This article in BD came out coincidentally the morning after I published a piece on how modernist architecture in Britain was misrepresented and came to be unfairly loathed by the public.
Scruton’s aesthetical bias alas finds so much resonance with the British public. Postmodernists like him argue their case with fervour. They engage the public at large and address these people's sense of self and aspirations: It's about 'place'. It's about 'individuality' within a 'community'. It's about an aspirational lifestyle. Modernists, on the other hand, plead their case by castigating postmodernists, whilst ignoring the public. Wouldn't it be time far better spent for architects to make a case for what they believe in, namely modernism in this case, rather than silence those who don't concur? What have we done as modernists, nay as architects, to talk to people, to address their sense of self, to address belonging, to address aspiration, to address insecurities, to address happiness?
What have we done as a profession to communicate with developers? Architectural design is a service that adds palpable monetary value to property. Design significantly increases the profits generated by real estate; yet, most architects don’t know how, or even feel ashamed by, trying sell design qua design to the movers and shakers. A designer space is akin to a designer pair of shoes: They make people feel so exuberant about themselves that they are willing part with their money, nay even pay a premium, for them.
So why is it that there is such a disconnect between the architectural profession and society?
It is simply because most architects do not know how to talk to people. They either ignore them or they talk at them: Architects sanctimoniously shame people for not being ‘ethical’ or ‘empathic’ (as architects think themselves to be with whatever cause du jour), they ridicule people’s tastes, they dismiss people’s aspirations as naive and most important of all, they think of people as children who won’t understand concepts like ‘spatial syntax’ or whatever pretentious term making the round in architects’ circles these days. Architecture is a profession mired in sanctimony and arrogance; however, architecture is an incredibly social discipline that, in principle, affects people in their everyday life. Architecture is everywhere in the places people live, work, train and socialise yet the profession goes to great lengths not to engage people. Isn’t it time better spent to have CPDs on communication, presentation, projection, oratorship and psychology rather than U-values and render waterproofing?
In fact, it all begins at university where students are encouraged to turn their backs to their friends and spend all their waking hours in the studio bubble. Worse still, architecture students are taught not to respect time and not to have a life out of studio. Spending an all-nighter is seen as a badge of honour rather than an egregious offence that should be damned rather than feted. As a result, young architects miss out on so much in these formative years by not engaging with their peers outside the discipline, by not keeping their finger on the pulse in terms of trends and by losing the communication skills as gregarious individuals to talk about matters besides ‘praxis’ and ‘spatial experience’.
We have a chance to manufacture taste in architecture and interiors yet we shunned it to focus on production. We could be opinion makers and influencers, not contractor’s lackeys and bureaucrats. We really need to communicate our ideas in a language that is germane to the people we are engaging. We make people’s lives more exciting and we make developers money with design, yet we can not articulate that simple truth.