GEHRY IN URALLA

One of the unspoken problems with some recent fashions in architecture has much the same complication as current fashions in clothing have. Today it is seen as desirable - ‘in vogue’ – to wear clothing that has been torn, frayed, ripped, or clipped off – or all of these together. Such destruction is now seen as the height of fashion that has eagerly embraced this degraded difference, seemingly in the same way that there is now a resurgence of interest in film cameras and old digital equipment, and wearing nothing at all. It is difficult to explain the sense in this backwards-looking, obscure desirability other than in some degree of insolent boredom with current circumstances and ideas that drives dissatisfaction into new and unanticipated, unexpected extremes to aggravate ‘normality’ and draw attention to the ‘genius’ of the individual, just for the interest, drama, and challenge in these diversions and their grand display.

We see glimpses of this interest in old ideas in architecture too, where theoretical discussions raised and debated in the 1970’s and 1980’s are now spoken about as though they were newly discovered concerns.# One sees ‘new’ ideas on public place and civic safety raised without any reference to their beginnings, leaving one wonder about the intentions: is it pure ignorance that allows this approach, or simple, mindless plagiarism? One wonders why these issues were forgotten. The argument for serendipity will always be the preferred point of debate in support of this intellectual resurgence, as if this might be a situation similar to that seen in calculus (Newton, Leibniz), or the light bulb (Edison, Swan). The modern mind has no problem promoting itself as a genius, so proposing two is no issue; and two with similar ideas no problem at all! Self-reflection and shame appear to have no place in modern life rooted in the easy social media-creating displays for envy-inducing responses and their challenges.

One can ask the same question about torn clothes, and old film and digital equipment: is this merely a game; a pretence that proposes value in what has been previously discarded as lesser, old technology and trash; and in nothing at all: nudity? Is the diversion just like the protests of the artist who grasps a urinal and names it ‘art,’ just for the attention it will bring; be this notoriety or praise? LOOK AT ME! TRASH IS ART! “Look at what I can see in this useless stuff! . . . Clever ME!” - an approach rationalised by theoreticians as real intellectual challenges to break the moulds of stale convention that seems to thrive on the blind notion of ‘progress.’ Tradition has a very different approach that is rooted in remembrance rather than ad hoc forgetfulness seeking out unknown futures that are always, rather irrationally, assumed to be better and potentially the best. The term ‘futuristic’ suggests this perceived, desirable pre-eminence.

In the current fashions of architecture, one sees similarities where images formed by distortion and destruction are praised as the works of inspired geniuses: Gehry’s works come to mind. The serious layer that goes unrecognised in this hunt for difference – the apparent desire to highlight ME and MY – is that it quietly but firmly mocks those who endure real stress and damage, be this through the impacts of natural forces, undesirable wear and tear, or war and famine. The rudeness of the praise and satisfaction involved in the wealthy paying more money for damaged clothing as if it might be ‘added value,’ is astonishing in its blind arrogance that refuses to acknowledge the suffering and humiliation of those who have no choices, or, at best, happily, with much self-satisfaction, suggests that this indulgence might help the suffering of these unfortunate others with promotional hype promising a percentage of the profits for such causes. In architecture, the same implied brutal rudeness is shown towards those who endure loss through earthquakes, fires, famine, and wars; or life and its simple necessities when tragic situations and their remains are promoted as ‘grand designs,’ albeit indirectly, as works that promote this way of seeing. The attitude to seek out quirky, ‘aesthetic’ distortions squeezes out, denies any possible sympathetic or sensitive response to others suffering such circumstances by allowing the eye to delight in the ‘esoteric’ qualities of chance deformation.

So it is that one can see a Gehry in Uralla,* in a small cottage that was unfortunately struck by a truck that failed to take the downhill corner. The cold, hard neglect of the aesthetic eye ignores any understanding of what the other has experienced and is going through: the destruction of a home and all the trauma that this involves. It is this induced lack of empathy that remains a serious concern with the desire to seek out ‘meaning’ in things that were once considered trash, or that had become that with the changes in our world and other disastrous impacts. That this way of seeing might shape our responses and change the way we might feel about another is a serious matter that will only fracture society with its crude insensitivity.

One might point to the Japanese approach to things torn and broken in boro and kintsugi - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/08/boro-art-of-mending.html and https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/03/kintsugi-art-of-repair.html - and argue that the new fashions are no different; but the analogy is spurious, lacking the depth of feeling in action, response, and method - its core essence rooted in a pure, refined intention - that the Japanese culture embodies in its response to these matters of necessity, that encases a feeling for caring about futures. The west has much to consider in its current fashions - their insult - for it even manages to turn boro and kintsugi into self-conscious, ‘creative,’ pastimes – simple hobbies; time-filling indulgences for the wealthy with time on their hands, who rip up expensively purchased fabrics and smash beautiful ceramics just to participate in the ‘art’ as MY ART.

We need much better than this lazy, flimsy searching for ‘meaning’ that is merely a matter of seeking out clever diversions to promote distractions and differences as individual, ‘creative,’ bespoke outcomes that are only all ABOUT ME. Art and architecture have always been richer than this, embracing deeper, and more enduring meanings. We need to find an expression that encourages and enriches empathy and does away with division, rather than delight in the ‘clever’ destruction of wholeness and all that this means. We have to learn to recognise the personal stress, endurance, and tragedy enforced by circumstance and necessity, rather than promote its quirky, dramatically distinctive imagery that satisfies our own search for recognition and acclaim in the delights of deliberate difference and the arrogant indulgences that surprise with the demand to LOOK AT ME! as though one was a potential Oscar winner parading on the red carpet.

#

See the report on the discussions in the forum held recently in Doha – https://www.dezeen.com/2024/03/15/david-chipperfield-design-doha-forum-talk/.

*

 NOTE

Uralla is a town on the Northern Tablelands, New South Wales, Australia. It is located at the intersection of the New England Highway and Thunderbolts Way, 465 kilometres north of Sydney and about 23 kilometres south-west of the city of Armidale. Wikipedia

THE AESTHETICS OF DESTRUCTION