You are on page 1of 2

Positive Transformations For a post Crisis Perspective What is Architecture? How it can change society?

These are the questions we need pages to explain. Besides these are pretty dicult to explain in words. Architecture is an interdisciplinary subject. Its changing pattern is completely depends on its context and on its appearance. The world is changing with its culture, technology and economy. These all are the ingredients of the changes of architecture. There is a say from LUIES I KAHN CITY CARRIES THE IDENTITY OF A SOCIETY. Architecture is the primary element of carrying the present to the future. This is why we now can derive history from archeology .So, todays architecture is tomorrows archeology. But what are we doing now? Are we actually creating something that will carry the contextual identity to the future? This question comes while seeing the todays architectural practices. Architecture is now a days away from societal considerations. The so cold iconic architecture is appeared in everywhere. Giving no consideration to the society as well as the environment has become a fashion to the present megalomaniac clients of this bureaucratic society. Some may say this is inevitable. Some may say iconic architecture is necessary to sustain the art of architecture. These are obviously the saying from the group of iconic architects. Lets come from the actual seen what is going on in Dubai. Dubai is the dreamland for the architects of iconic group. They all are from western society and showing no consideration on what the context is saying. This is not only devaluing the societal value but also losing its individual identity of a particular society. May be this is the vision of the megalomaniac ruler but this impacts on the generic sites. Lets see the other side of the world. The most transcendent and revolutionary architectural work of the last decade the Guggenheim Museum of Frank Gehry. The building is built to change the contextual uses of the site , to make the site more recognizable to attractive to prominent to the people. In one side its initial idea of proposing a concept like this can able to achieve the intention to attract global attention. But is it sustain in the long run and what its impact on the society? The question comes analyzing the degrading pattern of its impact on the society. The scenario is not only true for Gehrys works but also for other iconic architects like Hadid, Remcolhaas, Herzog .Their all creations also facing that inevitable question of societal impact. Iconic Architects, who are they? What is their vision? Iconic Architects is a group that signies themselves with a particular individual style of architecture. Their ashy and media centric approach always kept themselves from the generic value of society and a group of clients as well as architectural organization always here to appreciate this so cold iconic appreciation in architecture. The topic of analyzing is vast and more futuristic. This kind of iconic architecture always promotes societal separation. It creates strata of acceptance to the level of general people. And this has become the common out come from every single dominant architecture. This is may be a short description. There are lot to say about this most imminent architectural practices going through the world. This is just to trying to raise the issues related to the ignorance of society to create iconic architecture.

Architecture has a long tradition of giving birth to the future. For the architects it is the domain of expectation to create his own spatial signature and that brings the ego towards iconic architecture. We can dene this era as the spectacular show of media system. This type of iconic practice only promotes media logy. The reality of media is to entertain, not to question. So the media logical architecture doing the exact same thing as media does. The spectacular images of buildings create a huge dilemma in societal acceptance. The society which rests on modern industry is not accidentally or supercially spectacular. In the spectacle, which is the image of the real economy, the goal is nothing, development everything. The spectacle aims at nothing other than itself. If we think more simply and see the context of the developing countries what exactly have we found? The person having a low income background doesnt dare to get into these kinds of ashy buildings. Because these buildings carries that image of segregation that those are only for the aordable people even if it is a general market. This is the principle of commodity fetishism,the domination of society,which reaches its absolute fulllment in the spectacle. So architecture is creating the social separation. Modernization may have opened up the way to make thing more spectacular but brings separation in dierent societal level. Not only that but also to its contribution to future. What exactly this kind of practice will bring to the future? For centuries after when we will go back to trace of history what we will nd and that times how can we able to dene distinct culture? Someone may say this is for the advancement of globalization. But this globalization can able to bring down the societal viewpoint. Every place has its own context. It means every place has its own contextual participators. Most of the time we are the architects ignore this general participation and design against the context. That creates the dilemma of acceptance and looses the perspective towards the future contributions. If anyone design a building for the local participators and obviously with social sustainable perspectives then the design will sustain for long and for its contribution it will carry a unique identity which only applicable for that distinct context. In these contextual points iconic architects have to consider. They are designing far away from any hegemonic contributions. Beside where they have all the privilege to design places for the general. This is not only the loss of the quality but also the loss of the social values. So the time has come to think about the designing principle as an architect. In the name of the egoism the contribution of the iconic architects should be reconsidered. They should act like social contributors not social separators. Degrading value should be regained for the sake of future generation as well as the future society. The word ARCHICTURE carries a lot of value which are totally for the betterment for the society not to make it vulnerable.