Is Architecture a Civic Art?

by Elen Jones

Architecture, like much of design, is considered a primarily functional practice. In its most basic form, it is a practical solution to structural problems found in a civic context, be that an amendment to an existing or derelict structure, the remodelling of a dormant town centre or the erection of affordable urban homes.

However, to argue that its purpose is purely practical would present a clouded view. Construction never occurs devoid of context or influence, so it is improbable to say that buildings reflect emotionless aims, as this would dilute their purpose. If our desires to improve our civic landscapes come from the same desires that perpetuate the creation of art, music, literature and ritual, it must be justifiable that architecture itself is also a projection of our image, a kind of monumental affirmation of everything we seek to achieve and be.

Fig 1

An argument for functionality can be found by exploring the Brutalist movement, and its adoption by the USSR. Prevalent in the DDR (and other eastern bloc countries) were the ubiquitous “Plattenbauen” (panel buildings) made from prefabricated concrete panels (figs. 1 and 2). They evoke a kind of hyper efficiency in their universal design (the lack of reference and décor itself projects a statement). These structures have been through multiple cycles of housing surplus and shortage, notably in Berlin, where living costs continue to climb. First, they were desirable for most East Germans, then at the collapse of the wall they became unwanted, and many structures were demolished.

Fig 2

The efficiency of the concrete as a material, which strengthens with time, so that the blocks became more and more structurally sound, were able to be reconfigured into individual, economical and environmentally friendly homes, needing no heating for up to 80% of the year. the functionality of the original design was so pronounced that it could be upcycled. Here again, even informed economic choices about material reflect an executive design choice, in the same way that the marks a painter makes may show his/her creative processes.

Today, the Plattenbauen are still inhabited as Berlin faces another housing crisis. The buildings are the homes of creatives, enthusiasts and city dwellers in search of affordable housing in a time when our civic societies are ever bourgeoning. So, whether you love or hate Brutalism, it is hard to deny the longevity and importance of these apartment blocks as a kind of housing ‘safety buffer.’

I would argue that even though here Architecture is shown at its most functional, it becomes hard to separate artistic and functional decisions. And, if we accept that art too embodies a mixture of such choices, it becomes harder to separate the two.

Fig 3

A place where I most found art and architecture were intrinsically linked was on a visit to the Getty Centre in Los Angeles (figs. 3,4 and 5). Away from the traffic of the city, ensconced in a carefully cultivated garden, an irrigated green. A sprawling design of interconnected, clean buildings the centre utilises the whole hill, looking down on the pulsating city. Perhaps the only shame is that it is this inaccessibility that makes the place appear sterile and quiet. However, it allows the art inside to be housed respectfully, creating the atmosphere of intellectual luxury.

Fig 4

Fig 5

Another argument for architecture as art can be witnessed in Las Vegas, a phenomenon with no real functional purpose. Whatever your moral view, Las Vegas is undeniably an astounding feat of engineering as an oasis in the Mojave Desert. The monumentality of the buildings observed from the Strip and beyond exude the sole purpose of leisure, a melting pot of styles from neo-classicism to the unceremonious pop (or plop) art nature of the Oldenberg-esque sculptures of the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower.² (Figs. 6 and 7). In a city where the signage is as important as the building itself, it cannot be said that these enormous symbols don’t have a function of sorts, although in contrast to the subdued Plattenbau, it appears to be a frivolity.

Perhaps a further example, less vibrant (but still monumental) is that of Canary Wharf. It represents the export and import of the architecture considered apt for economic and financial dealing prowess, from London to Shanghai and back again.¹ Post-modern and glassy, the transplantation of yet another ubiquitous style conveys a universal reputation of wealth and productivity, in much the same way that history paintings in large city galleries or public civic spaces have always emitted a cultural impressive-ness. It is the sheer size of constructions on an architectural scale that really begins to emulate atmospheres and occasions, causing a psychological effect not unlike sharing other art forms, like music or dance.

Overall, in asserting whether architecture is a civic art (and to what extent), given the examples that I have given, I would testify that it is. The question relies heavily on what one perceives art to be. Being liberal in this, I would argue that within the parameters of today’s contemporary art movement, art reflects society through an experiential creation, backed by an aesthetic or emotive purpose. In all our pursuits – happiness, truth, knowledge – art and science work together to achieve the perceived “essence” that we search for, the true font of all ideas – and in agreeing that architecture is a marriage of scientific functionality, politics (of people and lands), and fundamentally aesthetic design, it becomes apparent that Architecture is, indeed, a Civic art.

 

Sources

1.   Sudjic, Dejan (2017). The Language of Cities.  Penguin Books.

2.   Venturi, Robert; Scott Brown, Denise; Izenour, Steven (June 1977). Learning From Las Vegas (Revised ed.). MIT Press.

3.   All own images.

 

Sources

1.     Sudjic, Dejan (2017). The Language of Cities.  Penguin Books.

2.     Venturi, Robert; Scott Brown, Denise; Izenour, Steven (June 1977). Learning From Las Vegas (Revised ed.). MIT Press.

3.     All own images.