Saturday, 10 October 2009


I would like to suggest that ‘architecture’ is a rather vague term, and that ‘what is architecture?’ an even vaguer question. Throughout history architects have been tormenting themselves to define and answer such questions – hopelessly trying to tame the beast. Needless to say this will continue for all eternity. For me the question cannot truly be answered, that is not to a pure state, not least in the way the question (for this exercise) suggests it would like to be answered: written format. For me architecture is something simpler, or maybe it’s more complex [I’m not quite sure] but something far more intrinsic either way. It is simply an inner feeling - a human condition that engrosses every single one of us - architects and non-architects alike. It is because ‘architecture’ is so hugely personal - an experience - and what defines it is so impossibly subjective that one really shouldn’t even bother trying to clamp it down and define it. Equally I’d suggest that it’s not limited to ‘buildings’ it could be any form of manipulation of space - space being the key word - to create conditions. For me any ‘architecture’ that slaps, pokes, tickles, kicks, punches, caresses, or shakes the soul upwards, downwards and/or sideways for whatever [personal] reason, is SPECIAL.
I suggest we leave it at that.

An intervention: re-valuing what society has classified as ‘waste’ and is all too ready to discard. Slowing down a transient moment within the constant drone that is material turnover, thus exposing the materialistic condition of our present society.