I've been writing a couple of articles recently on my hobby horses (the articles are on my hobby horses, not me!) - architectural mediation and the difference between architectural culture and practice. So I thought I'd expand some thoughts here, as those articles aren't specifically on the topic and just pass through it on the way to somewhere else.
There are two quite different but overlapping domains in the small world of architecture that we occupy - these are architectural culture and architectural practice. This is well known, but rarely, if ever, stated and therefore little understood. Many problems arise when they are confused as the same thing, i.e., just "architecture".
I am aware that architectural practice these days can refer to the production of anything architectural, especially writings or drawings, and I'm fully on board with that. However, for the sake of being "absolutely clear" (as the politicians are fond of saying but unfond of being), I am taking "architectural practice" to be simply the production of buildings. Architectural culture, on the other hand, I am defining to be the production of other architectural projects, specifically, publishing, lecturing, exhibiting, teaching and so on.
Through the study of the magazine Architectural Design from c.1954 - c.1972, it's becoming increasingly obvious that culture and practice are embroiled in a struggle. Initially, it was the case that practice was dominant and culture was a by-product of it. In other words, architecture was about building and architectural culture supported this cause. However, during the sixties, due to various social, economic and technological reasons - one of which was the disillusionment of modernism aat large, this hierarchy started to be reversed. In other words, culture grew more dominant than practice and so buildings became considered a by-product of culture. The mediation of architecture became architecture itself.
Some of the implications of this are:
a) The products of architectural culture are only really bought by architects, whereas the products of architectural practice are predominantly bought by non-architects.
b) The products of architectural culture (documents) are easily copyable and therefore copyrightable, whereas the products of architectural practice (buildings) are not. In the UK, at least before these hyper-paranoid anti-terror laws appeared inhibiting people to take photos of buildings, it was freely permissible to take a photo of any building from the public highway, without the owner's, or the architect's permission.
c) To be a big name in architectural practice, you need to first conquer architectural culture. That does not necessarily mean you can't be successful in practice, just that being a 'name' comes from culture. That is where historians take their source material from.
d) I thought of a d) but can't remember it now.
When and how this transition occurred is something that interests me and something I'll investigate further, looking for clues within Architectural Design. However, I'll have to finish this later...
There are two quite different but overlapping domains in the small world of architecture that we occupy - these are architectural culture and architectural practice. This is well known, but rarely, if ever, stated and therefore little understood. Many problems arise when they are confused as the same thing, i.e., just "architecture".
I am aware that architectural practice these days can refer to the production of anything architectural, especially writings or drawings, and I'm fully on board with that. However, for the sake of being "absolutely clear" (as the politicians are fond of saying but unfond of being), I am taking "architectural practice" to be simply the production of buildings. Architectural culture, on the other hand, I am defining to be the production of other architectural projects, specifically, publishing, lecturing, exhibiting, teaching and so on.
Through the study of the magazine Architectural Design from c.1954 - c.1972, it's becoming increasingly obvious that culture and practice are embroiled in a struggle. Initially, it was the case that practice was dominant and culture was a by-product of it. In other words, architecture was about building and architectural culture supported this cause. However, during the sixties, due to various social, economic and technological reasons - one of which was the disillusionment of modernism aat large, this hierarchy started to be reversed. In other words, culture grew more dominant than practice and so buildings became considered a by-product of culture. The mediation of architecture became architecture itself.
Some of the implications of this are:
a) The products of architectural culture are only really bought by architects, whereas the products of architectural practice are predominantly bought by non-architects.
b) The products of architectural culture (documents) are easily copyable and therefore copyrightable, whereas the products of architectural practice (buildings) are not. In the UK, at least before these hyper-paranoid anti-terror laws appeared inhibiting people to take photos of buildings, it was freely permissible to take a photo of any building from the public highway, without the owner's, or the architect's permission.
c) To be a big name in architectural practice, you need to first conquer architectural culture. That does not necessarily mean you can't be successful in practice, just that being a 'name' comes from culture. That is where historians take their source material from.
d) I thought of a d) but can't remember it now.
When and how this transition occurred is something that interests me and something I'll investigate further, looking for clues within Architectural Design. However, I'll have to finish this later...
