reklam

As in other classical professions some architects may deem their contribution to civilization as being indispensable. This view is similar to a person's attempt to describe the universe from his current vantage point. The architect may view his profession as being pivotal in man's cultural evolution.

The history of architecture is a visible record of man's ascention from carving caves to building space stations. Architecture has always been involved with shaping mass and volume for human inhabitation.
It is and will remain man's conscious preoccupation with making of place . The substantiality and permenance of this occupation adds further magnitute to profession of architecture.
This allows the architect to view his profession as being all important since it relates to and encompasses all human activity past and present.

The architect's self justification could be deemed as professional conceit but I view it as an indispenseable state of mind for the creative architect. The architect needs the conviction in himself in order to assume responsibility for shaping the built environment.
This responsibility requires a lot of self criticism but the acceptance of it is essential for creativity .

Some architects might humble creativity as being a very small part of their professional service. They might even argue that the art is just one of the ingredients in architecture or that architecture is an equal marriage of engineering and art.

Similar arguments have been made over form and function in architecture as to which preceeds and which follows. The history of these arguments is long and tedious and it all adds to the general confusion of the real goal of architecture.

To reitirate my personal view, I would like to make the unequivocal statement that in its totality Architecture is Art . Architecture has a single uncompromisable purpose and that is to transform the built environment by purposeful design in to art. The design concept from its realization through continuous revisions and modifications must remain persistently in the architects mind. For him all other functional and technical decisions must be fitting and consistent with achieving his original artistic goal.

The architect may selectively allow functional forms to be exagerated or to be subdued to fit his design's formal requirements.
The "able" architect will not conceed the functional performance of his design while manipulating architectural form. He takes delight in designing form that has inseperable unity with its functional intent.

Architects know that ultimately their designs are judged by their artistic accomplishments. As there is in our society a distaste for self serving egoism of an architect as an artist architects often hide their egos behind the modest role of a social planner or a pragmatic businessman. Not discussing their artistic agenda while emphasizing the rational and utilitarian reasons for their designs allows architects to feel less vulnerable. Often architect's very personal journey in search of artistic expression is hidden from the client and the general public.

To execute his designs the "able" architect artist is forced to camuflage his formal aesthetic aspirations with seemingly more technical programatic requirements. Unfortunately the "unable" architect simply assimilates this technical role, dispenses with the aspirations, and is content to design for utility.
The seeming sacrifice of "self" for the "we" is ultimately more dishonest and elitist. Assuming such a role the architect is not willing to engage in dialogue to explain or justify his personal aesthetic preferences, while at the same time he feels justified to speak for everyone with generalities. This insertion of "we" in the place of "me" clearly avoids personal accountibility. Unfortunately it makes art of architecture more inaccesible and elitist.

If we were to admit that "architecture is a true art" is attaining personal aesthetics the only mission of architecture?
Is architecture simply making of good looking buildings? What is labeled as "good art" is always relative and it is even questionable at time of its execution. İn all visual arts we know that the eye and the mind are inseperable. Aesthetic judgement can never be seperated from the bias of the mind.

Art seen as pure aesthetics can be very transient, culturally biassed and fashionable Since architecture has a longer realization and life span, we expect it to posses values with more meaning than fashionable whims.

To have permenance art of architecture most certainly needs to relate to its physical environment as well as its cultural context. To have real relevance of meaning it must be contemporary and relate to the spirit of its times. İt may reflect pessimism of the present with historicism and revivialism. It may also reflect extreme optimism of tomorrow with exagerated futurism.

The history of architecture has well recorded these swings and ondulations in the social physche. During these swings of general mood the architect needs to remain somewhat level headed. While other forms of art can reflect these shifts more rapidly, architecture should assimilate these changes in a longer time span and translate them to reflect the contemporary style of the present.

As an artist the architect must develop his individual point of view. He will have to formulate a personal and unique answer to the question of what is art and how he is to achieve it.

For me artistic creation is a continuous struggle for the individual artist to justify his existence in relation to his times.
Inorder to leave the imprint of "For my people I have built on this land in such a way", he must first relate to his people and their context. His personal approach can have value only as it relates to his own culture at the time he practiced.
This is an awesome task to ask any individual to reflect his present state of being and translate it visual form, but this is the essential mission of an architect.

Each creation of the architect becomes a new questions in search for himself. The validity of this endevour would eliminate any relevance of directly borrowing from other times and other cultures.
Having knowledge of architectural typologies and being aware of contemporary trends are indispensable requirements. This knowledge, however, must not be allowed to stifle an architects personal creativity and originality.

Perhaps now as ever before, architects need to embrace their role as contemporary artists. Architects' medium for artistic creation may be different and more complex than other fields of art, but the priority of the profession remains primarily with artistic self expression.
Kaya Arıkoğlu, Ağustos 2003