IS BREAKING RULES CLEVER?

Is breaking rules clever? There is a sense that true creativity must break the rules; that following rules is just copying, merely a thoughtless, repetitive gesture for those who lack ideas. So it is that architects like to break rules just to prove their ‘creative’ credentials –to reveal their innate, native genius displayed as difference: their clever lack of deference.

The tale usually comes up in architectural presentations - how the architect was particularly clever and managed to overcome, sidestep, cunningly debate, or just ignore a particular rule in order to achieve the masterpiece – LOOK! The rule might be a building rule, a local bylaw, or part of a plan for the local area, town, or city; it might be a tradition, a regional trait, or whatever: it doesn't matter, it is broken by what is argued as the cunning skill and creativity of the ‘architectural genius’ in order to achieve true 'greatness' – giving the grand, clever, ‘creative’ outcome for all to admire and praise. The latent message is that this is an ‘original’ work, not just a derivative copy: MY work! WOW!

This thought was stimulated by reading the text https://www.dezeen.com/2022/05/09/coop-himmelblaus-falkestrasse-rooftop-extension-deconstructivism/ that described the ‘deconstructive’ rooftop development in Vienna, Austria, that broke all the rules in order to be what it is – apparently a stunning example of the genre for all to admire: something really original, never seen before. The headline made it clear: Coop Himmelb(l)au’s Falkestrasse rooftop “broke every rule.” The text confirmed the intent:

"At this time in this area it was not allowed to change the roofline or the material – was nothing allowed," said Coop Himmelb(l)au co-founder Wolf Prix.

"So we broke every rule, everything," he told Dezeen.

Frequently we hear stories of how extra storeys have been snuck in by smart, contorted language; then there are often the examples of how building rules were ignored or slickly argued, just to allow the 'art' the be expressed. "But don't you need a balustrade for a 1000mm drop?" "Oh, I'll tell them that the ground was 800mm when it was constructed." . . . and so the stories go, brazenly, boastfully; like the ‘legal’ seven-storeyed building being seven plus a ‘penthouse,’ with the emphasis being on seven and approved by the 'fools' in authority – simply brilliant! WOW!

This manipulative strategy even involves 'cheating' the client - managing to sneak in something that the client doesn't want, doesn't need, and doesn't know about. One Starchitect's early residential project reportedly gave the client a fibreglass garage that required regular polishing because the client liked polishing the car: "Clever ME!" Did the Starchitect not realise the difference between the two tasks? One is left surmising that the story and the deception was far more important than the outcome that must have left the client with much more than was ever expected.

There are other examples of clients being given things they never wanted or asked for just because the architect wanted it. One architect gave the client a reinforced concrete house because he had never done one before; another gave the client a courtyard house where every room had only three walls and a curtain because the architect liked camping; . . . and so it goes on. It seems that the architect’s particular indulgence must define the object created for the client’s unique experience. What can the client do but comment with some forgiving resignation: “You don’t go to an architect unless you want something different,” and pretend to enjoy the outcome of such bespoke attitudes?#

These digressions, sometimes semantic tricks, are always boasted about with a dismissive humour that treats the client as an idiot, as though the game might only extol creativity and skill, or aesthetic intelligence, characteristics to be praised when seen as a way to achieve 'great' architecture; avoiding all of the cliché pitfalls of regulations. Here, it appears that the end always justifies the means: ART! ARCHITECTURE! ARRRRR! YES!!

The game seems to take inspiration from some 'heroes' like Frank Lloyd Wright who gave Kaufman Fallingwater as a simple country, holiday retreat, a place that has become one of the ‘greatest houses’ of the twentieth century.

Did Mrs. Kaufmann not like cleaning the glass?

Perhaps latent in this approach is the idea that the client really doesn't know what is wanted until it is seen - that the architect can indeed reveal what the client really needs. In the case of Fallingwater, it appears that Mr. Kaufman never involved his wife, who hated the place - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-fallingwater-myth-wright-way.html What chance did this lady have with such an enthusiastic, willing husband, and a son who was an equally keen apprentice at Taliesin? Sadly, she is now left behind in history as a complete fool. Such is the potency, power, and persistence of the media, that her hopes and visions mean nothing, and stand to be mocked.

Robert Graves once told the story in one of his talks of how the garlanded, presentation model of his Portland Building was commented on disparagingly by a client Councillor who referred to the "crap" all over it. The story, re-enacted by Graves complete with an exaggerated, regional Yankee drawl, carried the message that this 'great piece of Postmodern architecture' had not been recognised by the ‘idiot, parochial client.’ The garlands were never installed: ‘greatness was lessened by ignorance’ was the Graves story. It is a familiar complaint heard in architectural talks again and again, along with the boast that "The dumb client had no idea what was being produced" – and, when something is successfully slipped in: she/he paid for it: “Hee, Hee; clever ME!”

One has to admit to some degree of embarrassment on behalf of the typical client who is seen as the source of fun and funds for the architect's vision. Simple respect and professional care must mean that the client has to be treated better than this by gloating geniuses seeking opportunities to indulge. In this regard, the story of Mies and the Farnsworth House comes to mind. At least some recognition of Edith Farnsworth’s role in her house is now being registered and respected, with the place being furnished with her chosen items.

The impact of this rule breaking has other ramifications too. Town plans and building regulations are in place for a reason. If one sees them only as fodder for snide challenges so that the bespoke concept can blossom on front covers of glossy magazines, then one no longer has to wonder why our villages, towns, and cities are such a muddled mess, with ‘architecture’ being the ‘odd-one-out,’ and being encouraged to be this. The comment, “You don’t go to an architect unless you want something different,” rings in the ears.

Without good plans that are respected, any concept of civic coherence and integrity can be forgotten; we are left with islands – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/03/architectures-two-remote-islands-too.html - where each and every project becomes an opportunity to participate in the game of cat and mouse with rules, ready to become the special story at an architectural talk to display the unique skills of the architect as the smart rule-breaker: WOW!

What becomes obvious is that wholeness will never be available to us until we keep to the rules, good rules. A lot of the problem is that the rules themselves are silly, segmental, or sloppy.

We need to work hard for excellence and coherence in rules, and then for excellence in their maintenance if there is to be any hope for good, communal outcomes. Without this, everyone sees architecture as the opportunity to display one's unique skill at rule-breaking to achieve stunning outputs to be boasted about, using the client as bait. It is a circumstance that is self-perpetuating, encouraging more and more of the same strategy, always aiming for ever greater extremes in outcomes.

So, in response to the question: "Is breaking rules clever?," one has the simple answer: "No, it is foolish," as it diverts interest and energy into cheating techniques, away from life matters that have to do with the client; and civic matters that have to do with everyone. Responsibility has its roots in thoughtful, careful, meaningful responses, not in the 'ME, ME' world, genius or not, that seeks to overcome every rule to create the greatest, cleverest rule-breaking for the magazines to gloat over: Coop Himmelb(l)au’s Falkestrasse rooftop “broke every rule” - not just one or two rules; the boast is about ‘every’ rule, as if more meant better.

We have to come to understand this deviant circumstance, and see it as a problem rather than as something essential for the expression of bespoke genius. Ananda Coomaraswamy pointed out that, in the traditional world, copying, that maintained the rigour of meaning even when of poor quality, meant more than personal expression, that was seen as a random, ignorant, indulgence that distorted images purely for the sake of difference.

WOW!

15 MAY 2022

P.S.

On rules: when, paralleling semiotics in the late 1970s/80s, architecture used to be thought of as a language, one could more easily understand the importance of rules. A language has spelling, punctuation, and grammar for its clarity in expression. Can one see new parallels between architecture and language today, when spelling, punctuation, and grammar have come to mean nothing, as frequently seen in media reports and social media, with the most important thing being the message; and in architecture, the expression?

#

Here one thinks of ARM’s KMART HOUSE – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/03/kmart-house-by-arm.html; and Harry Seidler’s mother’s house: see – https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-rose-seidler-house-private-visions.html. The former uses the halved retailer’s logo as a way of developing ‘interesting’ forms with an apparently ad hoc approach creating the story; the latter is known for the heroics of the architect who argued with the ‘ignorant’ local council and won, setting the iconic example for all future challenges to ‘interesting, modern’ architectural ideas.