Archigram...
I can't help but feel uncomfortable with their attempt at experimentation in future theory despite the fact they do make some (very few) interesting points. Their explorations seem to be based around a mish/mash of science fiction fascination, a obsessive need to express modern technology and 'futuristic' machines mixed with Andy Warhol-esqe mass production. The world has been discovered, so now we delve into a technological nightmare of space comic fantasies? This is a far cry from any human, natural or tangible design that I would like to embark upon as a future architect.
Archigram 1966 states that "Buildings with no capacity to change can only become slums or ancient monuments". However I am from the belief that we need to design specifically rather than loosely to create great design otherwise we have a generic and dull built environment.
NOMADIC DESIGN
'The futurist gear of plug-in cities was necessary at the time to make the statement that "Architecture does not need to be permanent", later, this can be simplified to "Architecture does not need to be"'. (Beyond Architecture)
Archigram No. 8 focused 'the Nomad" as a central character in the plot of new architecture.
The reality however, more than 50 years on is the mass production of demountable rectangular buildings transported to a site, dictated by the transport that got it there. Also they are rarely relocated again. For example shipping container size. So why build in this manner?
What if transport changed? What if transport was dictated by the form of our daily activities? For example, a tool is shaped by the element they are designed to fix/screw/cut and visa versa.
It is easy to critisise now that the future they imagined had a use-by date, although maybe their future is still developing. Where has this gotten us, are our lives better, is everything too easy? It is interesting to consider nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment