Architecture as something else

Architecture as something else 

Peter Collins's Changing ideas in modern architecture, 1750-1950 has been a favourite of mine since my student years, not in the least for a hilarious bit about cooking in comparison to architecture - the gastronomic analogy. By looking at architecture through such analogies, Collins managed to make me aware of the dangers of the easiness with which we compare what we do to something else in order to produce arbitrary statements that might even not qualify as hypotheses, let alone truths (as often assumed). This extends to viewing design as problem solving and information processing, which I consider legitimate yet treat with caution. Metaphors, analogies, similes and the like are excellent ways of explaining some particular aspects of a phenomenon through a clear picture of something else. One shouldn't take them literally or for granted.

It follows that I worry not only about expressions like "architectural vocabulary" and "architectural grammar" but also about the misguided attempts by architects to use their discipline as something else. It's bad enough to believe that architecture can shape lives in a deterministic or utopian manner, we don't need architects playing anthropologist, sociologist, philosopher etc. and try to analyse, study and explain by making designs (precedents by cursory, selective observations that simply act as justification or inspiration, although the latter term seems to be out of favour now). Architects often seem to believe that they have some special right to develop solutions for everything and anything. The only thing they demonstrate is the urgent need for a clear scope and sound methodology for their own discipline.