Design Observer

About
Books
Job Board
Newsletters
Archive
Contact



Observatory

About
Resources
Submissions
Contact


Featured Writers

Michael Bierut
William Drenttel
John Foster
Jessica Helfand
Alexandra Lange
Mark Lamster
Paul Polak
Rick Poynor
John Thackara
Rob Walker


Departments

Advertisement
Audio
Books
Collections
Dear Bonnie
Dialogues
Essays
Events
Foster Column
From Our Archive
Gallery
Interviews
Miscellaneous
New Ideas
Opinions
Partner News
Photos
Poetry
Primary Sources
Projects
Report
Reviews
Slideshows
The Academy
Today Column
Unusual Suspects
Video


Topics

Advertising
Architecture
Art
Books
Branding
Business
Cities / Places
Community
Craft
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Disaster Relief
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Fashion
Film / Video
Food/Agriculture
Geography
Global / Local
Graphic Design
Health / Safety
History
Housing
Ideas
Illustration
India
Industry
Info Design
Infrastructure
Interaction Design
Internet / Blogs
Journalism
Landscape
Literature
Magazines
Media
Museums
Music
Nature
Obituary
Other
Peace
Philanthropy
Photography
Planning
Poetry
Politics / Policy
Popular Culture
Poverty
Preservation
Product Design
Public / Private
Public Art
Religion
Reputations
Science
Shelter
Social Enterprise
Sports
Sustainability
Technology
Theory/Criticism
Transportation
TV / Radio
Typography
Urbanism
Water


Comments Posted 10.25.10 | PERMALINK | PRINT

Alexandra Lange

Join the Conversation!




I am hosting this week's Glass House Conversations, inspired by the comments (on and off the blogosphere) in reaction to my negative review of the Museum of Modern Art's "Small Scale, Big Change" exhibition.

Here's what I said:
This is the museum's second foray into the world of social and sustainable design, after last winter's successful "Rising Currents." While it contains a number of worthy (if occasionally over-exposed) projects, the inability of "Small Scale" curator Andres Lepik to define his terms means the exhibition fails to move the conversation forward, offering no sense of where these 11 projects find common ground, and hence which small architectural interventions are likely to be effective elsewhere. It isn't scalable, which means Lepik defaults to MoMA's historical agenda, aesthetics. Not one of these projects, but for Rural Studio's gable-roofed $20K House VIII, would be out of place in an exhibition on new schools, new urban infrastructures, new low-cost housing.

In listing those three categories, I think I've identified the exhibition's main conceptual problem: the diversity of type creates a lack of cohesion and, ultimately, conclusion.
Here's what Nicolai said:
This appreciation for the value of life as it's lived in existing communities, no matter how poor or derelict, is apparent throughout the show. Alejandro Aravena's 2005 housing block for a neighborhood of squatters in northern Chile was conceived as a standardized concrete framework that tenants (with the help of government subsidies) could then fill in: interior walls, doors, plumbing fixtures — even the apartments' facades, so that the housing project's exterior becomes a lively pastiche of conflicting tastes, styles and desires.

If only there were more of this. Besides the 11 projects in the show, the curators found about a dozen others that might have been worthy of inclusion, they said, during two years of research. In the whole world. That's a meager number given the scale of the problems we're talking about, mostly because philanthropic groups and governments still tend to be wary of this kind of investment. Even if the architectural conscience is evolving, it will take more than architects for that to matter.
Here's my big question:
The new Museum of Modern Art exhibition "Small Scale, Big Change" offers a survey of eleven projects on five continents that respond to the needs of under-served communities, all of which combine local involvement, new materials, and a high level of design. A number of critics have praised the museum for encapsulating a new movement in architecture, and showing that good works can still be good looking. Others (myself included) have questioned whether it goes far enough. Is socially responsible architecture really new? Should good works be held to the same standards as what we might now call socially irresponsible architecture?

Is it too soon to criticize social architecture?
Please opine here.
|
Share This Story

Comments

Design Observer encourages comments to be short and to the point; as a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.
Read Complete Comments Policy >>


Name             

Email address 




Please type the text shown in the graphic.


|
Share This Story



ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Alexandra Lange is an architecture and design critic, and author of Writing about Architecture: Mastering the Language of Buildings and Cities. (Princeton Architectural Press, 2012). Her work has appeared in The Architect's Newspaper, Architectural Record, Dwell, Metropolis, Print, New York Magazine and The New York Times.
More Bio >>

DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS









BOOKS BY Alexandra Lange

Writing About Architecture: Mastering the Language of Buildings and Cities
Princeton Architectural Press, 2012

Design Research
Chronicle Books, 2010

More books by contributors >>

RELATED POSTS


Lucia Eames, 1930-2014
An appreciation of Lucia Eames (1930-2014).

The Astrodome and the Challenges of Preservation
The Astrodome and the future of preservation.

Not Afraid of Noise: Mexico City Stories
A photographic tour of Mexico City, house by house, wall by wall.

Genzken and the City
A review of Isa Genzken's current retrospective on view at the MOMA.

Premature Demolition
The Folk Art Museum, David Adjaye's market hall, and the first addition to the Morgan Library. If three makes a trend, then premature demolition qualifies.