Having spoken at four very different venues in the past month, a number of theoretical statements I have made have come under scrutiny. Quite righty as well; these types of discussions, more dialogues than 'lectures', have proven a fertile testing ground for many ideas on Architecture, Technology and Spirituality.
The readings, drawings and articulations I have made thus far have merely scratched the surface of a plethora of subjects, futures, and dreams of people from thousands of years of recorded history, some who continue in their intellectual studies and contributions to this day. This work have been rooted in subjects we now know as the natural sciences, creative writing, philosophy, art, architecture, theology and history.
As a student of architecture, it became increasingly important to understand these various fields all at once, amongst other studies. However, the subject does not allow, within the Parts 1,2 & 3 qualification framework, for a student to become a master of any of these fields.
An architect doesn't delve too deeply into a subject so that he actually becomes a philosopher, a theologian, or a historian per say, but he must strive to understand those fields as best he can, and extract from them what can be used to develop a cohesive, informed and rigorous language for his achitecture (both visually and written together as a thesis).
This is the case if he wants to remain relevant to the study and practice of architecture. If one does not, then one becomes an expert in a particular field. The Architect truly has to embrace them all to varying degrees. The choices made in that process will then define what type of architectural thinker and practitioner you become, how much scope for change you have in the world and how widely your message may be disseminated, whether people agree with your position or not.
Not that this prevents architects from being polymaths, on the contrary this should be thoroughly encouraged. The problem comes when one is stuck too far into a single discipline, including architecture, and then cannot relate this to a holistic range of subjects and thus society at large, where knowledge of many fields will be necessary to enact social change as broad as architecture should become.
There are a few key areas of exploration that will require a concise explanation from myself, as to my position on those matters, whilst also identifying the areas that require a more rigorous and thorough investigation. I have thus far identified these as:
The perceived wisdom of Classical / Middle Age / Pre-Enlightenment thinking - In what respect was this beneficial, what was lost, and how could it enhance our seeking knowledge today?
Instrumentality - What does this mean, is this a problem and what is its future in technology and society?
Evolving Technology - What can we say about technology and its potential for or indeed ongoing evolution? Are our futures shared, or ultimately separate?
The above points will be explored in three related blog posts.
This is no reaction to any single point of critique, but a general movement of my work from its initial investigations, that began in earnest through my Architectural Diploma Thesis, and which culminated thus far in the drawing collection'Soul In The Machine.'
My literary endeavours (most recently the Science Fiction novel I am currently writing) are also a projection of these ideas, and have become the new vehicle for their growth. There has been a transition between these various vehicles; they started explicitly architectural, then evolved into an artistic collection, and have now moved through fiction.
This fiction, and the feedback from presentations of my work to date, demand a return to writing. In the absence of a further thesis, this blog will act as the first step in that direction.