Our visit to the firm Stalker stirred the already-brewing question in my mind “what are we really doing?” Similar to many of my colleagues, one of my foremost attractions to the field of architecture is its ability to tangibly influence our surroundings. Built structures have an obvious visual impact. Within the mainstream architectural world, it is expected that our future involves a firm relentlessly submitting designs to competitions. The more we build, the more we change our reality. I am not saying that this system is completely flawed, however, a large part of me wonders how much the majority of built structures really change people’s lives. Yes, there are certainly great works of architecture that redefine the way we live or have other significant impacts on our lives, but those buildings seem to be a small percentage of designed architecture – a category that is already a very small percentage of constructed buildings. Over the past year I have been fortunate enough to see many magnificent works of architecture, however they often remain in my mind as static beautiful objects rather than influencing forces.
So what is architecture really doing? Is it just sitting there looking pretty? Perhaps, as Lorenzo Romito of Stalker proposed, the most effective method for changing our reality is changing our perspective. After all, it is our mental and sensorial interaction with these buildings that truly makes them real. If architectural design is to start at the source, we must make the people within our built environment the primary focus. As we have seen in so many failed, large-scale, low-income housing projects, architects cannot force people into a new way of life, no matter how well-meaning their intensions. Lorenzo sees the housing problem residing not in housing design, but rather in the perception of those living there. Instead of imposing social or functional aspirations upon people, Stalker’s design method involves learning from communities and using the process of artistic creation to help dissolve boundaries and make their existing lifestyles more sustainable. Without talking to the people involved in Stalker’s projects I am unable to fully judge their success, but based on images and descriptions I felt that their projects were quite compelling and had a large amount of integrity.
Its true, they were not producing a large quantity of work, but any income for them is bonus and they have no real clients – only beneficiaries, so who cares. It is also true that the work Stalker produces has an extremely small audience, however I also wonder whether it is most powerful to influence a large group of people in a small way, or a small group of people in a large way.
So is Stalker the answer? It’s hard for me to imagine a very successful world where every architecture firm was modeled after their design process. We would never have another new building. However, with regards to my own future, I certainly see myself more likely working there than a large, traditional, corporate firm. Perhaps, in the end, Stalker’s most significant success is in its desire to be a catalyst – within its immediate surroundings, and my own personal mind.On Friday Nov. 7 we visited the "architecture" firm Stalker Lab in Rome. The experience was quite an appropriate extension of our trip to the Venice Biennale, following the theme "Architecture Beyond Building." Although in this case, I took away a notion of criticism of architecture as building, or rather, the limitations and failures that thinking about architecture (strictly) as building and projection had come to impose on the discipline.
I found especially interesting the tension between Lorenzo Romito's position on the (modernist) traditions of architectural planning, learning toward a more spontaneous, dynamic way of generating building, and the perhaps limitations in scale of which these positions can be implemented in design construction : It is fascinating to imagine this kind of architecture in which there exists no preconceptions of reality or social boundaries but instead considers the whole of present reality as a departure point, as equilibrium, from which to generate new architecture that highlights, provokes, or makes more harmonious these relationships. What he is essentially proposing is truly bottom-up design : getting to know the users, making a meaningful connection with the context, creating an architecture through this process of understanding. But the scope of this attitude shift is so immense that one has to wonder and even doubt, the ability of such a process to become integrated to any efficiency within the complicated yet rigid network of the building industry, which leads to a sort of impasse that Lorenzo had expressed concern about also - is architecture even the right medium to achieve this? Is architecture, in all of its own inherent scale and complexity capable of achieving this? And if not, then what is?
It seems that Stalker Lab at this point in time almost prefers to not be architects - either they have not arrived at a point in which they are able to practically implement their ideas in the industrial reality, or they are simply waiting for that reality to change and better accomodate their design methods - it seems to me that they are leaning toward the latter.
-Gary
The work at Stalker asks people to go outside the preconceived norms of society. Every culture has a particular way of living, accepted by that whole community, and there also exists the condition of how that particular culture interacts with the rest of the world. Within culture, people build identities, and within the formation of those identities boundaries are usually formed. Every culture in some way assumes their way of living as well as their consciences beliefs are Correct. This common assumption of correctness often hinders different cultural groups within society from accepting, understanding, and appreciating everyone for their differences.
During the talk a goal was stated of building a common consciousness in people’s behavior and the activation of a collective whole. This idea in itself is so phenomenal if even possible because it’s the complete opposite of how society usually works. Society has an abundance of cultural communities that create the diverse world of division we inhabit. I see people coming together as the collective when there is a universal problem to address. In my mind this works with the ideas of the public city because the city is the space where people are forced in some way to interact with each other.
Architecture is directly linked to this public city, but architecture in no way as tool can completely transform society. Society must accept the architecture and the actions within the public city of constant change.
-Andreka
[2:42:04 AM] mia ovcina says: STALKER! is....
[2:42:21 AM] mia ovcina says: "Maybe the zone is a very complex system of tolls... I have no idea what goes on here in the absence of man. But as soon as someone arrives everything goes haywire... the zone is exactly how we created it ourselves, like the state of our spirits... but what is happening, that does not depend on the zone, that depends on us." (Stalker di A. Tarkovskij, 1979)
[2:43:43 AM] mia ovcina says: their website is horizontally formatted
[2:43:45 AM] ariane.pm says: but i want 1 cookie
[2:52:46 AM] mia ovcina says: I like that they are trying to address subversive issues, gypsies, immigrant communities, as opposed to the standard questions (periferia, etc...)
[2:53:56 AM] ariane.pm says: that is exactly what they were doing though. these issues are on the periphery of mainstream life.
[2:54:59 AM] ariane.pm says: besides, periphery is their life, basically, or do i misunderstand "entering reality from the corners" ???
[2:56:47 AM] mia ovcina says: you know what i mean... gypsies are a taboo topic in europe. few people are willing to talk about them, much less try to help them. subversive subcultures. when i said periphery, i was thinking of physical borders of rome... by your definition, they are UBERperiphery or something...
[2:58:11 AM] ariane.pm says: no... it's nice that their interests metaphorically represent what all the rest are concentrating on physically. they are operating parallel to reality!
[2:58:30 AM] mia ovcina says: yes! like communists!
[2:58:59 AM] ariane.pm says: we just proved that they achieved their sought-after "dislocation in space!"
[2:59:07 AM] ariane.pm says: that they have reached nirvana??
[2:59:45 AM] mia ovcina says: so long as they don't sell out. ahem
[3:02:15 AM] ariane.pm says: no, just kidding, ok, i will play devil's advocate and say that they "practice letting things happen in the most spontaneous way possible in order to achieve their 'dislocation in space'" because they are, for the most part, lazy--they do not want to deal with tough reality and clients and restrictions and are off frolicking in the clouds...
[3:05:31 AM] mia ovcina says: i don't think so. anyone can deal with conventional reality. zoning codes? budgets? easy. attempting to make an actual difference in the lives of people who are deemed hopeless? with no guaranteed paycheck? much harder, i would say.
[3:07:31 AM] ariane.pm says: yes, but isn't it a recent thing, that they have been working with these people? they had, what, 3 realized, built projects (including the experimental supper circle?) i guess this is an advancement over theoretical propositions with absolutely no grounding and no tangible purpose?
[3:12:13 AM] mia ovcina says: i think it's more interesting/fruitful to engage people (physically, mentally, emotionally) than it is to build a standard building... maybe not architectural enough for some, but maybe that kind of architecture (the built kind) is overrated today...
[3:13:05 AM] ariane.pm says: well i don't know. i think a little reality doesn't hurt. anyway, now they seem to be reverting back to their cloud environment with the i-ching....maybe they work like sine waves. the peaks being the encounter with reality and the rest being mind exploration... which is ok. if the exploration is the main focus, which is something they should be able to say!
[3:15:07 AM] mia ovcina says: maybe it's more important for architects to find a balance? (the middle part of the sine curve) to seek solutions that are both work hand in hand with built architecture, maybe a decent figure ground isn't enough any more.
[3:18:14 AM] ariane.pm says: yes! that's why big firms are lucky. like oma. they build and are successful and can do research and whatever they want and are richrichrich.
[3:18:22 AM] mia ovcina says: NO!
[3:21:34 AM] mia ovcina says: OMA is the devil. their research is selfish, hypocritical. sure, they preach what stalker preaches, but then they build for oppressive regimes, with very little concern for the consequences, and the damage they are supporting.the problem is the richrichrich part. as soon as money becomes a motivator, the sincerity of the research is lost...
[3:24:15 AM] ariane.pm says: i like richrichrich. :)
[3:25:08 AM] mia ovcina says: i'm sorry for your soul
[3:25:58 AM] ariane.pm says: thank you mia, i hope you come visit me in hell.
[3:26:10 AM] ariane.pm says: but i know i know.
[3:26:23 AM] mia ovcina says: what do you know?
[3:26:37 AM] ariane.pm says: money is evil.
[3:27:51 AM] mia ovcina says: not necessarily. its the standard dilemma...
[3:28:10 AM] ariane.pm says: HOWEVER, it is a moot issue to compare the two. stalker can never be like oma because they are just too unambitious to ever reach that point.
[3:28:31 AM] ariane.pm says: they will keep floating around, just the way you like, until the day they go to heaven and rem goes to hell.
[3:28:57 AM] mia ovcina says: that's not fair you poo
[3:29:21 AM] ariane.pm says: what are we talking about?
[3:29:24 AM] ariane.pm says: ....
No comments:
Post a Comment