For the life of me I can’t figure out if this is for realz or done ironically, in which case its brilliant. The former just somewhere between ridiculous and scary:
For: An architecture that imposes its will on the planet
Against: Architecture that ‘treads lightly on the earth’
For: Creative tension: robust assertive architecture
Against: Ideology-lite architecture where social policy initiatives, participation, consultation and engagement are lauded for the sake of the process
For: Extending the frontiers of architecture: Dare to know…Dare to act…Dare to fail
Against: The precautionary principle in architecture – the imposed and self-imposed limits to design
For: A new internationalism – dynamic architecture for an integrated planet: an end to all restrictions on the global flow of people, goods and ideas
Against: The new parochialism – passive architecture, self-sufficient villages, slow
citiesFor: Architecture as discipline – for the autonomous exercise of professional judgement and the defence of integrity
Against: Architecture as discipline – the instrumentalisation of design for therapeutic or interventionist objectives
For: Building more – in the knowledge that we can, and should, always rebuild later
Against: A culture in decline that questions whether we should be building at all
For now, I’ll just let each of these speak for themselves. But, it sounds like something I might have written in 3rd year design school then I realized the world is far more complex than a hunk of play-do. To me this is emblematic of the end-game that architecture as a cult backed itself into.
Manifestos in general just scare the bejeebus outta me. Who writes a manifesto other than the self-important indoctrinaries?
