The relevance of story-telling
One of the greatest exemplars of technically sophisticated architectural design of our day, Renzo Piano, once stated very earnestly (in an interview with Charlie Rose), that every building 'must tell a story'. How do you think a building can tell a story?
It a very general way, every building does even at first glance tell a story of the circumstances surrounding its construction. What do the materials say about the time period it was created in, the budget expended on finish work; What is the style the building can be classified under; What do the facades suggest may be taking place inside; work, school, recreation, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like what Renzo Piano is suggesting in the above quote is that this 'story' should not simply be an inevitable consequence of the erection of a structure but a pointed intention by the designer, in other word, Mr/Ms. Architect, What 'story' are you trying to tell? In my opinion, for a building to begin to intentionally 'tell a story' relates to two key aspects initially: that a building be appropriate for the context it is set in and the purpose it was designed for. If the design doesn't relate to the landscape and cultural context it is set in then it seems to detract from the purpose of contributing to the built fabric around it. And then what is the intent of the architect, to make a personal statement? Is that not then a rather egoistical choice?
That being said, I think many intentional designs do disregard the context they are set in and purpose they are used for. One of these that sticks out in my mind is Frank Gehry's Weisman Art Museum at the University of Minnesota campus in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Weisman is designed in the style of the Guggenheim Bilbao and preceded the Bilbao Museum by several years. This building is placed at the far South West end of a classically designed campus space called Northrup Mall (master plan, Cass Gilbert, 1907). This mall was designed in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia campus and all of the buildings lining the mall reflect a classical architectural style of the early 1900s. The material template is mainly brick with stone columns and window trim. The Weisman is half brick and half metallic, craggy forms in the style found at the Guggenheim Bilbao. Gehry and supporters of his work would argue that this building itself is sculptural and therefore reflective of the modern art in various mediums contained within. One online description calls the West facade which faces the river "An abstraction of a waterfall and a fish." Now that is a lovely 'story,' but what the muddy, waterfall-lacking Mississippi River (the timber industry destroyed a beautiful waterfall about 1 mile upstream from the museum) filled with Mercury-polluted fish has to do with a poorly lit modern art collection is beyond me. I look at the lacking design effort put into window placement that allows UV to damage art pieces in combination with half of the museum having no natural light to illuminate the work and I see a campus that wanted a Starchitect-designed project instead of premium quality gallery space in which to display its modern art collection.
We, as designers, therefore should be conscious of the stories we are telling through our architecture; intentionally or unintentionally. Even with the best intent, projects may be not be viewed as we intended or received negatively and it is important to be open to and learn from that criticism.
I think that a building has a duty to respond to the context in which it exists. Does a building necessarily need to tell its own story or can it become apart of a preexisting story and landscape? Can it reflect and amplify what is already there?
ReplyDeleteIf the act of building (whether a home, public or commercial space) is a reflection of the needs and beliefs of the culture that formulated the design, then the story exists. The physical statement in the act of creating a building signifies an intention to house a certain set of functions pertaining to a belief. The building then tells this story in the unfolding of its physical form. The relation of the spaces functions and hierarchy of the building elements create an experiential architecture that should portray this in the experience of the space.
ReplyDeleteThe tectonics, proportions and materials we use as designers create a language that, as a society, we understand. This language informs us of the story within or around our buildings to communicate the belief that this building is for people to live in or here we house books and people may come to read them. I believe that in the beginning of every building a story exists and it is our job as architects to extract every bit of it as clearly as possible to demonstrate and preserve it.
I agree with the common theme that successful architecture has the potential to tell the story of its context within a specific culture. In an extremely literal example, the church tells the story of Christ in the stained glass of the Cathedral. Buildings have the power to influence the masses and therefore the language portrayed is of great importance.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative content of ancient temples, for instance, enabled the telling of mythical stories through image and artifact, scale and orientation, materiality and light, ritual and ceremony - all appealing to the corporeality of those for whom the stories were intended to foster a deep sense of participation, the populace. Here the architecture appealed to the common capacities of the human body to respond to stimuli (and requiring interpretation) rather than a predetermined specialist knowledge (requiring no more than acknowledgement).
ReplyDeleteTo comment on Erika's post, I think that a building can become part of a larger, overall story. But that already suggests that the building has a story behind its existence. I see it potentially as a piece of a puzzle that completes the story.
ReplyDeleteArchitects tell stories by designing/building buildings. I believe every building tells a story. This happens through a building's size, scale, shape, orientation, materials, efficiency, and functionality.
Some buildings have better stories than others. The question is then, when can one make that judgment? How can one tell if a building is telling a successful story or not, and is that up for interpretation?
So, exactly how are these buildings articulating narrative structure, and what is required of us to 'read' it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sergey about every building telling a story. The story that Ryan told us about the Weisman Art Museum, is prof of that. The building tells a story of ignoring the surroundings through its "water fall and fish" and the realities of the muddy waters of the Mississippi. It tells a story of ignoring the uses of the building through the damaged artworks. It tells a story about how the school wanted to make a statement rather then a great space for a museum.
ReplyDeleteSo the issue is how we make our buildings tell good stories instead of ones like the Weisman.
To respond to the professor's latest comment, I feel that buildings have their own language. Just how people speak and can learn many different langages in order to communicate. Buildings in and of themselves have their own unique language and way of communicating.
ReplyDeleteSo in order for us to be able to read or interpret this language of the buildings we much learn it first. Also this language is always adding more words and styles that we much continue to learn in order to completely understand the new archtecture.
Once we learn how to speak this new language, then we are able to understand the narrative of the building. We are then speaking its language and communicate through the way the different material combinations speak to us. If we did not learn the language of the buildings then their story would be lost.
If we go back to commonality, and discuss the commonality of building language. What would we really be working with to manufacture language?
ReplyDeleteI agree that buildings have their own language and can communicate in many different ways. BUT, I dont believe it requires us to learn its language to read it.
ReplyDeleteAnyone can experience architecture without learning the language. One can interact with a building without knowing the ins and outs of it. The size, scale, material its systems and so on, can still trigger certain responses, which is how we experience buildings. But we are not required to know the language to do those things.
Learning/knowing the language of architecture can potentially help us design better buildings but to experience architecture, we are not required to do so.
@Professor- I find it interesting that there was so much language that is being used and expressed. The notion of imagery and artifact I somewhat have issues with. Many cultures utilized these elements and documented through imagery however did not often make it to the general public. Those that built the pyramids and wrote the glyphs on those walls never made it out alive after writing them (or for that matter sculpting the artifacts that adorn the interiors). If we reflect on the interactions of social hierarchy within the feudal system during the dark ages it is hard to view those elements as being much more than the icing on the Queens cake(a luxury that is). If something exists to tell a story to those in the future, than what real engagement does that have with the populace. The relationship between royalty and the surfs may be as clear as day to those experiencing it. We are here and they are there. What really are the intentions of these buildings. Corey Griffin yesterday told the architectural populace of PSU that we should look to create space(and its embodiments) beyond that of the sculptural. The language that is being expressed in the sculpture of a space seems both not far from the tip of our tongues but in that statement, equally as far away. This writing does not conclude these thoughts, but only tries to express a concern for the historical engagement a populace had with the recorded narratives we discuss.
ReplyDeleteMost of the discussion of a building's story has referred to the context of that structure within its site, but even looking at as building as a singular element they can begin to tell a story. The exterior can tell a narrative of the building and its context, but both the interior and exterior can tell a story themselves over time. Many times looking at older or historic buildings, stories can be found in layers of paint or wallpaper or simply by taking a notice at what was original, renovated, or completely altered. Basically, the building itself through its adaptation (or lack of) can tell a story of how it was used and if its original design had the ability to morph for future needs.
ReplyDeleteThis notion of a building's 'language' I partially agree with Sergey that anyone can experience a building without learning the language. It allows for one to view and experience that space with a certain amount of innocence. This can help spark some curiosity allowing for people to resort back to the simple question of ‘what?’. If the language and space is already understood, the question of ‘what’ is commonly overlooked and one may ‘why?’. I feel that one answer helps inform the other and to ask one without the other only continues a cycle of ignorance.
I agree with Sergey that everyone should be able to understand the language of structures. The issue is that every designer has their own accent on this language which can make it difficult to learn the story. So its our duty to make sure the thought process and realities of design are understandable.
ReplyDeleteI agree that one does not have to know or understand the language to experience the architecture, but it makes me wonder what the interaction really is at that point. What is actually being engaged? Can we discuss the communication between the one experiencing and the space?
ReplyDeleteMerleau Ponty states “a spoken word is a genuine gesture” affirming the idea of language as a gesture towards the understanding of the world around us. I believe this is a powerful understanding of the use of architectural language, the idea that architecture gestures towards an understanding of a certain time or place and manifests it through building a physical form. For instance, within the city we tend to have an understanding of the street corner as a powerful statement to the passers-by. What is placed there (or not placed) communicates the importance of that dedicated space to the context of the site and the community it serves. The idea of gestural architecture contains an understanding and position of the spaces a building creates and the context in which it resides.
ReplyDeleteI think that building tell there story in materials that they are made of or are in cased in. For example a log home will tell a different story of a concrete building. The proses of getting a log can be pictures if one stopped to retrace where that log came from. I think we as architects can use materials to help tell the story and someone else will later be able to "read" it.
ReplyDeleteStory of a building that been told, can have an affect on what kind of story the building imply or want to say. As if the building is a person standing there by it self. looking and staring at people that are passing by. People who are busy they are in a rush with the demands of there lives. That building would rarely have someone that would stop. and have a conversation with and listen to what it want to say.
ReplyDeletewhen i look at any building. Its as the building is waiting for someone to hear it voice. As if it is a person that wants to be heard.. standing there... waiting for someone to read it.
I think an architect or an artiest or someone who has a sense of an appreciation to what value that building has would read the story within the building...