"The Muses are Not Amused"

The reading, “The Muses are Not Amused” brings up many ideas that are reiterated over and over again in Architecture school. The convergence of forces, specifically cultural, social, economic and ideological as well as technical and ideological is something that is essential to design. The urban lab studio looked at systems on a broader scale to include environmental conditions as well as demographics and diverse transportation systems which overlapped in a unique way to define a specific condition. The emphasis of this article is on the form and how it is always the form which will impress us. The emotional affect of form is also a factor to be considered, such as the twin towers, which were never significant until they were gone. The fad of sustainability is alluded to in the sense that technology cannot exist on its own, but must be given intention. I think that this is a wrong way to look at things, because looking at how to give form to technical achievements seems forceful, whereas is would be more beneficial for form and technology to work hand-in-hand, and not impose one on the other. “Programism” is criticized due to the fact that it is not critical enough and always presents information as neutral data. I don’t believe that programming always has to be neutral, and this is a very broad statement to say that it is. Silvetti describes programming as an, “arbitrary graphic rearrangement of data.” (pg. 23) The next problem addressed it thematization, which looks at exerting total control over the forms of an environment in a sort of “theme” park sense. An example given is that of Las Vegas, which creates a, “heterogeneous conglomerate of adjacent ‘theme’ experiences.” (pg. 25) This creates mass entertainment by means of parody, and also creates a double fakery, meaning that a well-known architecture is mimicked and then it is promised that this architecture will deliver a good way of life. This goes back to ideas about vernacular and regional architecture, as a lot of times in an attempt to relate back to the past, the resulting design becomes extremely kitsch and as a result does not relate to the vernacular at all. This also ties into the idea of a consumer society and tourism, and how many of these places are developed in an attempt to create revenue through nostalgia, and brining people back to a better past. Programism looked to avoid associations with prescribed rules by laying out neutral information, while thematization looks to an exclusive moral example.

The appeal of creating blobs rested in the idea that there was freedom from history and culture, and form could be created without having to deal with these restraints. The fact of the matter is, it is these “restraints” that create form and give it a deep-rooted connection to the cultural heritage of the place as well as the site specific characteristics. Silvetti says, “But what did we actually do with this “thing” that appeared on our computer screen? Very quickly we stuffed it with meaning.” (pg. 26) Once again, meaning is given after a form has already been created, which is contradictory to the design development process of developing meaning while simultaneously developing the form. The ideas about literalism speak about how metaphor is all and good in terms of developing a concept, but that’s where it should stop. “The use of metaphor in architecture… should be looked at as an enrichment of meaning and not as a replacement for the thing itself.” (pg. 28) There is an inherent danger in becoming too caught up in the metaphor and losing the focus on design. The multidisciplinary nature of the arts is also talked about towards the end of the article, and speaking about how the arts have collapsed into a single idea of “Art.” The question is also brought up about architecture as art, or the art of architecture. The current trend in architecture is to move outside of traditional formal and material boundaries, and architecture is now serving two very distinct roles. One is as the support of artistic ideas, and the other is the inspiration for buildings. I believe that it is possible to be both, and that taking the different artistic elements out of architecture would be a mistake. Architecture either stands in the art realm as an elite discipline, or it resides in the social arena where real life takes place. It really needs to fuse these two ideas, and be able to relate to the people while at the same time taking on the beauty that other disciplines of the fine arts demonstrate. Although there are some questionable statements made in the article, I think that the underlying idea is clear, of the “logical integration of advanced computer technologies with tectonic consciousness and an historical/anthropological knowledge of the discipline.” (pg. 33) Architecture is not about making a blob and giving it meaning, or creating large tourist destinations that evoke nostalgia among people, or looking at neutral programming information. It is about a clever combination of new and progressive technologies with looking at historical and cultural considerations and using this information to help derive the form and work hand-in-hand with the development. It is not a linear process, but there are many checks that must be made throughout the course of the design process to ensure that all of the disparate elements are considered and are able to be brought back together into a coherent whole. In looking at all of the layered systems that occur in Pittsburgh, it is essential to make sure that they develop simultaneously to really observe the overlaps and consistencies.