Eleventh International Conference on The Constructed Environment

Abstract

It is difficult to describe architecture as a discipline or practice. There are phenomenologists and formalists, environmentalists and technologists alongside pragmatists and capitalists. There are differences in belief as to who and what architecture should serve (and for how long), ranging from those who hold that architecture should aspire to timelessness to those who believe that environmentally transparent and ultimately short-lived buildings are an ethical duty. For some, it is art. For others, infrastructure. As a result, it is common to hear refrains of “crisis.” The issues do seem intractable and, worse, the resulting divisions are apparent not only to insiders and professionals but to everyday people for whom “architecture” is becoming an irrelevant term. Architecture’s identity is fractured and contested to such an extent that the singular possessive, “architecture’s identity,” is no longer proper grammar. The root of all this divisiveness lies in a single, and relatively unquestioned, paradigm: the pursuit of truth. Only within a paradigm of truth are things like multiple identities, divergent agendas or conflicting characters problematic. Even when conceived as open to complexities, truth carries obligations to hierarchy and certainty. These terms are not useful if the goal is to create environments that people in general, and not just architects, can enjoy as backdrops to meaningful lives. To this end, I advocate transitioning to the paradigm of fiction as it has served humanity – east, west, young, old, poor, affluent – across millennia.