corrupt:
unethical practice of rationalizing with one's ego that spectacle at hand is righteously justified for the sake of "innovation" when in fact only thing the creator or author is interested is in deification of him/herself.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Criticality versus Cynicism
Often in a professional environment there seems to be no time for introspection.
If one poses any critical statement, it is deemed as a personal attack, a rather infantile way to perceive an otherwise objective inquiry meant to start a meaningful discourse about process.
So how can one posit a critical dimension to colleague's work before it is distorted as cynicism?
For all intent and purposes, criticality is necessary to be posed as a filter; that is to say, if the proposal or an architectural idea cannot survive the argument within a contained, often culturally homogeneous, context of a practice, then how can it survive the scrutiny of the world filled with critics. But before we even think about reactionaries, we must scrutinize the work within ourselves to make certain that it will stand the test of time, to stand proud when held against the history.
It is a labor, but of course with this labor we have choices; infinitely conscientious and conscious choices to be made. Unlike genetic encoding to which we are only recently playing Gods to control offspring's traits, architectural offspring is a gradual accretion of myriads factors. Neglecting even one can result in a deformed clump.
So tonality, diction, and body language become crucial in making successful transmittance of critiques.
But even that, any resistance of ideas, can be seen as a preemptive strike on one's ego.
So what are our choices, I ask you:
Do we play dumb and keep quite in hopes that you will ride the surf smoothly?
Or
Do we pose critical dimension when necessary and cause some waves?
It is of course up to individual discretions, but I think creativity does not become revolutionary or evolutionary in stagnant waters or lethargic ebbs and flow.
Nor do I think just riding high waves is sufficient any more.
One must be critical, utterly polemic, to generate architecture from the banality of Today.
Architects must cause waves; cause the agitation to shatter the world of faulty euphoria in which we cannot even be honest to each other in the name of manner and nicety.
If one poses any critical statement, it is deemed as a personal attack, a rather infantile way to perceive an otherwise objective inquiry meant to start a meaningful discourse about process.
So how can one posit a critical dimension to colleague's work before it is distorted as cynicism?
For all intent and purposes, criticality is necessary to be posed as a filter; that is to say, if the proposal or an architectural idea cannot survive the argument within a contained, often culturally homogeneous, context of a practice, then how can it survive the scrutiny of the world filled with critics. But before we even think about reactionaries, we must scrutinize the work within ourselves to make certain that it will stand the test of time, to stand proud when held against the history.
It is a labor, but of course with this labor we have choices; infinitely conscientious and conscious choices to be made. Unlike genetic encoding to which we are only recently playing Gods to control offspring's traits, architectural offspring is a gradual accretion of myriads factors. Neglecting even one can result in a deformed clump.
So tonality, diction, and body language become crucial in making successful transmittance of critiques.
But even that, any resistance of ideas, can be seen as a preemptive strike on one's ego.
So what are our choices, I ask you:
Do we play dumb and keep quite in hopes that you will ride the surf smoothly?
Or
Do we pose critical dimension when necessary and cause some waves?
It is of course up to individual discretions, but I think creativity does not become revolutionary or evolutionary in stagnant waters or lethargic ebbs and flow.
Nor do I think just riding high waves is sufficient any more.
One must be critical, utterly polemic, to generate architecture from the banality of Today.
Architects must cause waves; cause the agitation to shatter the world of faulty euphoria in which we cannot even be honest to each other in the name of manner and nicety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)