Hmm.. theories on why arkitektur does not stand proud as part of our culture.
Iâ€™m not sure that people have no interest in architecture, especially in recent years with shows such as nation building, also people seem to know who Kevin Roche is- at least down around Mitchelstown way. Yet in general there is not the interest in architecture that there seems to be in mainland Europe. On the other hand we (Ireland) might be accused of not having the quality of architecture that interests people outside of the profession, By this I mean architecture capable of causing a bit of hype or sensation, even the new wing of the art gallery â€˜a truly international buildingâ€™ is a bit tame compared to say Daniel Liepskinds proposal for an extension to the (I think) Royal Albert Museum in London. (Itâ€™s in A red book in the library Check it out). Now I hear that there is liepskind proposal for Dunlaoighreâ€”which should get chins wagging even before anyone sees it. By the way I do not accuse DL. of being sensationalist yet work of that unprecedented nature will cause a stir. Opposed to this we have the stream of homogenous crap that is the mainstay of Irish arch â€“the tacky red brick green safety glass couple of pillar office blocks, and the â€˜Argosâ€™ magnolia skinned apartment complexes- where the sun shall never shine through any one window for more than five minutes of any given day. I digressâ€¦â€¦..Yet like it or not this is the anonymous face of the Irish Cityâ€¦. Add to that the bland mock Tudor crap that is filling rural estates and lets not forget bungeylows. I must stop ranting yet, Why must Irish people in the country build their poxy bungeylows smack bang up against the road? Is it the beautiful view of traffic or is it the more sinister aspect of being able to peep out as the neighbours passâ€¦
Where was I? (I never realised I was so bitter ha.) Seriously though I feel that with economic success that we have recently enjoyed there has been a notable increase in architecture, I might be cynical and reason that the emergence of a young trendy professional class is responsible for this new found desire to be cultured, yet there is no reason to believe that the popular knowledge of architecture does not run deeper than the glossy pages of Wallpaper. The fact that the majority of people have little have no interest in ark could be compared to the general publics lack of interest in anything, itâ€™s a clichÃ© by now to talk of general apathy in modern society, and even harder to argue it when one meets people as individuals, yet the fact remains that collectively there is not a whole lot going on with us â€¦ who is John Galt? Etc. I think the popularisation of culture in general has created a situation where new and fresh ideas are quickly absorbed into a big dumb stew of various images from which it is difficult to grasp information (crazy talk). For example The Big Brother House is what the public see (are shown) as good design, there are aspects in the house which are good design, or at least were until they were stripped from their original context and all heaped together in what is basically a box. It could be argued that the Big Brother House is the epitome of Modern architecture (or hell on earth).
So what is my theory? â€“ That culture is bland and architecture absorbed into it? Not really. Good architecture in my opinion is like art.. It must ask some moral, political, humorous question or any question really. It must question society. Once people are questioned they can provide their own opinions and theses; thus architecture is absorbed into a big dumb collective as a progressive discussion or image rather than a bland bucket oâ€™crap. Although â€˜â€¦Shit asks questions, melons do notâ€¦â€™
â€¦People can recognise good architecture- itâ€™s not difficult