Listening is Not Imitating

 

The tower as shifting boxes trope.

Duo Dickinson, FAIA, is a prolific writer as well as an accomplished architect. He not only writes about architecture but also reflects regularly on his life, his faith, and teaching. He has published several books including The Small House: An Artful Guide to Affordable Residential Design, and A Home Called New England: A Celebration of Hearth and History, cowritten with Steve Culpepper. He has also written for many online and traditional print outlets, including Fine Homebuilding, This Old House Magazine, Arch Daily, Money Magazine, Houzz, Archinect, and more.  
 
His most recent piece for Common Edge—entitled Architecture Has Its Own Cultural Appropriation Problem—is characteristically provocative. In it, Duo describes what he refers to as the “appropriation of the affect of innovation found in the current moment,” which he defines in part as the “process of simulating creativity.” He does not equate this with the broadly accepted meaning of cultural appropriation—that is when a majority group adopts cultural elements of a minority group in an exploitive, disrespectful, or stereotypical way; rather, he uses the term somewhat ironically. In Duo’s view, architects too often succumb to groupthink. Too many yearn for acceptance and conformity within a sanctioned canon of design, without regard for the potential of irrational or dysfunctional outcomes.  
 
The impulse to mimic what is perceived to be creative is powerful, a seductive siren’s call that prioritizes imagery over substance and truly thoughtful work. Yielding to such an impulse is understandable among young architects who may be insecure about their process of design. We should be less forgiving of experienced designers who do the same. Skilled, knowledgeable practitioners should not thoughtlessly copy the work of others or lazily employ cliched tropes. The overuse of some such architectural cliches is worthy of lampooning and an embarrassing indictment of a herd mentality endemic in my profession.   
 
As Duo argues, the architectural profession will only preserve its value if we pay attention to the realities of each design problem we architects engage. We need to listen to what each site, program brief, and idiosyncratic set of users are telling us. When we truly do listen, creativity and originality take care of themselves. We should not thoughtlessly appropriate from the past and/or the contemporary work we admire. That said, appropriation may be warranted if the distinctive geographic, programmatic, cultural, and contextual factors that define a project dictate doing so. Of course, there are constants every building must contend with—a roof must provide shelter, a window should bring in light and frame views, doors are supposed to allow passage between spaces, and so on. We readily recognize artistry (if it is present) when designers meet the challenge of addressing both the constants and the unique circumstances peculiar to a project head on and with aplomb.
 
Duo stirred up a hornet’s nest on Twitter in defending his outing of architectural appropriation on Common Edge. A contentious discourse ensued, especially once the matter of authenticity in architecture was raised. I found the points made of all sides of the debate at once helpful and challenging. I previously addressed authenticity on my blog in 2008, so I reread my post to see whether my thoughts on the topic have evolved much since then. To my surprise, they have not. I continue to believe architecture is a means to defend the authenticity of human experience. To imbue this power, architects must “listen” and directly respond to the design problem posed by their clients while resisting the temptation to (mis)appropriate by means of heedless imitation.