The Bond University Abedian School of Architecture announced
a lecture series that aimed to ‘expand and explore the definition and edge
condition of architectural practice.’ This series was being presented in
partnership with the Australian Institute of Architects as part of the AIA (not
American: see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/aia-comments-at-last.html
) ‘Refuel’ programme where points can be accrued for the Board of Architects of
Queensland CPD, Continuing Professional Development re-registration requirements. So here was a chance to not only
see inside, to see ‘the workings’ if you like, of the new CRAB School of
Architecture building, but also to pick up two free points. The point
accumulation requirement has spawned a business where so-called courses and the
like to obtain points are run for a fee, usually a substantial fee: but Bond
was free of fees - and it offered light refreshments too!
The new building at Bond University has been reviewed
previously, but this was prior to and during its construction: see:
Only glimpses of its interior had been photographed. This
occasion would be a welcome opportunity to experience its operation. A
building’s success should never be based on texts, reputations or images alone.
One needs to observe its functions, to see how it works: to feel the building,
sense it. This type of study was once called a POE, a Post Occupancy
Evaluation, but this fad, like Quality Assurance, Workplace Involvement Teams
and the like, has now lost its currency. Did POEs reveal just too many
failures? Did it formalise and document design, construction and practical
problems that might be better forgotten, left off the record? One is reminded
of the federal government’s site that compared grocery prices. It did not take
long for this site to be closed down. It seemed that the major grocery
retailers did not like having the opposition’s cheaper prices revealed for all
to see: something like a possible 33% saving on a trolley of groceries appeared
just too great a difference for any government to promote given the lobbying
strength of the major retailers.
It was a rainy night, Thursday 25th September
2014. We set out for the campus in a light drizzle, parked and strolled up one
of the axial pathways towards the carillon landmark adjacent to the
sandstone-faced buildings. Bond University seems to have adopted all of the
clichés of what ‘classic’ universities might be best remembered for. It even
insisted on a rowing course on its lake. This university appears to clamour too
urgently in its claim for immediate status. Close to this musical icon we
detoured across to the Abedian School, all a-blaze in lights. Who pays this bill?
It was the brightest place on the site. Wasn’t this new school of architecture,
building ‘3B,’ a part of the Environmental School? What in the design features
of this new structure showed any concern for the environment?
Entering between the array of posts that seemed to refer to
the nearby cluster of plantation pine trees, and through the frameless glass
doors, one found oneself confronted with two square pillars topped by trays
holding the promised ‘light refreshments.’ One was reminded of the cut-out dapper
black butler bellboy in uniform holding the card tray, a typical piece of Art
Deco furniture. To the left of this amorphous, undefined foyer zone was another
tall space labelled ‘FORUM.’ This was obviously the location for the talk as it
presented an array of chairs facing a screen. It too was an undefined,
ill-defined open area that shared its presence with studio spaces and a
mezzanine projection above. A glazed wall on one side opened out to the entry
area. One eventually discovered a small bar concealed behind a concrete wall in
the foyer/entry zone that was dispensing cool drinks.
As time passed, the number of attendees grew. Even after the
nominated starting time, 6:30pm, others kept strolling in. There seemed to be
no hurry to start as folk stood around and chatted. Eventually, when the drinks
had run out some fifteen minutes later, there was a movement towards the seats.
Some students wandered in from the studio areas to add to the crowd. After
everyone had settled, the evening began. The presentation was by Dagmar
Reinhardt, Director, Reinhardt Jung Architects and Design, BAE Programme
Director, Digital Architecture and Research Leader, University of Sydney. There
was an impressive CV for review too: see - http://sydney.edu.au/architecture/about/people/profiles/dagmar.reinhardt.php One could expect an accent.
After a short introduction, Ms Reinhardt explained that she
intended to talk for one hour, noting that she had 150 slides. With a mediocre
melodramatic gesture - was it planned? - she flashed her lecture notes and put
them aside, saying that it would be faster to talk to the slides. The cynic has
to ask: were these blank pages? She started. After ten minutes she had only
managed to talk to about as many slides. She seemed oblivious to the simple
fact that, for her schedule to be maintained, she would have to talk to slides
at the rate of an average of 2.5 slides a minute. This was going to be a late
night if she kept talking at the current rate. The presentation was structured
into six ‘chapters,’ so one could easily gauge her progress. It was very slow.
Her enthusiasm to expand her understandings in detail seemed to take over any
intent to rationally manage time to suit her schedule and the convenience of
others.
The subject was about digital architecture and her research:
‘materiality’ seemed to be the catchphrase, whatever this is – see: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/bitstream/handle/10453/9820/2008004651.pdf?sequence=1 As I type, I am interrupted by a telephone
call from a colleague who has just informed me to look up Wikipedia to find
out! – see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiality The slides started poorly. The texts that
one was expected to read high on the small screen mounted on the concrete wall
were too small, illegible. Only the titles were easy to understand. This
problem never improved. Slides repeatedly appeared that were incomprehensible,
but this never caused Ms Reinhardt any problem as she continued on keenly as
though there was no problem. Why show such slides? But there were other
concerns with this show. Ms. Reinhardt was ardent in explaining how she has
been able to use geometries in her acoustic studies, using familiar structures
like those Felix Candela had developed for his structural shells; but was Ms
Reinhardt aware of how poor the acoustics were in this Abedian space? One could
hardly hear her for the first twenty minutes. Then suddenly one was aware of a
distinct silence, a void of sound that made her voice a little clearer. The
air-conditioning hum stopped. Had it been turned off? One was amazed how a
background buzz could cause so much distortion to the perception of a specific
sound. Maybe the presentation area needs a sound reinforcement system, or a
better one: the event was recorded on video.
Looking around, for one had to do something when illegible
slides were displayed on the screen, it became obvious how poor the space was
acoustically. The floor and walls that bordered the open space were smooth, raw
concrete. The ceiling was about eleven metres high, sheeted in plywood: an
acoustic abyss. There were a large number of high glazed walls on the left
enclosing this area. These reflected the speaker into the darker exterior,
allowing one to become involved in yet another distracting diversion. The space
was open on the right and the rear. As a presentation space designed for the
natural voice to achieve easy projection, it was extremely inadequate. Yet it
seemed to be the premier place for such occasions in this school. Did the dream
of an ‘avant-garde’ openness take over from all other necessities?
There was an irony that the presenter was talking about good
acoustic research and design in such a space. There seemed to be a gulf between
the theoretical and the real, a schism that was only highlighted by other
concerns. It appeared that no one was interested in factual outcomes or issues,
critiquing these or remedying these. The problems with the physical space just
seemed to be accepted unconditionally, to never be questioned. It was an awkward,
perhaps multi-function area. Student models that had been spread around the
perimeter of the space as if to make room for the seating, blocked the main
emergency exits. The main culprit was a triple twisting DNA-like tower model
that would have looked more at home in Dubai; but it did cause one to think
about events in this school and its programme. The neglect of legal exit
requirements seemed to suggest there was not much attention given to facts and
functions, just ideas.
The lighting was a concern too. As one looked towards the
screen, four large, bright LED lights on the wall that held the screen, caught
one’s eyes. These provided a disturbing glare as well as an unwanted
backlighting for the presenter who stood as a silhouette behind the lectern.
One could perceive no facial details or expressions: nothing personal, nothing
expressive other than some occasional body gesture. It was as if a dark ghost
was before us. Only when Ms Reinhardt moved to one side could one see some
personal detail and be impressed by her glowing pink luminous belt. It was a
most unsatisfactory circumstance, especially so when the subject of the talk
itself was design and research.
During the ‘down’ times of the talk, one had time to notice
that one was not alone with one’s quiet frustrations. The young man in front
was more interested in his iphone than the talk; but the seats offered an
intriguing problem: how many variations were there? It looked as though the
seats had been designed especially for this building, with their Eames-like
bent plywood shapes on steel legs being randomly profiled and perforated to
create different ‘Bond’ designs. The final calculation was that there were
three variations on the theme. Then, after this diversion, the hands explored
below the seat. Instead of the sophistication of the Eames rubber mounts that
provide that slight, subtle, enjoyable movement to accommodate the body, these
seats had what felt to be round plywood cut-outs for the screw mounts. One was
left wondering why the original Eames chair was not selected for this project;
but we know, don’t we: architects can always design something better than
anyone else. The chairs seemed to be part of a decorative theme developed for
the school, its ‘total’ design as Walter Gropius might have labelled it.
A quick glimpse earlier into the lower curved room off the
foyer space, an area at the base of the form that looks like a ship’s bridge
overlooking the entry, a space labelled somewhat pretentiously ATELLIER,
revealed what looked like a standard table design – a zigzagging star-like
form, but not, with ad hoc holes like those in the seats. Did one have to spend
much time avoiding the holes when writing; or likewise in hoping for pens and
other stationery not to fall through? Design here seemed to have a lot to do
with reputation rather than real functional performance. Was it that the
Archigram image must not be let down? One wondered, would this exemplar become
the standard requirement for the students?
The slides continued to the accompaniment of a staccato
accent that was punctuated by a frequent ‘Ja’ that one didn’t know how to
interpret. Was this an exclamation to declare and demarcate enthusiasm; or was
it an inquisitorial expletive seeking agreement; or perhaps a rhetorical
questioning of one’s comprehension of the matter. It was not clear, but the
‘Ja’ sounded frequently. The ‘Ja’s were accompanied by many other unique words
that academics seem to like to use, as if something important could never be
expressed in simple English; or is it that something ordinary has to be made to
look important and ‘creatively’ original with astonishing words? One can recall
the usual ‘conversation,’ ‘journey,’ ‘dynamic,’ ‘paradigm,’ ‘protocol,’
‘identity,’ narrative,’ ‘intersection,’ and such words that seem to have been
chosen for their different, out of context soundings. It was the ‘architectural
plane’ and ‘architectural performance’ that self-consciously referred to an
ordinary table and to people sitting around it eating, that became a serious concern
and showed a certain elitist pomposity.
Geometry was one core factor in this work. The problem was
that the investigation into geometries was to seek out differences and new
forms that could be adapted for architecture, without really knowing why, other
than for a divergent distinction. The geometry came first, and once
‘discovered,’ one then thought of an adaptation for its use as an architectural
form, and then a function. The challenge seemed to be fractal geometry.
Apparently no one has yet turned this into architecture. Ms Reinhardt must
understand what fractals are: in one way all good architecture incorporates
them as parts reflect wholes in nature. It was technology and geometry that
were the core issues, never the function or the body, the physical, biological
body, yet the word was there, and used frequently, as if to suggest some
sensitivity to feeling. The body was merely placed in the technology that was
determined by its own self-interests.
One was reminded here of the sixties. Does Ms Reinhardt know
of Rayner Banham, and the classic image of him sitting in an inflated bubble
structure illustrating the body in technology?# Does she know of his Theory
and Design in the First Machine Age? Of Sigfried Gideon’s Mechanisation
Takes Command? Is she aware of D’Arcy Thompson’s great study of nature and
geometry: On Growth and Form published in 1917? Peter Medaway considered
this to be “The finest work of literature in all the annals of science that
have been recorded in the English tongue” – see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson Ms Reinhardt’s presentation appeared to be
suggesting these themes as though they were totally new. Strangely she was
excited about discovering that a bee’s hive had the same geometry as a fly’s
eye. Why not acknowledge the past and develop it as science does? Why does
architecture always seem to grab other specialities and interests and distort
them for its own purposes? One should always remember Einstein’s critique of
Gideon’s Space, Time and Architecture - that it was a lot of rubbish.
Architects need far more rigour in their work if they are to gain the respect
of other fields of understanding.
Does Ms Reinhardt know of the English mathematician Roger
Penrose’s clever geometries that have been used in architecture – by ARM in
Melbourne? Does she know of Keith Critchlow’s astonishing Islamic Patterns
that was instrumental in the rebuilding of Saladin’s Minbar? – see: http://www.thamesandhudson.com/The_Minbar_of_Saladin/9780500238431
It was interesting that most of Ms Reinhardt’s work appeared
to be centred around theatre, performance, and entertainment. Where was
architecture, the nuts and bolts of building? What was a puzzle was just why it
seemed impossible for her to provide a good, timely, entertaining performance
here, given her stated interest and expertise. It must be admitted that her
performance was not helped by the context. One had always to struggle to hear
and to understand, not because of the complexity of the concepts, but simply
because of the mechanics of the event area and its failing functions. One never
had the luxury of relaxing just to concentrate on the ideas. Sadly Sullivan’s
‘form follows function’ played no role here, and held little importance.
Architecture as real built form seemed to hold even less importance in this
talk. Architecture appeared to be the selecting of forms, shapes, movements,
and technologies that could be adapted into things ‘architectural’ for the body
to share. The introduction of the body looked like a red herring that was used
to add something personal and emotive.
The body, though mentioned frequently, was always merely a
thing that be placed into a context that was the ‘architecture’ - the geometry
made and illustrated by technology, robots, machines, computers for their own
interesting involvements. What role did the thinking, feeling emotional body
hold in this world? What had the concept of all design being a ‘handle’ to do
in this world? – see: http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/what-is-handle.html This ‘handle’ notion highlights a world
where people exist not to perform, but to live, to be accommodated by things
made to be touched, made to be a part of the body, its extension; to allow its
operation and interaction to be fulfilled with a maximum of subtlety and care,
rather than with the greatest self-interest and public display: look at ME!: a
‘reverse engineer’ architect was the term used. Just why Ms Reinhardt chose a
set of intersecting domes to explore is unknown. They looked like the Pini
domes of the 1970s. Yet there was much said about this study that involved a
robot cutter to expose the interior. After acoustic studies, seating could be
placed in the correct location. This was the ‘reverse engineering’ - the making
things, any things, work. Sullivan also spoke of the ‘function following form,’
but this was an integral part of his first catch phrase that he exampled with a
flower: the form of the rose is the function of the rose; the function of the
rose is the form of the rose. Ms Reinhardt used flowers too, but these were
deconstructed and laser cut copies of the various botanical parts that were
produced to become design elements for further ‘artful’ explorations.
The talk had its interesting pieces. The concern was that
everything appeared to be an activity to generate some promotional matter to
become a listing in the CV, a publication, or some the equivalent sponsored
enterprise. Matters were theoretical but always sought to relate to
architecture in some abstract manner. There was something strangely vague and
misguided here. The idea of design involving geometry could be accepted, but
everything seemed to stop here and get diverted by the interest in matters
digital. Everything was CAD, video or referred to some different technology.
This involvement appeared to be the core concern. There was no in-depth
consistency or rigour as is found in bridge engineering, for example. Consider
the Firth of Forth bridge: this engineering involves geometry and intricate
structural relationships, but it has all been taken much further, right down to
the size, location and number of rivets and of other such detail as is
necessary for bridges to be built, to allow it to express the beauty sought in
the primary vision. Louis Kahn referred to this process as: “A great building
must begin with the unmeasurable, must go through measurable means when it is
being designed and in the end must be unmeasurable.” This talk spun around
matters of interest in a somewhat phoney, hollow manner, suggesting creativity,
originality and genius when there is much, much more hard work to undertake if
architecture is to become engaged in any substantial manner. Are we getting
back to the days where design is all and everything, where discussing ideas
needs to be taken no further than the dance of the intellect, that seeks to
perform for its own indulgence?
It was, in short, an unhappy evening: unsatisfactory; somewhat concerning. Leaving the premises
down a secondary axis route, one noticed a new track of bitumen beside the
concrete path. It was boldly labelled ‘BUGGY PATH.’ This was the first time one
had seen a track dedicated to the buggies used by the disabled and aged.
Unfortunately, just before the pedestrian path began to ramp down to the car
park, the Buggy Path stopped, right in front of a drain in grass! The
termination seemed as ad hoc as those of cycle paths, with their random
stopping and starting. Perhaps this little bitumen track is boasted about with
just as much enthusiasm as cycle paths are? One could not resist the pun by
noticing that any buggy rider would be ‘buggered’ when it reached the limits of
its thoroughfare, to end up in a drain, or left to the perils of a long
pedestrian ramp.
. . . . . . .
But what of the points for the evening? How did one get the
two CPD points on offer? An A4 page handout for attendees explained the
arrangement in an assertive bold: ‘To claim 2.0 Formal CPD points attendees are
required to complete all of the following questions:’
It sounds like an exam paper. Six questions were then
listed:
1.
What in the presentation challenged you to think about
architecture and its practice differently?
2.
What were some of the key points/ issues raised during the
presentation?
3.
What are some implications of these for the practice of
architecture broadly?
4.
What other issues/ideas do the key points suggest for you?
5.
What did you learn from the presentation/discussion?
6.
What will you do differently in your own workplace or apply
personally as a result of the presentation?
It was surprising that the number of words required to be
used in each response as a minimum was not prescribed.
The serious problem of CPD requirements has been written
about previously: see –
These comments need not be repeated here, but one can point
out the sheer insult that such a requirement presents for anyone with some
depth of experience in the profession. The rude demand that ‘all’ questions be
answered applies to a recent graduate just starting out in the profession and
to those who have worked successfully for years in it. There is something
clearly absurd here. The Board has the power to assess re-registration using
‘experience’ and ‘architectural services’ as a gauge – refer Architects Act,
Division 4, Section 16, part (2), (a) and (d): see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/who-or-what-is-architect.html
, but it seemingly chooses to ignore these. It appears to be the same stance
that the profession as a whole has for its elders. Instead of the respect that
other professions hold for their experienced members, the architectural
profession chooses to ignore its elder statesmen.
Years ago, the directors of an innovative firm of
architects, Hayes, Scott and Henderson, Eddie Hayes and Cam Scott, resigned
from the then RAIA, the ‘Royal’ Australian Institute of Architects, without any
comment or protest from the profession. They were just allowed to go when they
should have been offered life memberships. My personal protest at this time was
to do nothing about renewing my relationship with the institute. I have never
been contacted by any member of the profession on this matter. After a very
active involvement in the RAIA, I was just allowed to disappear. No one could
care less, just as the profession appears to currently care nothing about
anyone but themselves. Whenever an architect was offered the role of guest
editor or contributor to the Institute’s magazine, all that would be offered
would be promotional material for the particular firm involved, nothing else. Currently
the primary image on the AIA (not America) site presents a masthead photograph
of one of the President’s projects, as if he was using his position to promote
himself. It is all a very sad situation. Even the death of Robin Gibson appears
to have had little formal impact on the AIA (not America): see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/on-death-of-robin-gibson-architect.html The profession must do more; it must be
better than this. Two other elders, now deceased, come to mind when neglect is
mentioned: Neville Lund; and more recently John Morton.
For the record, my answers are:
1.
the poor context – ja!
2.
the poor presentation – ja!
3.
to improve the context and presentation – ja!
4.
to become more aware of contexts and presentations – ja!
5.
to improve planning for contexts and presentations – ja!
6.
to continue to critique the pretentious gulf between theory
and fact – ja!
Note that chapter five was skipped to make up time, and the
talk finished half an hour late. One wonders: what of importance was deleted?
Did it make any difference?
Maybe one should have waited for the video to be put on
line. Will it be curtailed too? Perhaps the sound might be better; and, viewed
in the comfort of one’s own space at one’s convenience, one would be able to
relax and concentrate on the subject, being able to stop, start and rewind at
will, or switch it off, as required.
P.S.
It was announced at the end of the talk that the next
month’s speakers would be Lindsay and Kerry Clare. The rider was that the talk
would not be given at Bond University, but at GOMA, a building by the Clares
that has reportedly inspired other copies - see: http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/pairs-3.html and http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/pairs-10-art-culture.html Have previous speakers told the Clares how
poor the presentation space is at Bond University? The choice of the preferred
GOMA location does appear a little rude, demanding that all those at the Gold Coast
who wish to attend will have to travel to Brisbane. It is a little like the
mountain going to . . oh! Can one say that these days?
# NOTE - 6 October 2014
Almost as a re-enactment of Banham's image, but taking it a little further, the news today reported that a United States man had been found floating in giant inflatable bubble
off the Florida coast - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The drawing accompanies Banham’s 1965 essay, “A Home is not
a House.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.