fallacy of form - economics of creativity III

Began with Fallacy of Form - Economics of Creativity I

Continued from Fallacy of Form - Economics of Creativity II

These two trends; one being stale and has a predilection towards utilitarian lines and devoid of character or context, the other of an unquenchable thirst to assert deference against predecessors and continually challenging the capacity for alien forms and visions, are both equally valid and applicable in the milieu of our urban and non-urban realities. Where it fails and succeeds threads a fine line between respecting the previous or pre-existing vernacular, context, culture and prevalent esthetic, while providing for novelty, innovation and ingenuity, as well a suitable expression of creativity in solution and conception. Projects and developments of an institutional nature usually fall prey to this assumption of iconic corporately-driven ideological rendition of identity and enforced singularity. Whereas, commercial and retail spaces often become too occupied with finagling its users to purchase and spend that it becomes a claustrophobic orgy of mixed signals and self-promoting infatuation on all extant forms of commercialism. They are always striving to assert uniqueness against competition, becoming a laissez faire of line and form. But, when everything is unique, nothing is. When our senses are too overwhelmed, focus wanes and desensitization occurs. If either trend tips toward its more abstruse or extreme interpretation, what we’re left with is a space that is devoid of any relationship with the human scale.

The operative term here is the human scale. Because for any space, massive and grandiose, or quaint and intimate, the perception and legibility of the design intent can and only be assessed, valuated and rectified through the holistic lens of the human experience. Whatever language the designer has employed will only, and absolutely, be rendered relevant through the personal and subjective recollection of the senses. Because we are sensual and sensory by nature, our reading of a space becomes dependent to this capacity for verisimilitude and identification. Often, proponents of both trends tend to deny, neglect and negate the human dimension. The architectural economics of scale becomes the primary parameter for direction and inspiration. The grander, more detached, self-effacing, reticent and egoistic a form is, the more attention-hoarding, snooty, self-apparent and imposing a design is, the more it becomes popular and accolade-inducing, however skewed and utterly secernate the space is. The human paradigm is no longer the objective, but a circumstantial and incidental reality, a minor factor, that incumbent design professionals must contend with.

The somber and lachrymose reality is that the profession of design, architecture in particular, these days has become more about identity than anything else. Whereas before, the practice is first and foremost a question of providing the best, most innovative, spatial solutions for a client’s needs; today it is more a matter of the peddling of iconic and imposing forms that, though may not necessarily be the best solution, offers the best impact in terms of coercing and extracting attention, creating buzz and feeding the ego (of both the designer and the client). Creativity becomes a function of commercialism, crass and undeniably self-centered. Gone is the beauty of the understated, the brilliance of elegance and the poetry of subtlety; lost among the annals of obsolete design philosophies, of Vitruvian concepts of rhythm, balance and scale, or ergonomics and anthropometrics, or mensurative and understanding a site, not some mere projected approximation deduced from Google Maps and minimal cartographic and geomorphic discipline.

Creativity unbridled by the realistic requisites of designing for people becomes expressive to the point of dehumanizing space, while space designed to serve the functionalist credo becomes too stale and detached to the point of indifference. There has to be a consistent self-referenciality for a design to be both humane and distinct. Iconic doesn’t always have to be an eye-sore, nor must innovation be novel. There is a precarious equilibrium point, that precession of gyroscopic action, which could be achieved between all these schools of thought that could holistically bridge the divide between vision and reality, of user and space, and of form and function. By allowing the human experience, the human scale and dimension, and the emotional value of space to be a relevant factor in the design process, one could achieve an esthetic that could be iconic without being elitist; and functional without being utilitarian. We are, after all, in the service of solving problems, of offering solutions that improve the quality of life.

Original image of header is from here.

The first Fallacy of Form is here.

Fallacy of Form - Verdant Voice is here.

Fallacy of Form - Esthetica is here.