One can always remember when one first heard a new word, a
new combination of sounds, or a word used differently. ‘Bling’ appeared one day
on an Institute of Architects invitation to an Awards evening. The dress-up
game for the evening was to be ‘bling.’ Why do such events always have to try
to include a theatrical party performance? Still, it was interesting to learn the new
word that one now sees just too frequently both as texts and objects.
Other words that have surprised are ‘religiosity’ and
‘seachange.’ These are a little different as they are uncommon words now back
in use, with more words spinning off from these, like ‘treechange.’ Shakespeare
created ‘seachange’ and many other words that we use every day. Surprisingly,
in our era, other words grow into common usage from advertising jingles and
movies. Language is a fertile and vibrant tongue, with English seeming to be
the most adaptable and flexible of all.
One of the latest new usages is of an existing word being
given an apparently different reference. The word is ‘segway,’ used as a verb,
as in ‘to segway’ a subject; and as a noun, ‘the segway,’ the subject as
outcome. This was heard first on ABC News, and again, such is synchronicity, on
ABC Radio National: Geraldine Doogue. This usage is very puzzling. A quick
Google search seems to suggest that the word is a homophone of ‘segue,’ the
Italian word for ‘to follow; to transition to without a pause.’ So it is not a
new usage for the name of an electric scooter; it merely sounds like it. Still,
one has to ask why it is that one has never heard this word used previously. Is
it merely a matter of fashion, like ‘like,’ ‘cool,’ and ‘awesome’? “Like, is it
just cool to use the awesome word ‘segue’,” especially when it sounds like
‘segway’ - to scoot along?
But there was a more recent set of letters that combined two
words to create another not known before: ‘Starchitects.’ The term is a good
one as it makes its subject reference very clear: ‘star architects’ - and we
all know about these folk. The sound seems to grow from the ‘lazy tongue’
syndrome. Like ‘Sandness’ in Shetland, that is pronounced locally as ‘Sanness,’
the sounds in ‘Starchitects’ are smoothed out into an easy movement of the
mouth, eliminating any pause required for a more careful articulation. It was
first heard in a conversation with a colleague who was chatting about an
article in The Australian: see below.
One puts the letters ‘starchitect’ into Google and
surprisingly the term looks to be a common one. There are many entries led by
Wikipedia that has a lengthy explanation of the, well, word: see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchitect Does one call this a word? It is a little
like E-mail addresses that are given as a set of letters that get described as
being “all one word,” when it is not, with the intention really being to say
that there are no gaps, spaces or other interruptions in the string of pieces
of the alphabet. A quick look at Google images in this ‘Starchitect’ search illustrates the concept in much the manner that one might envisage, with the
repeated declaration that ‘I AM ME.’
Stars – Hollywood. The whole world has become tuned to
understand everything of value through ‘stars’: no stars or low stars means no
or low rating, value, importance or significance. And now architecture has
joined the queue. It already has ‘green stars’ for environmental measure and
performance; and there are star ratings on electrical equipment to identify
efficiency; and star ratings on water taps and fittings too. But now
architecture has the ‘personal’ stars. Once in the past they were called 'masters' and were treated as 'heroes.' But with matters becoming much more generalised and pushed and promoted by the daily media hype, where is this notion taking architecture?
The article, originally in The Times, (see below), shows one
impact of this fashion: planners, it seems, will not stand in the way of the
‘stars.’ Do they feel intimidated? Are they frightened that the brilliance of
the performance and its outcome might be stymied by their mediocre
intervention? Is this the argument that the cunning developers use to gain
height and floor area? The world is gathering ‘star’ works that are truly
‘outstanding,’ such is their stark difference to the everyday and their blatant
claim to genius.
Here,
it seems to me, is where beauty matters and how. Over time people establish styles,
patterns and vocabularies that perform, in the building of cities, the same
function as good manners between neighbours. Like manners, aesthetic
conventions should operate as side-constraints; dictating not what we do but
the way we do it, so that whatever our goals we advance towards them gradually
and considerately. A ‘neighbour’, according to the Anglo-Saxon etymology, is
one who ‘builds nearby’. The buildings that go up in our neighbourhood matter
to us, in just the way that our neighbours matter. They demand our attention,
and shape our lives. They can overwhelm us or soothe us; they can be an alien
presence or a home. And the function of aesthetic values in the practice of
architecture is to ensure that the primary requirement of every building is
served - namely, that it should be a fitting member of a community of
neighbours. Buildings need to fit in, to stand appropriately side by side; they
are subject to the rule of good manners just as much as people are.
page
274 – 275
Roger
Scruton, Green Philosophy How to think seriously about this planet,
Atlantic Books, London, 2012.
What we are now seeing is a desire for everyone to be a
star, with every building trying to be the most unique, the most eye-catching,
the most extreme of outrageous possibilities, the most different. Vernacular is
everything else, a different sense of order: see Christopher Alexander, The
Nature of Order, 2004.
The term ‘starchitect’ is catching on, but we need to be
wary of it and its ambitions becoming commonplace, expected in the everyday.
Vernacular is commonplace and creates common place - community. Our aim needs
to be the making of ordinary, common places that hold spirit and beauty simply,
with a natural ease. To try to make a vernacular out of extremes is just nonsense;
but our society pushes for all of this exaggeration in its twenty-four-hour hype.
As Roger Scruton says, we need to make changes personally.
Complaining about car manufacturers, big business, retailers, etc. destroying
the environment is a nonsense as we all clamour for these services to be
provided as cheaply as possible everyday. We need to kerb our whims, our greed,
our appetites if we are to make a difference. This can be said for architecture
too. We need to subdue the lust for grandeur.
. .
. another way of looking at environmental problems, one that is . . . in
keeping with human nature and also the conservative philosophy that springs
from the routines of everyday life. . .
. I propose a perspective on those problems that will make them seem like our
problems, which we can solve, using our given moral equipment.
. .
. environmental problems must be addressed by all of us in our everyday
circumstances . . . Their solution is possible only if people are motivated to
confront them . . .
I
describe this motive (or rather, the family of motives) as oikophilia, the love
and feeling for home.’
pages
2-3
Roger
Scruton, Green Philosophy How to think seriously about this planet,
Atlantic Books, London, 2012.
It comes down to matters intimate and individual. Without these
changes, we will just continue on the roller coaster ride to ever uniquely
expressive extremes that declare ‘I am a star;’ ‘I am brilliant;’ ‘I stand
out,’ without taking notice of any neighbour; of anyone; of any place.
Responsibility demands otherwise, and so does common sense too. We need an
architecture of concern, humility and care; an architecture stripped of all of
its effort and pretence: and architects too. But what should it profit a
man? . . . . .comes to mind. It is a
question that remains as valid today as ever.
Maybe the word game should extend from ‘starchitect’ to
‘starkertect’ and ‘starkertecture,’ using ‘starkers’ with ‘architecture’ to
describe an architecture devoid of the nonsensical hype and purposeless
indulgences produced by a ‘starkertect’ who is not a ‘star.’? One might
consider it a naked architecture.
starkers
[stahr-kerz]
adjective,
adverb British Informal
wearing no clothes; naked.
Origin:
1905-10; stark-(naked) + -ers
This would give us ‘starkertecture’ that might be more
inclusive, ironically, more modest in its nakedness. ‘Starkertects’ working
with such an understanding and ambition might also start giving us cities that do not start
to look as though they are suffering from an uncontrolled outbreak of a plague
of carbuncle growths: just look at London! Then look at old Paris, carefully avoiding the view of all
of the new carbuncles – the suppurating gems.
carbuncle
car-bun-cle
[kahr-buhng-kuh]
noun
1.
Pathology. A painful circumscribed
inflammation of the subcutaneous tissue, resulting in suppuration and
sloughing, and having a tendency to spread somewhat like a boil, but more
serious in its effects.
2.
a
gemstone, especially a garnet, cut with a convex back and a cabochon surface.
3.
Also
called London brown. a dark grayish, red-brown colour.
4.
Obsolete.
Any rounded gem.
adjective
5.
having
the colour of carbuncle.
Origin:
1150-1200,
Middle English < Anglo-
French
< Latin carbunculus kind of precious stone, tumour, literally live
coal, equivalent of carbon –
(stem of
carbõ) burning charcoal + culus -
cule1, apparently assimilated to
derivatives from short- vowel stems, cf. homunculus
Starchitects shape London skyline
THE
TIMES
FEBRUARY
18, 2014
The Walkie Talkie, The
"Cheesegrater" and the "Pinnacle" form the skyline of the
City of London. Source:Getty
Images
WORDSWORTH
may have written of a London of domes, theatres, ships and temples, but the
city’s hallowed silhouette is now a skyline dotted with towers that taper and
twist.
Often half-mocked with witty
sobriquets such as the “Gherkin” and “Cheesegrater”, these skyscrapers have
been realised from the sketch pads of some the world’s most famous architects.
However, a report from the
London School of Economics claims that it is not only a desire for world-class
design that prompts London developers to hire world-renowned architects but an
attempt to “game the planning system and squeeze more lettable space on to a
given site”.
The research suggests that
although Britain’s highly regulated planning system produces “surprisingly few
cases of proven corruption”, it does procure a “more gentlemanly form of
rent-seeking behaviour” by developers: the employment of “trophy architects”.
Paul Cheshire and Gerard
Dericks analysed 515 buildings around the world and found that developers who
hired a “starchitect” were able to build 19 floors higher on average than a
building designed by a standard architect. Mr Cheshire said: “Even looking at
Canary Wharf, the buildings there are about twice as high as those in La
Defense in Paris.”
He said Britain had one of the
most tightly regulated land markets in the developed world as well as firm
restrictions on building heights. Also, London has protected “strategic views”
of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Palace of Westminster from London parks. These
impede the overall supply of new tower developments but offer the prospect of
higher rents on skyscrapers that can be built.
Mr Cheshire said this was why
London might not have as many tall buildings as New York or Hong Kong but tops
the league for the proportion of its skyscrapers designed by famous architects.
Nearly a quarter of all the towers in the capital have been imagined by a top
architect, compared with only 3 per cent in Chicago, the city considered the
cradle of modern architecture.
Renzo Piano, the architect who
designed The Shard, has won the Pritzker Prize, the top architectural award.
His design was approved only after the British government overruled the local
authority.
30 MARCH 2017
NOTE: for more on segue, see JARGON in the sidebar.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.