LEARNING FROM BOND 232

Reflecting on the review of the Abedian School of Architecture School’s Spring 23 exhibition and talk, (see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2023/09/peter-stutchbury-at-bond-232.html), one pondered some more on both the students’ efforts and the Stutchbury work. There has to be something there in the students’ projects to learn from, in the same way as one should be able to gain an understanding from Stutchbury’s exemplary works – for his projects are distinctive in conception and execution, as has been shown by the number of awards they have received: see - http://www.peterstutchbury.com.au/all-projects.html. One wonders what might cause one to question this output from the school and this office? The subtitle of the blog gives the clue: the contradictions that arise from both the exhibition and the talk, which have been alluded to in the review.

With the students, one has to ask: is the problem one of communication rather than quality of work? We have students who have never drawn, trying to perceive and piece together 3D information graphically, as drawings. In the past, in other schools of architecture, one has seen brilliant students able to clearly express themselves in writing to achieve levels of excellence, while struggling to do likewise graphically; visually. At the exhibition, one saw that fairly basic drawing classes were being given at the Abedian School, so it could perhaps be difficult for students to become fluent in this form of communication, even if the ideas and intentions are impressive. Along with what might be a struggle with expression, one wonders if it might be that concepts and ideas discussed between students and staff as they are being developed, are so well known and understood, so familiar, that the mangled or incomplete message revealed in the alien drawing process is sufficiently satisfactory to remind all involved – those ‘in the know’ - of the verbal ambitions that may be admirable? Might this explain the issues: inherent problems with communication revealed as contradictions in the complexity of the design presentations?

One also knows that the reading of drawings, let alone trying to encapsulate a precise message and intent in this perhaps unfamiliar technique, can be a struggle for some; others even have problems understanding models: drawing might only be one aspect of the problem. In one way, there is little difference between CAD and a pen or pencil; and a great deal of difference in another: the point is that CAD does not make anyone more capable at drawing; it does not make a good artist or architect out of nothing: it is a tool. AI might offer a lot more in the whole array of things architectural in the same way as speech changes a Google search with this alternative to typing, but more is required: the understanding of the searched material, and the integration of meaning into forms and functions. We need to use these tools effectively, and learn the best way to involve our judgement and feeling in this task, both matters one exercises in the hand drawing process which holds an immediacy between body, thought and output; a coherence that is shattered by CAD with its methodical, mechanical distancing. It is this remoteness that allows the author to become entranced by the output of the technology. Irrespective of the process, it is the end result that is critical - the quality of the thinking in the material/design searched for, not that of the slick form of the presentation that can superimpose an extravagant gloss onto images. The stranger sees what is on the wall with all of its potential contradictions, nothing more. Thoughts, intentions, and ambitions about the project remain remote if not explicit; they are unknown. It is this point that should always be remembered in graphic communication where appearance is important, but not the heart of the matter: it plays a supporting role.

The exhibition exposes this point, highlighting all the strengths and weaknesses in the projects for the visitor, in the same way as the talk does for the listening ear and seeing eye. Does social media change this experience, diminish it with visual and textual images being so fluidly entertained, judged, agreed to, dismissed, all with the familiar flick of the finger that is ready to leap onto the next set of images or whatever takes one’s fancy? We are in a time of turmoil that reminds one of the early days of the electric guitar where musicians were struggling with the conflicting interest in discovering and experimenting with the new, and making good music. Today, we are struggling with many new things while seeking unknown quality outcomes. Religion points out that, in the cycle of things spiritual, we are at a low point, the place most distant from understanding - in an ethereal darkness. Seeking to truly know matters rich and meaningful is a struggle. We place bespoke differences, unusual distortions, and unique intrigues onto ordinary perception and consider it exotic art/architecture, bespoke personal expression, when there are potential levels of meaning involved that we know nothing of and remain completely unaware of; and have no care for. The struggle for wholeness in being is disrupted by this perverted indulgence in the singular and the self.

The Stutchbury approach to design seems to be something like doing a jigsaw: an intimate search for and examination of a precise, fine fit/match with a predetermined, fixed set of discovered pieces. Each design, and every part of it, is a response to a set of concerns, resolved into a specific and jewel-like gathering of piecemeal outcomes to become a coherence. Any broader approach beyond the ‘jigsaw problem’ appears to be ignored as the work evolves within its intriguing bubble to give beautiful outcomes. How one responds to the removal of the bubble is another challenge. Has all architecture become a work in a bubble? One might even see the response to the many as a work in a bubble, like a quirky high-rise, or a ‘designed’ community: c.f. a Gehry tower and Utzon’s Kingo development.

The challenge is to burst the bubble, to go beyond the limitations of the jigsaw challenge and discover how we can manage much more with the same care and attention; how we can build something like metaphorical fractals, or shape holograms to make forms that hold detailed meaning in every part, able to be replicated on the larger scale infinitely and remain enriched, like life itself; nature. Architects may be ‘problem solvers,’ but they are defining the problem too narrowly; too specifically, with jigsaws that we choose to see as 200, 1,500, or 5,000 pieces, or otherwise, thinking that number might be the critical difference here - the higher, the better. The question is: how do we build an organic architecture, not with any replication the Wright style, but by implementing a system of ordinary, profuse variety and inclusion to embody meaning in a city, town, village, house, and shed? We might do one house wonderfully, but this is like healing a minor cut: we need to heal the soul; the whole. It is a concept foreign to us who admire special, individual things, fine and quirky offerings holding a pretence to meaning, matching the experience but not the substance. It is too easy, simply naïve, to consider that one can capture real value by replicating the experience rather than by embodying wholeness in the work itself to achieve the desired outcome: e.g. the idea that, if art is expensive, it is good; that if architecture amazes it is good; when we know that wonderful art is desirable and attracts huge prices; and that beautiful architecture really amazes. Placing large prices on an artwork proves as little for the outcome as creating an amazing piece of different architecture. It is something like a work in a gallery being perceived to be good and relevant, meaningful, just because it is there. The situation is highlighted by the question: is the bucket on the gallery floor displayed as artwork, or placed to catch the drip from the leak in the roof?

Continuing the jigsaw analogy in a different way, with a different, extravert scale, one can suggest that PS creates the most exquisite jigsaw pieces ever seen, without bothering about the fit. The work may be wonderfully ‘fit’ for purpose as an item, but not for any bigger picture – both literally and metaphorically. One is teased with the possibility that the whole world can be ‘Stutchbury-ed’ into a wonderland of sensitively resolved care and consideration by extending the microcosm into the macrocosm; but it seems to be a phantom reality; a hopeful dream; a charade. The intensity and energy in the PS projects distract and engage with an enthralling inwards, contained concentration allowing the external issues to be agreeably neglected with a blind positivity. One really has no idea of what a Stutchbury city or suburb would be like, or how it could be achieved, although one might hope for one. The problem with modernity is that, even in multiplicity, it is singular: c.f. city centre developments.

Modernity creates highlights that are fenced off from ‘the remainder.’ We need an architecture that is inclusive; one that respects and relates, rather than domineers with an inner arrogance that diminishes and denigrates other works with a competitive drive making bespoke things ever more extreme and more impressive. We need to do away with the idea that cocky difference is creative, clever and all-conquering - even desirable. We have to seek out the richness in things ordinary and humble; that wonder seen in everyday little things that embellish their context with a grace that enhances rather than differentiates; that garnish with a beauty rather than make demands and raise threatening challenges to identities and expressions.

Here one thinks of the ordinary, traditional village. Can tradition teach us more instead of producing theatre sets like Poundbury, pretentious visual skins that have no depth or relevance other than in their determined, fanciful, nostalgic intent? Architecture needs to be seen as less of a solution to a puzzle; more of a seeking out of subtle qualities that can be shared and will endure; that reach out to the other for completion and support - wholeness. Architecture has to go beyond personal display and skilful scheming, beyond the individual expression we see as heroic ‘art/architecture,’ if we are to achieve anything like the completion of the jigsaw of life and its living. Our cities, towns, and villages are a scattering of pieces from many narrowly prescribed, different jigsaws, all seeking a dominance to achieve a vision never shared. Maybe Edwards ‘manners’ might be a simple, straightforward beginning? Raging ambitions only aggravate the situation that needs a caring humility and respect, not the boastful finger and mocking assessments of others’ works that creates the contradiction in the complexity of puzzle solving when everyone is working on a different jigsaw. No matter how this is done, or how beautifully these are separately resolved, in the broader pattern of things, we are left with a shambles of parts.

One might understand this dilemma by thinking about how the collected works of PS might coalesce. Look at the published ‘projects’ – see: http://www.peterstutchbury.com.au/all-projects.html - and ponder. The challenge is not how the prefabs and trailers might collect as a group, but how all of the projects might be gathered together. Even the output from one office can struggle to be anything but an intellectually coherent body of work; not the systematic body of or framework for any city, town, village, or suburb. We need to discover what is missing. Here lies the strange contradiction within the complexity of design matters:

the subtle response to the feeling for place embodied in the careful, detailed resolution of an inner coherence creates an alien presence in the context of multiplicity that excludes rather than coalesces. It can be seen as a jigsaw piece that lacks all connecting protrusions and recesses; a virus without any attachment proteins seeking a host cell. We need to rediscover how to create vital linkages in projects ready for, and hoping for - wanting - appropriate anonymous connections/associations that enrich instead of creating gems ready for mounting as brilliant solitaires for bespoke, egocentric display.