Reasonable Doubt and Architecture
I’m a believer that Architecture is closer to the practice of law rather than an art or science, because both Law and Architecture are based on argument and precedent.
Architecture lives in between the proof required in science and the willfulness of art, and it’s this balance of artistic license and practical considerations that makes Architecture the unique and lifelong “practice” that it is.
Architecture is Not Like Other Arts:
There are aspects of Architecture that are like Art, but as the famous New York Times critic Ada Louise Huxtable states, “It is the most complex and compromised of the arts, subject to a battery of restraints, controls, conflicts…” etc.
She’s pointing out that unlike other arts, Architecture has to negotiate project owner needs and desires, city regulations, budgets, engineering, and any other number of factors that contribute to the shape of the final building.
In the best case, balancing all of these requirements will make your project stronger, but regardless, we have to embrace these obstacles as the way forward, because that’s the reality of creating Architecture, and that’s quite different from other arts.
Architecture is Not Science:
Going to Architecture school, we are questioned about every detail, and every decision, so much so that projects can be stifled to the point where it is difficult to establish basic premises for a project. It can become hard to even begin...
In reality, every project can be developed in any number of directions, so it seems impossible that there is only one “correct” answer.
Make it a square, make it a circle, make it a blob… any of these solutions could work, depending on how it’s executed, depending on your personal taste, and depending on what you’re trying to accomplish.
To be overly rigorous and strict in architectural practice is a decision in itself, and can lead to justification after justification that can create a false sense of certainty that you’ve discovered the proper solution.
This is treating Architecture as a pseudo-science, probably to help squash a designer’s insecurity or “prove” to a client that you’re correct, rather than embracing the more nuanced practice that it really is.
Architecture is closer to Law:
Architecture, like law, is built on precedent. We’ve been living in structures of some sort as long as we’ve been living, so there’s a good chance that architectural ideas aren’t entirely “new” today.
There’s a whole vein of criticism and theory related to the original of essential elements of Architecture, and the idea that contemporary Architecture evolved from the most basic elements like a roof and columns, that would have been constructed to provide shade and shelter as a “primitive hut”. It makes sense to a degree, because we really are still just constructing “shelter”, and it’s generally the same essential elements, just with more computers and engineered materials.
To paraphrase a graduate school instructor of mine, Jeff Kipnis, “when you sit down to draw, the problem isn’t that the page is blank, the problem is that the page is full”.
So how do we proceed creating something that isn’t science and isn’t art?
The notion of reasonable doubt can help, because this is about building an argument for your solution that connects the dots, and shows the relationship between the competing requirements of a particular project and context.
There is a discipline required to do this, because arguments are developed and built up in a way that is believable, and convincing. It’s not about creating an absolute or perfect solution, but putting together arguments and ideas that create a reasonable solution for the situation.
“Selling” Architecture:
Selling Architecture isn’t a trick, and it’s not a dirty word, it’s the reality that we are connecting someone’s needs with the right solution. It’s about using Architecture to solve problems, and helping someone find what they are looking for.
Every time you present a project to a client (or whoever it is), it’s a version of selling, because you’re attempting to convince them that the solution you’re showing them is the right one for their situation. If you sit back and just “hope they like it”, it’s probably difficult for them to connect the dots.
Is your solution the only option? Of course not, but it should do the job and make a difference.
One part of the job includes opinions and taste, so “do you like it?” isn’t science, but it’s part of Architecture because why would we build something we don’t like. Another part of the job is “does it meet the needs and regulations we are dealing with”, which isn’t really art, but certainly is a bar that needs to be cleared to get owner and city approvals and permits.
Be Free:
This way of thinking can free you up as an Architect or designer or a creative person generally.
You’re not a scientist, and you’re not an artist in the unencumbered sense. You’re not inventing anything new. You’re not looking for “the one”, because there isn’t “one” solution. You’re free to work in the gray area between art and science, where you are the one who dictates the rules of engagement.
Thinking this way is about taking the time to put an argument together, which takes the form of a building, that can learn from the thousands of years of precedents, to meet the objective and subjective needs for the client.
If we listen and learn from the client and from history, we can use our own experience to put solutions together that go beyond superficial, to make meaningful Architecture that works beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gratefully,
-Chris Ryan
Please consider joining my mailing list, for weekly posts like this one.
P.S. I offer a Project: Launch program to help people quickly analyze and visualize their projects, so that you can make sure your ship is pointed in the right direction or see how your business can use great Architecture to support your business goals. I also offer a Project: Boost working session, if you just would like a second set of eyes on something already in progress.
