I'm here to clean up the goddamned mess.

[djproselytic]

I'm writing a paper about the history of the idea of environmental determinism. The paper was due two weeks ago, but I've had some extenuating circumstances. It's easy to make the claim that the idea is contextually-derived, but its actually much more pervasive. In fact, it seems like part of the foundation of all kinds of environmental design (

Comments

cleaning up the mess

[anonymous]

We could refer to a condition termed "cultural responsibility" which is to say that architecture and/or design without contextual relevance would fail to meet its social obligations. Such a theory would open up the space within which a broad-ranging and critical discussion about public interest and space itself can be conducted. This approach should be mainstreamed as a constituent of the discipline as it necessarily evoles through interdisciplinary processes of investigation and maturity.

Re: cleaning up the mess

[djproselytic]

Should it? It implies an authority to first determine the level of responsibility. If we're discussing actual implementation and regulation, the problem gets very thorny. Architecture is viewed primarily as an aesthetic practice (as far as I can tell), although its practical/material existence cannot be denied, and as such it has to be critiqued using the language of aesthetics. Aesthetics cannot be regulated to any great degree! Simple arguments would state that it is the perogative of the architect to produce whichever form he or she desires, or that individual tastes in building vary, or that opening up 'cultural relevance' to community input would dilute the artistic authority of the architect and result in bland structures. I think the best that can be done (maybe just for myself, right now) is to focus on the education of future architects to take the actual conexts and users of their buildings into consideration before design. However, this position can be critiqued, since it means I don't have to do anything I'm not already