ABSTRACT
In this period of extraordinary technological advancement and material innovation, the architectural profession has witnessed an exponential number of practices dedicated to the exploration of new materials and processes. e resulting excitement (and perhaps an eort for architecture to keep pace with its related elds) has placed increased pressure on designers to innovate with each new project. Unfortunately, as these shis have occurred, so too has the tendency for designers to lose sight of architecture’s overwhelming complexity, oen confusing the novelty of new materials and processes with the kind of true architectural advancement that comes through the synthesis of a diverse set of ideas. It’s understandable that as the creation of buildings have become more complicated, architects have begun to turn to more focused and expertise-based approaches to practice in order to have the most profound impact. However, this conict between the need for focused expertise and the production of robust and synthetic work presents an enormous challenge for architects today. As a way of dealing with this conict, there needs to be a fundamental shi in the way we think about architectural expertise and research. Architecture has always been a eld at its best when the synthesis of a variety of ideas and issues is of paramount concern. e ability of architecture to bundle and process material, program, structural, and mechanical issues (just to name a few) while maintaining and relating artistic and poetic intentions has been a dening character trait. In contrast to more traditional notions of expertise gained through focused and specic research, architects have an obligation toward synthesis. e production of a body of work should provide a means of slowly accumulating and incorporating a greater range of issues and applications that might not be possible using a more insular and disconnected approach. Additionally, and in order for that to happen, the criterion for evaluating the work must expand alongside the growing expertise. In the eld of architecture, focused research should rely on iterative practices over multiple works to connect and bundle ideas; it should acquire new knowledge that expands its scientic realm of inuence, and it should be conscious not to leave behind the issues that allow its viability. e ability to deploy the expanded knowledge base is, in fact, what would constitute architectural research, as opposed to the kind of insular research that might traditionally occur in a related technical eld. Only then can we make meaningful contributions through expertise while maintaining a role with the robustness and breadth of meaningful implementation. Consumed by our desire for constant innovation, it’s easy to forget that the profound level of expertise required to produce truly creative ideas, even at the most basic level, no longer follows traditional models of focused predictability. Contemporary innovation in most elds, perhaps most notably in the sciences, is rarely the product of a singular endeavor; rather, it tends to be the result of expansive thinking, relentless testing, trial and error, iterative processes, and methods that slowly chip away at the hermetic nature of the problem. Ideas need time and research in order to grow, to fail along the way, and to eventually blossom in unexpected ways. We believe that the most creative architectural practices dedicate themselves to constant evolution
and growth while recognizing that growth and evolution result from constant and iterative experimentation with a single technique, material, or process. In other words, they do something again and again – not because they know how to do it, but because they know it well enough for it to constantly produce new and untested applications. At the same time, one needs to be wary of the downsides of expertise-based practice. While this approach is essential to the advancement of architecture, the tendency has oen been to reduce the scope of its impact, largely because the issues tend to be addressed through single projects aimed at minute but insular advancement that is disconnected from so many issues essential to the full scope of architectural investigation. e architectural ethics involved in fullling client needs, programmatic requirements, and contextual concerns all too oen steer projects toward the implementation of tried and true strategies; while tired and worn-out, these tend to be safe strategies nonetheless. In stark contrast to this methodology is the practice of taking an entirely new approach to every new project that comes through the door. Untested and ripe with potential pitfalls, even the most successful of these strategies oen fall short, particularly in areas of technical experimentation. Without a relentless questioning of the productive value of any process or technique, a level of comfort leads to simply repeating the same trick, or worse, settling into a stylistic modus operandi. is comfort zone is oen perpetuated by the market appeal generated by having “gotten it right” at some earlier stage. It’s vital that we be conscious of the moment that a strand of investigation fails to yield ideas worthy of additional pursuit. In order to use a material creatively, one must develop an intimate understanding of it, beginning with its technical characteristics. Its limits are of critical importance and the processes involved in its shaping and connective potential are essential. As easy as these concepts seem to be in the case of basic materials (such as wood, metal, and plastics), a theoretical or “text book” understanding generally pales in comparison to the expertise obtained through an intense hands-on approach. is is especially true when considering the techniques involved in its production and application, rather than just the physical properties of the material itself. But these points alone suggest little more than what might be considered an advanced form of technical knowledge. What sets the architect apart is his or her ability to acquire knowledge outside the technical realm and to nd common ground between seemingly disparate elds. Tactility that leads to dierent forms of human engagement, spatial characteristics that compel a certain type of bodily occupation, and associative qualities that evoke a range of human responses and behaviors are all examples of qualities that fall within blurred zones of professional expertise. An understanding of these qualities is a nuanced, but nevertheless, vital form of knowledge that, when considered collectively, belongs within the territory of the architect and one that can come only from intimate engagement with the material. Our recent work has been a way of grappling with these issues, through what might best be thought of as an eort to think big about seemingly small issues. While the project presented below is focused primarily on an installation entitled Live Wire, the argument relies on a cumulative set of ideas, acquired over a period involving several related projects. In keeping with this idea, the projects must be seen not as a clear end point, but rather as a work in progress – one continually in search of more signicant application but ever cautious of its limitations.
