Was the Modernist Architect Becoming too Authoritarian and Dogmatic

0 Comment

While architecture must use advanced mathematics to construct a building, and certainly architecture is artistic insofar as it is representative of a society preferences for spaces and is a statement of intent or design on the part of a person, architecture itself must be defined socially in a particular fashion. [W]hat characterizes architecture today is its capacity to be studied as a system of significations that establishes different levels and layers of meanings and sense and constitutes one of the symbolic spheres instituted by society (Hays, 2000, 277). Hays argues that since 1968, architecture is a technical-ideological practice. As a consequence of this, Hays concludes that it is absurd to call any individual architect or even architecture as a whole hermetic or elitist or authoritarian because it is like calling rain wet: Architecture as an institution is a collective arranging of power as a technical-ideological collective. But architecture, unlike other areas where there is a monopoly of technical power being exerted, must be brought under special criticism because its designs move into the public realm (Hays, 2000, 277). And certainly, the products constructed should be socially constructive.
The idea of the architect is by definition a monopolization of technical and temporal power in the field of building construction and artistic vision. It is true that architecture is always art, but in the 20th century, this was ascended to the idea of the architecture is an artist. These are two immensely different concepts. To use a political analogy: Clearly, decisions must be made, but when those decisions are made by one person, it becomes authoritarian.