Tragedy, Then
Mild spoiler warning: This entry reveals, in the most general monolectic terms, the conclusion of Kill Bill Vol. 2. Read at your peril.
![[Don't think! Feeeeeeeel!]](../images/sittingpaimei.jpg)
In the 4th century BCE Aristotle’s Poetics offered the following definition of tragedy:
Έστιν ουν τραγωδία μίμησις πράξεως σπουδαίας και τελείας, μέγεθος εχούσης, ηδυσμένω λόγω, χωρίς εκάστω των ειδών εν τοις μορίοις, δρώντων και ου δι’ επαγγελίας, δι’ ελέου και φόβου περαίνουσα την των τοιούτων παθημάτων κάθαρσιν.
Tragedy, then, is the imitation of an act of serious implications which is complete and possesses magnitude; by means of beautified language, with each of its varieties found separately in the parts; enacted and not narrated; through a course of pity and fear completing the purgation of such emotions.
Kill Bill Vol. 2 completes Tarantino’s magnum opus (as it will be hard to top) in close adherence to the Aristotelean definition. The complete two volume film is an epic love story, beautifully told with very classical plot devices (foreshadowing, in medias res narration, hubris, anagnorisis, catharsis). Tarantino also makes heavy use of reference, borrowing techniques and styles (”beautified language”) from film-makers he admires, moving the audience through recognition and association. In all, a kick-ass film.
![[A drawing of a non-building.]](../images/cloistelsection.jpg)
I watched Kill Bill Vol. 2 shortly after an MArch crit. In the absence of real clients, real developers, and real, built, projects, the design skills of students of architecture are judged on drawings and models. These representations are deemed successful when they clearly and consistently communicate a design intention. Hence, the size of guest-rooms in a hotel might not be decided according to what capacity it lends them to perform well when occupied by guests, but in terms of plan composition, a process related to the picturesque tradition as much as to information graphics design. The students are in effect called to do architectural drawing design.
This is of course a necessary abstraction of architectural design; it is impractical to require the students’ skills to be applied to and judged on real projects. However, a preoccupation with drawing design seems at odds with the stated agenda of the year, the design of interior spaces that generate emotive responses in their users, and more related to the architectural artifact as an exhibition piece. Of course, the difference between a building and an object of artistic production is the way by which they are experienced: a building is used, art is specifically approached and engaged with in order for it to be appreciated.
An audience’s level of engagement with a painting, a piece of music, and a movie makes the concept of engineering emotional responses much more feasible. Despite the large capacity of a building to change lifestyles and habits, the activities that need to be performed in it will always be more significant to the users. Watching a film, however, is an activity in itself, with the audience intending to be taken for an emotional trip, identifying with tragic heroes and experiencing the relief of the cathartic conclusion.
In part, this is what has recently made me more inspired by film-making and musical composition than architectural design. Associated design tasks such as scenography and ideal cinema design are interesting but secondary. Lifestyle design, in which an effort is made to define the parameters of living through aesthetic and ethic rules, is always of interest, but the scope of such a project can only extend to the personal. Rem Koolhaas’s AMO have engaged the problem by looking at the processes and activities, performing an architecture which is “liberated from the obligation to construct,” according to Rem in the introduction to Content. This process and activity design is a form of mass-scale lifestyle design, fascistic because of its scale, that is concordant with architects’ obsession with changing the world.
My response, once again, is to keep the intended reach of architecture at the smallest scale, id est the design of an environment for one or few individuals, with performance and lifestyle in mind; to otherwise dissipate the drive to generate emotional responses through the more appropriate media of story-telling and music; and to further explore the related disciplines of theory and criticism and aesthetics through essays and blogs and graphic design.
Comments
Always amusing and somehow moving to see you grow up.
‘architectural drawing design’ lol! how true. However tutors are also always impressed when people turn up with videos that describe their designs.
I was put off by the gratuitous violence in kill bill 1. I guess it’s not my kind of thing. But it definitely scored highly on style.
It sounds like you’re intending to cater for people for whom the notion of “design” is already on their agenda. In this way, your clients would be analogous to the experienced consumer of art who brings their prior knowledge of the discipline to the viewing of a piece and can appreciate its value in an established context, while to the “man on the street”, it remains largely unintelligible. Now, surely, it would be far more rewarding as an architect to elicit responses in the people for whom “design” was not on their agenda. Would you not have a better effect on the quality of life of people generally (consider the multiples of people affected by your design decisions throughout the life of the buidling…) by attempting to gain this fabled “kerb appeal” — you’d be able to elicit responses in people who never went looking for them. A harder pitch, perhaps, but would it not be more rewarding? If you focus on the people who explicitly “want” your design as part of their lifestyle, then hasn’t the pitch already been made in their minds before you’ve even become involved in the process — think of all their preconceptions… If you want to keep the influence of your work on one of two people - how many of those people would be the ones you actually engage with during the delivery process? (again, think lifespan…)
I think you’ve said it - “a harder pitch” - that’s not a desirable component in Orestes’ design vision. Designing for those who have a design agenda can be equally as hard, if not harder, and designing small is more to do with the issue I see Orestes as having - control/headaches. Designing smaller architecture is easier to control, easier to superimpose a lifestyle-concept upon, and potentially even more affordable/applicable to the Mr. & Mrs. Kerb.
Designing is a headache, direct debits and internet banking are a headache, passwords are a headache, catching tubes and buses are a headache, shopping is a headache, booking a holiday is a headache, rush-hour is a headache, finding wall mounted off-the-shelf shelving that holds 60 magazines is a headache, buying a decent full-length mirror in london is a headache, and knowing exactly the size and colour of sofa you want won’t be a stocked standard size is a headache.
Whilst it’s easier to offer small and controlled design, there’s greater demand for elements of design that suggest “thank god, a portion of my life that isn’t a headache”. And the trend is that Mr. & Mrs. Kerb do want less headache, more simplicity and more control - and they are willing to buy more stuff in order to contradict that feeling. [enter Orestes stage leftt - in 2-3 years].
Avoiding headaches features highly in my agenda. However, I am also questioning the appropriateness of architecture as a medium for elliciting curb appeal. There are buildings that are landmarks or showpieces, for which curb appeal is a stated goal (can you say Guggenheim Bilbao?). But the vast majority of buildings are meant primarily for housing an activity. All efforts to instill “quality” in the design of these buildings will be most appreciated in terms of aesthetics and building performance. These buildings do not need designs that generate new modes of inhabtation or alter the users’ emotional states.
In short, I am more interested in an architecture that fits a lifestyle like a glove, and is therefore considered in tandem with “lifestyle design”. I don’t feel that the desireable amount of coherence between lifestyle and architecture can be attained by designing for many lifestyles. Having said that, I would also consider the design of an office or shop for a company with a very distinct culture (pixar.com, panic.com, omnigroup.com) as an acceptable venture.
ok, so you don’t want to be bothered with transforming your architectural self each and every time a new clent with a new life style lands at your door? I guess designing with “emotional” responce in mind is kind of a mediaesque treat to architecture, since overlooking your emotions comes as a kind of an accusation in Europe. I can’t help to overlook two things:the irony of mentioning Koolhaas in your post, which has taken his characterization as a “souless baseball pitching machine” by Toyo Ito as a compliment (in SMLXL) and the fact that Koolhaas has this almost “divine” capability to awe the media world.
Also since media comes to mind, arcitects are slaves of the representation, of the drawing. Computers? HA! we use 18-19th century techniques to communicate ourselves to the workers that are going to construct the building. Plan,Section,Elevation are still the basic tools to an architect’s job. So where’s the emotional responce in that? I am always
intruiqed by clients far from my emotional responces, or the dominant media friently lifestyle. The question remains: How do you design for lets say a farmer’s family, or a worker’s? or a drug addict? or anyone deviant from your lifestyle?
how do you simulate that?
PS: excuse my english…
theodore
> ok, so you don’t want to be bothered with transforming your architectural self each and every time a new clent with a new life style lands at your door?
No, not at all. In fact, I am very keen to design specifically for each different lifestyle, no matter what it is, as long as it’s well defined. That can only happen if you are designing for few people. I don’t want to design buildings that are generic in terms of lifestyle, like a speculative development of an office. (Although I believe that generic buildings are appropriate for certain conditions.)
I am also saying that while there is room for creating emotionally powerful architecture, most buildings don’t require it, and it often goes unappreciated if it’s not specifically called for. I am making a comparison with the much higher potential emotional engagement that a film or a work of art can offer.
I understand your comments on media projection and visual representation, but that was not much in my mind when I was writing my entry. As far as I am concerned, the issue of seductive imagery in architectural discourse is no longer a debate of interest. It’s tautological: beautiful images are beautiful. And I don’t have a problem with Koolhaas monopoIising the media as long as he has something interesting to say. I was referring to the actual artefacts of design, actual buildings, or beautiful drawings that represent actual beautiful buildings.
As for your question on how to approach a different lifestyle, I suppose the answer is with a lot of information and a lot of tolerance. But we are all international digital academic nomads, so we have both in abundance.
Well it seems that I misunderstood you, probably because I like asking questions better than answering them.I have to admit that it is easier.
On the koolhaas issue: I did n’t think that you did not like Koolhaas.On the contrary,I thought you liked it him. But an irony is an irony, and to be more specific: Koolhaas has a profound capability of ignoring the “emotional” performance of his buildings. Or at least that’s what he wants us to believe.
So yes , the “architectural process” can be employed without the final outcome of a building. And yes “emotional” responces are I believe one of the outcomes of the act of building,whether we wanted it or not as architects during the design process. At this point I am intriguided to ask the question: What would happen if one student of the March programme at Bath, designed a building with the stated intention of stimulating Negative emotional responces? Or is this a NO-situation ?or can it be accepted on an architect’s agenta?
(one answer is the two empty,dark,cold,terrifing spaces inside Daniel Libenskid’s Jewish Museum in Berlin)
I have to agree that works of art are specifically engineered for creating emotional responces “with the audience intending to be taken for an emotional trip”. In architecture,emotional responce is not generated in a direct manner,but in more subtle ways. Maybe it’s the superimpsition of time/space/activity/context/
put-your-favorite-word/motive-here.
As to the media- part of the equation: I was just trying to say that a beautifull building,often does not need a beautifull drawing.Being simple,precise and complete, usually gets the job done. Thisi is why more often than not,Architects are trapped in their beautifull drawings.or 3d rendrings.or videos.or whatever.And they (or We) are trapped because of their Obsession to produse the original,the beautifull. So yes I agree,usually students of architecture are judged not by their architecture, but by beautifull drawings. That is a situation that we called ironically here in www.auth.gr the “graph” situation.
PS: sorry for if I am sounding authorative or something. Again excuse my english.
theodore