of global warming and how it will affect the bay. Such a nod towards ecology is a strong example how artists today utilize multiple levels of information. Conversely, in regards to Smithson’s work, and particularly within the ecological minded community, Spiral Jetty would have never gotten past contemporary Environmental Review. Sites today inherently include notions of ecology, globalization, and notions of human identity. In our contemporary moment, any artist engaging sites is forced to incorporate and acknowledge these notions.
Contemporary Art practitioners take information from multiple aspects of the world; be it part of human culture, from design to politics; or be it more an emphasis on nature; artists seem to interpret, comment, and project interpretations and observations of the world around them. In the 60’s it seemed that it was predominantly a western-male perspective that was superimposed onto the site; in the 21st century, this perspective has expanded across gender and across race to if not at least attempt then at least recognize that there are multiple levels of historiological understanding of the site context. It seems only fitting to me that given the course of art history, we now stand at a precipice where other practices, such as science, economics, sociology, etc. have entered the mainstream and are challenging previous paradigms. These other practices appear to be ubiquitous in the environment so much that the social visual language available in the mainstream has influenced the out birth of ‘new genres’ that are greatly challenging the very nature of art. The challenges posed to some of the more widely accepted forms of contemporary art are at times so research based that the research itself becomes the art.
As a logical consequence of this development, artists are becoming archeologists in their practice and are looking into fields that previously were left alone. This is a zeitgeist methodology of breaking the mold of specialization. With the context of this discussion it is important to specify the implications raised by specialization; artists are themselves specialists, not only do we have our own systems of techniques, we also have our own language (this paper is an example), and culture (galleries, residencies, schools, etc.). First, we must contextualize specialization as a product of industrial civilization which allows for the diversity of functions that creates the very fabric of society; the only reason I can sit (in relative comfort) and write is because systems of specialization create the support network where my time can be focused on tasks beyond basic necessities. I do not have to spend time cooking dinner, or harvesting the food for that matter, these things are provided by systems of specialization. As a consequence my ‘free’ time can be devoted to learning, thinking, or creating.
It should be emphatically pointed out that systems of specialization cloak the dependence on a hierarchical economic system, where due to class or race, the truth of my position is revealed; I could not be in the place that I am, unless I was born of a certain class and race. The ‘other’ is introduced here as the ‘unseen’ individual who prepares, harvests, and supports my being. Aspects of our society have become separated from one another by specialization, thus the proverbial ‘climbing the ladder’ phrase is also revealed. The privilege inherent in art making is one that benefits directly from this hierarchal economic system.
Artists deal with these revelations among others, and though not new, these revelations have been re-contextualized in a world changed by globalization, political strife, and cultural fluctuations. Artists are not alone, as a consequence of developments or trends in art, other segments of society are thinking about segregation within our cloaked class system and beginning to do something about it.
Mitigation, adaptability, sustainability and for that matter the temporary nature of all things are hot points in contemporary dialogue as they reflect ecological, sociological, and economic challenges to the built environment. The fabric of our society has changed to one that is at times incredibly permeable, others, it is steadfast and obstinate. In many ways, there is a clash of technologies; there are countries that are trying to become industrialized and others that are realizing the evils of being industrialized. These ideas are very similar to design parameters that an architect or artist would use in order to begin conceptualization of a project. In fact, a design practice has emerged in which these ideas are being incorporated; flexible structures or adaptable structures is one of these ‘new’ design practices that is attempting to incorporate such conceptual parameters.
My own practice has increasingly incorporated flexible structures as a methodology of production; perhaps my naïve background in architecture has led to this as a developing design principle. Or, as has been stated previously, we, as a society, are beginning anew and looking for alternative solutions, thus flexible ideologies are perhaps a natural outcome. Ironically enough there is quite an exchange between the two practices as both are looking back through the history of human development to redefine and re-contextualize the world around and within us. Both of the practices seem to take for granted that a wide majority of new things in life are simply new interpretations of old ideas, thus a pragmatic way to look forward is to look backwards.
Architectural notions of space and contemporary Artistic notions of space share a deep understanding of the psychological and physiological aspects of human interpretation; as has been mentioned before, Serra, Hamilton, Lin, and others all understood this on a deep level and utilized it in their work. As the artistic understanding of these notions has been stated, to better understand the architectural notions, we need to understand a few things about architecture.
To argue or to claim Architectural space as psychological space that responds, adapts, reacts to the physiological needs of humans assumes an understanding of the basic needs of humans: warmth, nourishment, and safety. Inherent to these beliefs is the notion that there exists some sort of ‘place’ for humans. Equally inherent is that post-industrial humans are, perhaps more than ever, conscious of the act of place making. Heidegger spoke of these notions in his “Building, Dwelling, Thinking”. [6]
“Dwelling and building are related as ends and means. However, as long as this is all we have in mind, we take dwelling and building as two separate activities, an idea that has something correct in it. Yet at the same time by the means-end schema we block our view of the essential relations. For building is not merely a means and a way toward dwelling—to build is in itself already to dwell.”[7]
Within contemporary design practices, particularly architecture, the basic needs of humans are being re-evaluated and re-contextualized within a framework that is dictating flexibility and responsiveness in the construction of place that has not been seen in design since before the industrial age (an easy reference here is that of the teepee constructions by nomadic indigenous cultures of the Americas). The influences that bring these changes about are very similar to that of the influences on contemporary artists; an active incorporation of formal concerns linked with an increased sociological and ecological awareness. In the 21st century, much of that framework is based on becoming reacquainted with one of the greatest fundamental teachers that exist, nature.
“…Microscopic observations have shown that cell shapes are dictated by three dimensional skeletons that mirror large-scale architectural space-frames.”[8]
Trends in art, technology, and design are heavily referencing and for that matter, interacting with nature to learn from and then apply to future developments. Architecture as it deals with fabricating the built environment seems to be the frontline where these ideas are being applied.[9]
Much of the current thinking in architecture is in resistance to the old ways inherited from industrialized design practices. The industrialization of human culture meant the establishment of fixed centers of society in which people came in and out of; this was opposed to the methodology before the industrial revolution where humans, without a fixed economic center traveled nomadically across the earth following their food source and economic support. Clearly there were cases of economic centers before the industrial revolution, but during and after the industrial revolution we saw a creation of economic centers on a scale previously un-imagined; granted the transition from nomadic to industrial centers did not happen over night, it happened gradually. Ironically enough within the context of history we are seeing the same patterns again as multiple segments of the world adopt nomadic traditions in their relationship to the economic centers. Migratory workers and other transient economic cultures are clear examples of this.
As many of the industrial centers were designed, the fixed location had to do with the feasibility of trade and commerce under the umbrella of centralization. Rather than the market going to the people, the people came to the market. What is being implied here is not that these economic centers came about organically as an evolution of pre-existing gathering places ordained by social practices; rather, that the modern centers are organized towards economizing systems of exchange to benefit the larger power structure. An example would be that of modern suburbia where the mini-mall is centrally located and there exists no mini-mart for short order concerns. The centrally located mall is not designed in the interest of the homeowners, rather it is designed in the profit interest of the mall; the businesses spend less on transportation, less on employees, and less on overall property resulting in higher profits. The company’s savings become the burden of the consumer in gasoline and automotive costs related to driving to the mall. Not to mention the consumer’s loss of time required going to the mall.
Not surprisingly, building practices have ignored the needs of people at the individual level and instead focused on the needs of people storage. Much of the thinking in the industrial boom up through much of the 50’s was in the interest of efficiency in that it was thought that centralized, standardized, and institutionalized buildings would allow for scalability over the course of societal development. [10]
The precedent for contemporary flexible architecture stretches back to the 1930’s in North America and much of Europe as a response to new technologies that were entering the market place. Also, there was a futuristic perspective in many of the minds of the designers as to what society might look like in a few years, thus a wide range of creative options were created. The modular houses designed by Buckminster Fuller and others are examples of this phenomenon. Some of Fuller’s houses were radial in layout and others were even designed to survive flooding. By designing these houses with a perspective focused on the future, Fuller was unique yet not alone. This influx of creativity was to a degree the optimism of the times; however, with the depression and later the war years, it would have to wait. After WWII, both Europe and North America had a large demand for housing due to population booms and devastation caused by bombing. This led to designers tackling the challenge of the manufactured home, which in turn brought up the subject of the modular home, building, or otherwise built environment.[11]
With the advent of the sixties, thinking again shifted towards the future and the posing of the question: how should it be? Varying economies and sensibilities throughout the world created some disparity in design realization freedoms; notably, Japan and Europe (particularly the Netherlands) seemed to be able to realize some of the more adventurous designs as opposed to the US where much remained status quo if not nostalgic.[12] In the US, there was and perhaps still is a deep sense of quasi nostalgic manifest destiny; having run out of room, in the context of housing construction, ranch houses, colonials and other examples were widely popular as they epitomized the notion of expansive space. Frank Lloyd Wright designed and built many of these custom ranch houses that only the super rich could afford.
Nonetheless, the modular homes still provided a very limited amount of permutations that could be experienced by the user. The design principle in the case of the 1950’s modular home construction needs to be emphasized in that the ultimate desire was to house as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Interestingly enough it was also what could be produced cheaply and also push the design aesthetic beyond that of the curiosity at the trade fair and into the real. As a consequence the most revolutionary of designs that were realized were those that could be afforded by the upper class. Furthermore, these design milestones as they were realized here in the US, were experienced largely by wealthy suburbia. In the economic centers, building practices remained much the same, and were merely more boxes for people to live and work in rather than boxes that adapted to the needs of the user.
Leaping forward to the 80’s, luxury lofts were beginning to be built as an acknowledgement that people needed to live in or near the economic centers but had the capital to afford and desire more space. The rest of us lived in subdivided houses and apartments for the same reasons as being near the economic center however without the capital. Often in these types of living situations, the division is a factor of two or three, meaning a two bedroom with common areas is split into five bedrooms with none. Perhaps as a response to shifting global conditions, economic, climate, and social, architecture today is beginning to be redesigned in a manner that takes into consideration the need for adaptability.
Much has already been said about the instability of our modern contemporary culture, but briefly there a few things known: the economic possibilities are no longer centralized and are in many ways uncertain; the centers of production have shifted to lesser industrialized countries, many of them in which the people employed to make the products can’t afford the product. Conversely those who can afford the product are dangerously relying on a system of credit that is just beginning to shows signs of crumbling if not entering a situation of serious questioning. Much is known about the culture of war, and there needs not be more said other than that it seems to pervade every aspect of our societal fabric and there seems to be little escape. Culture like much of the rest of society, especially in the most technologically sophisticated consumer societies, has achieved such a high demand that people want to have every aspect of digital mobility and high quality information interfaced throughout virtually every aspect of their life. Though he is clearly not the average consumer, Bill Gates and his interfaced home is a perfect example of this ‘modern’ desire. Ironically enough, we have arrived at the future as these types of homes were predicted in the 60’s.
“Human beings are individuals but humanity evolves and develops because of its society” [13]
Contemporary architecture, after being guided too much by industry, has taken on the role of the individual as a design parameter within the fabric of society. Art practitioners, perhaps attempting to get out of the hermit guise, utilize an increasing amount of research in their contemporary art practice (note the amount of information researched by the average SFAI graduate student). The role of research in either discipline then serves as a contextualization that fosters design communication in a manner better acquainted with the broader scope of culture. The role of the individual is now one in which an inherent duality of comprehension is required; on one hand, the individual is their own person, on another they are part of a larger organism that depending on the level of observation, can be finite or infinite. This is not to say that the individual can have an effect on systems as large as the universe, however, some, like politicians who purpose sending nuclear waste into the galaxy could be placed in this category.
Going forward, we know these things to be true: the world has become intimately connected where regardless of economic or political status, mobility is on the rise, or at least the need for mobility; also the need for security interfaced with information is on the rise; and in response to climate change and the shortage of energy, our habitats need to be more adaptive to our environments. In many ways, this accounts for the rise of nomadic tendencies across socio/economic lines and contextualizes it with that of humans adapting to the built environment. Economic privilege may allow for an elite family of four to travel from country to country on a luxury jet; while economic disadvantage would most likely split that family up into a consortium of individuals hitchhiking, busing, or walking between countries. Clearly there are emotional and psychological differences here that should not be overlooked; the point that is being made is that we are once again nomads. Argumentatively, it could also be raised that whether within the context of history, has there been a moment where we were not nomads?
All of these things while not new ideas are in some ways revolutionary in that they dispel the conventional mainstream view that has dominated industrialized countries for some time. The status quo conventional view, though shortsighted, was that nature was something to be controlled or exploited, and that human needs could be adapted to the built environment. Thus, what is truly revolutionary about current trends in architecture is that the ideology is reversed (or revealed) to one in which the built environment should adapt to shifting human needs. Ultimately, it is us who will adapt to nature. Inherent in this is that the speed of technological production has created a vast array of materials and methodologies that can allow for new ideas in architecture to be realized; however, still inherent in this formula are economic considerations, which are central to the debate. Given that new architectural technology, ideas, and methodologies are fascinating and ideally they serve the interests of people; however, they still come at a high cost.
“Though people are of course entitled to have any sort of home they desire, such buildings are ultimately not their own choice at all. They are subversively imposed through intensive marketing by mass-consumer organizations that seek to homogenize society for the commercial advantage this affords them. Large groups of people automatically consuming the same goods without question makes for easy, repetitive, continuous sales strategies for the large, international, commercial conglomerates. Such ‘homes’, by their very nature, cannot afford to reflect the important influences of location, site and the particular desires of the individual occupant. This sort of mass building detracts not only from the freedom of the occupant, but also, by its devastating abandonment of regional context and the rapid sprawl that absorbs green space and farmland, chokes the towns and villages it swallows.”[14]
Thus we arrive at a point in human development where we are not only looking ahead, but behind and within. We are also looking at and challenging notions above and beyond nature, biology, technology and ourselves. This perspective is not limited just to arts and architecture; it is beginning to appear in multiple disciplines simply as a survival strategy. The recent surge in ‘Green Business’ is a hybrid in of itself: the business realizes that there is a niche of customers that will buy products deemed green; eventually, some of the businesses realize that it is actually more cost effective to go green, as they save on energy, materials, etc. I would speculate that amongst the arts, that the desire to think about ecology and the impact of material consumption will have a strong impact as the arts are notorious for material consumption and waste; in personal terms, a project that I am currently working on has such a strong temporary aspect, it would be laughable to deny the ecological influence.
The risk here is that hybridization should be viewed as some sort of Holy Grail; there is the possibility amongst hybrid practices to allow for continuous creativity. However, the historical context should be acknowledged that too often human efforts have responded to change in haste and the results have been disastrous in hindsight (nuclear power for one). That being said, hybridization allows for multiple disciplines to share and generate ideas. We have only begun the process, and ironically enough it seems that hybrid practices are only happening amongst the highly specialized fields. Nonetheless, if things are truly interconnected then there is a chance that these types of practices will affect the rest of global society.
There is a strong desire towards hybridization of previously highly specialized practices; and within the context of this discussion it seems that this desire is that our built or aestheticized environment might more appropriately respond and adapt to our societal needs. As these are frontiers, we need to be careful to not mystify them or worse fetishize them to the point of irrelevancy. A point of contention for me is the manner in which science is placed on a pedestal in the news; the scientists have become some ‘black box’ all to themselves that subtly demands respect while most are mystified at the process. This here is the irony for me; the specialization of science has gone forward at an amazing pace, yet amongst the populace, scientific practices are so unknown that they fall into the realm of the magical. The issue here is that in the face of hybridization, it is required that the individual have a more general knowledge across disciplines rather then in one focused practice. I have been involved for sometime now (going on ten years) with art academics and a random cross sampling of student demographics proves this point quite eloquently; many students take art as an escape from learning science and math. Ironically, these few are the worst at mystifying science.
The important task is for humans to operate as a collective so that the best most informed decisions are made. The notion of collective strategies of organization is elementary in the context of a discussion on hybridization. If specialties begin to collaborate across disciplines, then we do truly begin to function as a collective. This was the dream of specialization, that we as a society of creators, practitioners and thinkers would utilize hybrid practices to realize our goals. We are nearly there. Faced with global challenges across sociological, ecological and political boundaries we are forced to mingle our strategies if for nothing else, survival. Artists and Architects may be the avant-garde, perhaps they’re not; the point is that hybrid practices are happening. The very nature of hybrid practices includes a sense of objectivity so any sort of ultimatums or other dogmatic tendency will be avoided. If the discussion is happening in academia then perhaps very soon it will happen elsewhere in our society.
Bibliography
1. Academy of Sciences. CAS: Press Release. 16 November 2005. 26 April 2008
2. Art and Its Markets, A Roundtable Discussion. APRIL 2008. 29 April 2008
3. Bullivant, Lucy, ed. 4dspace: Interactive Architecture. n.d.
4. —. "Humanising the machine." The Plan (2006): na.
5. —. Responsive Environments. London: V&A Publications, 2006.
6. —. "The Architectural Skin." Archis 5 (2002): 92-96.
7. —. "Value Judgement." Hunch (2003): 118-119.
8. Flade, Antje. "Phsychological Considerations of Dwelling." Schwartz-Clauss, Mathias. Living in Motion: Design and Architecture for Flexible Dwelling. Weil-am-Rhein, 2002.
9. Galfetti, Gustau Gili. Model Apartments, Experimental Domestic Cells. Barcelona: Grafos, S.A., 1997.
10. Heidegger, Martin. "Building, Dwelling, Thinking, 1951." Heidegger, Martin. Poetry, Language, Thought. Trans. Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. 141-159.
11. Kronenburg, Robert. Flexible, Architecture that Responds to Change. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2007.
12. Lin, Maya. "Vietnam Veterans Memorial." Lin, Maya. Boundaries. Simon & Schuster, 2000. 4:08-4:17.
13. Phillip Beesley, Sachiko Hirosue, Jim Ruxton, Camille Turner and Marion Trankle, ed. "Responsive Architectures: Subtle Technologies 2006." Responsive Architectures. Toronto: Riverside Architectural Press, 2006.
14. San Francisco Arts Commission. SFAC: December 20. 20 December 2006. 26 April 2008
15. Serra, Richard. "Art & Censorship." Serra, Richard. Writings/interviews. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1994. 214-223.
[1] Art and Its Markets, A Roundtable Discussion, APRIL 2008, 29 April 2008
[2] Sachiko Hirosue, Jim Ruxton, Camille Turner and Marion Trankle Phillip Beesley, ed., "Responsive Architectures: Subtle Technologies 2006," Responsive Architectures (Toronto: Riverside Architectural Press, 2006).
[3] Maya Lin, "Vietnam Veterans Memorial," Maya Lin, Boundaries (Simon & Schuster, 2000) 4:08-4:17.
[4] Academy of Sciences, CAS: Press Release, 16 November 2005, 26 April 2008
[5] San Francisco Arts Commission, SFAC: December 20, 20 December 2006, 26 April 2008
[6] Martin Heidegger, Building, Dwelling, Thinking (1951).
[7] Martin Heidegger, "Building, Dwelling, Thinking, 1951," Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) 141-159, p144
[8] Sachiko Hirosue, Jim Ruxton, Camille Turner and Marion Trankle Phillip Beesley, ed., "Responsive Architectures: Subtle Technologies 2006," Responsive Architectures (Toronto: Riverside Architectural Press, 2006).
[9] Sachiko Hirosue, Jim Ruxton, Camille Turner and Marion Trankle Phillip Beesley, ed., "Responsive Architectures: Subtle Technologies 2006," Responsive Architectures (Toronto: Riverside Architectural Press, 2006).
[10] Robert Kronenburg, Flexible, Architecture that Responds to Change (London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2007).
[11] Robert Kronenburg, Flexible, Architecture that Responds to Change (London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2007).
[12] Robert Kronenburg, Flexible, Architecture that Responds to Change (London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2007).
[13] Robert Kronenburg, Flexible, Architecture that Responds to Change (London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2007). P 58
[14] Robert Kronenburg, Flexible, Architecture that Responds to Change (London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2007). P 51
