David Watkin: Morality and Architecture (1977)

Morality is the goal

Fig1
Photo credit: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/ethics-and-architecture-where-do-you-draw-the-line/8689785.article

David Watkin's Architecture and Morality is an accurate, knowledgeable and powerful attack on the usual architectural theory which claims that architects are under a religious or moral duty to build in the style of their own time, and that anything that is decorative or reminiscent from the past is considered immoral.  The object of Watkin’s critique was Modernism and its claims that traditional forms of architecture were ill-fitted and outdated in the context of a constantly evolving economic, social, and political environment. Nevertheless, these ideas were touched upon by architects such as Jane Jacob, Robert Venturi and Charles Jencks while abandoning redevelopment of historic cities. Meanwhile, the "classical" architecture favored by Watkin is also tried and found wanting by other architects like Peter Eisenman who is also ironically against the use of decoration in design. It is also fair to consider that during the same time period, Frank Gehry, Richard Rogers, Norman Foster, James Stirling and Daniel Libeskind not in agreement with Watkin have created architecture of imagination, skill and courage that have sparked the public's minds.

Watkin used as examples architect & theorist A.W.N. Pugin and  architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner, who respectively argued religious truths should underlie the form of architecture and that a modern architecture must be a rational instrument of social policy. Both believed in the certainty of moral foundation for contemporary architecture, and yet how such architecture would look like to both was very different. For Pugin, the Gothic Revival style presented itself as superior and synonymous with “Christian architecture” and that was necessary his time. For Pevsner, it was the machine-like, ahistorical, and unadorned architecture of Modernism that exhibited morality. Both Pugin and Pevsner trusted in the moral rightness of their position, asserting which agreed with their own preferences.

It is true that architects still argue for buildings "of our time", but this is a matter of common sense, not zealotry. It means using available materials and techniques understood by someone living today, from titanium to stone, or from computerized laser-cutting to hand-made joinery. It is, of course, possible to restrict yourself to the styles of the past, it's just not a very good idea. Watkin's inaccuracy was to identify all of modern architecture with a narrowmind of his theory. He was blind to the works of Frank Lloyd Wright (Fig2a), Mies van der Rohe (Fig2b), and Le Corbusier (Fig2c), who created beautiful works as they learned from and respected the past.

Fig2a: Walt Disney Concert Hall, Frank Gehry
Photo credit: https://archinect.com/news/article/150037318/frank-gehry-to-design-permanent-home-for-la-phil-s-youth-orchestra

Fig2b: Farnsworth House, Mies Van der Rohe
Photo credit: https://www.dezeen.com/

Fig2c: Villa Savoye, Le Corbusier
Photo credit: https://www.dezeen.com/

I came across a comment from a student on the blog (lifeofanarchitect.com), where people were stating reasons they wanted to become an architect.

"This may sound naive, but I'm excited about the possibility of improving lives through design. Regardless of the scale of a project, architecture impacts how people interact, and the better the design, the more positive that interaction can become. Externally, I'm also very interested in how architecture can affect wider society and the natural environment."

I think most of us can relate to feeling this way is school as I did too, excited about contributing to the world in some way. But it is of utmost concern how quickly this morality and passion is disregarded in practice. We talk about affecting humanity, but the truth seems that we are more than happy to see a developer purchase a large track of land and develop it so long as we get the job, regardless of it destroying the environment. Although it does seem justified because we we able to put millions worth of apartment complexes there and make some money. It seems that the more well thought out the design is, the more it is rejected by society. The projects that are intended to make people have a unique experience are largely disregarded by the very people we are trying to touch.

I feel like architecture has become more a part of the problem to issues of sustainability and improving society than the solution.As Zaha Hadid mentions in her interview with Times, "Architects have a higher moral duty than other artists, since they have the greatest power to shape society."