Architecture Misunderstood
I have two pet peeves. The first is heavy handed classification. Maybe its over population. Maybe it was the 60s and every hippie needed to feel unique. I’m not sure, but it pisses me off. Foremost it leads to an ignorance of topic and worst it leads to conflation of knowledge. There seems to be a momentum towards answering first, “where does it go” before understanding the more important “what do we know?”
The source of this is banal. The information supertubes widened the aperture of our attention. Mere mortals realize they cannot possibly discover the entire breadth of human knowledge in one lifetime. One impulse is to classify, the other is to simplify.
Both are actions attempting to reduce the information on hand. However, classification posits neutrality. But here’s the rub: Classification is not unique. At its best it’s an expression of the classifier’s values. In short, its more knowledge to classify. By contrast simplification has no such pretense, requiring only focus on principles preceding.
What about Architecture?
Aaron Rester recently wrote an excellent recommendation for web designers to consider themselves cartographers. As excellent as his premise was, his conflation of architecture is suggestive of a broader misunderstanding throughout our humble field:
“Common sense tells us that an architect begins with an abstraction—a blueprint—and creates from that abstraction a concrete structure existing in physical space.”
This is a wrap I’ve heard from several supposed information “architects,” since first exposed to the term. Its textbook classification. And its folly. One might attribute my next paragraphs as snobby, but imagine you just told a graphic designer that they were no more than a glorified printing press.
Wheels off the Wagon
The irony is that the processes described in Rester’s article makes an argument for stronger fundamentals related to architecture.
“Just as Lefebvre leads us to see built spaces not as the expressions of a single architect, but rather as the production of the wide variety of human interactions that occur within them…”
In fact, built spaces are not the expressions of the architect but rather the realizations of the architect. Design, in its purest form is a reflection of society, abstracted by the designer. Do you think the emphasis on empathy in designers is new?
The very principles of web designers acting like cartographers (as described by Rester) pushes them towards an approach more grounded in architecture. Architects emphasize concepts such as context, and appropriation. As the architect is fond of saying, “Architects need to know everything about everything.” Interaction with (and within) the space is also paramount to the architect’s process.
Full Circle
It is telling that the two primary sources for information about a society is their recorded language (anthropology) and their built spaces (archaeology). Both of these study artifacts of fundamental needs; communication and shelter. Buildings are designed for human interaction and thus speak volumes about a culture.
A colleague of mine recently debated with me, via twitter, the notion of a building. At its core, the argument centered on the nature of systems, both static and dynamic. To many, a building seems merely a collection of its lesser parts. Steel, concrete and drywall.
However, again citing the Rester article:
“Space, according to Lefebvre, is created by the flows and movements of relational networks—such as capital, power, and information—in, across, and through a given physical area.”
The primary duty of an architect is the design and manipulation of space. Rester’s focus on Lefebvre’s interpretation argues that the primary duty of a web designer is the design and manipulation of digital space.
A Cynical Sidebar
Minor nits about media differences aside, what exactly is the difference between a web designer, graphic designer, industrial designer and an architect? An architect would tell you that they were there first. Quick, name a design field that doesn’t source Vitruvius in any of their seminal tomes? Instead of finding a term other than “information architecture” to describe our field, perhaps we should redefine information architecture to better reflect actual architecture. (or shitcan all of these insane titles, call ourselves “designers” and go on with our lives)
I do not fault Rester for his mutilated representation of architecture. He hints his bias near the end of his article:
“websites created by cartographers would cease being grand edifices of unidirectional communication … we must rethink our traditional role as builders of digital monuments”
Rester attributes the role of architect as one of building monuments. Its an artifact of our American condition. Everyone knows that Maya Lin designed the Vietnam War Memorial or that Frank Gehry designed the Disney Symphonic Hall in Los Angeles. However, how many reading this know who designed the building you’re in right now? How about the chair you’re sitting in? Your home? Your office?
Design is rarely celebrated in our culture. Our society’s feeling towards designers borders on contempt. It is seen as a luxury of the detached. Some conflate it as high art, when often design is simply figuring out what makes sense. Its uncomplicated and sometimes obvious.
It’s Simple
Rester argues valiantly that web designers should look towards cartography and its purpose:
“The cartographer, on the other hand, starts with concrete structures existing in physical space and creates from that an abstraction: a map.”
That is, a cartographer merely classifies. An observer. In the design world they are known as critics. But as designers we are creators. We observe, then we rationalize. In rationalizing our world, as web designers, as architects, we seek to do greater work. To simplify.
<a href=”http://bestbuyviagrapharmacy.com>Online</a>
<a href=”http://generic-order.oupremed.com“>Sale Viagra</a>
