Architect + X

For this architectural theory class, which surveyed contemporary architectural practices, we were tasked with creating an Operating Manual—a standardized text that systematizes a particular approach to architecture. After studying 10 influential contemporary practices, our team developed Architect + X, arguing that architecture should not be confined to its own disciplinary references. By drawing from other humanities—such as art, anthropology, and philosophy—architects can reframe architectural value, fostering a more pluralistic and diverse discourse where unconventional ideas gain legitimacy.

Operating Manual.

Architecture itself is not enough.
In order to advance the discipline, the Architect + X looks to other humanities. By framing the work through the lens of another humanity, what may not be a good building can become architecture.

There is a long history of architects learning from other architects. The dogma and canon become revised and refined through generations, with new ideas becoming best practices, which become principles and axioms. However, an architectural discipline that only draws reference from architecture can only go so far.

The Architect + X is one who takes their individual interests in humanities to reframe what is important in architecture. An ugly building can be architecture because it situates itself as a participant of a larger ecology. A building with terrible circulation

can be architecture because it positions itself as art at the scale of the built environment. A vernacular building can be architecture because it describes itself as an anthropologic history of the local culture.

This embrace of architecture across the spectrum of the humanities allows individual inclinations and motivations to shape architectural narratives. It diversifies not just the built environment, but also the definitions of what architecture is. The Architect + X becomes a catalyst for the plurality of architectural expressions, fostering a landscape rich in diverse approaches and interpretations.

Breaking Down the Flowchart

1. Starting Question: "How do you want to work?"

- This initial decision splits into two main paths:
  - Research-based practice → Leads to historians, preservationists, analysts.
  - Production-based practice → Leads to artifact or system creation.

2. For Production-Based Architects: What Do You Produce?

If you produce artifacts, your work leans towards historical documentation or artistic expression.
If you produce systems, you design for humans, plants, or broader ecologies.

3. Interdisciplinary Paths of Architects (Architect + X)

Architect + Historian / Preservationist → Example: Johnston Marklee, Office of Urban Experiments (focused on documenting the past).
Architect + Ecologist → Example: James Wines, Oxman (focused on integrating nature into design).
Architect + Artist → Example: Anne Holtrop, Pezo von Ellrichshausen (focused on architecture as a form of artistic expression).
Architect + Storyteller → Example: Lesley Lokko (architecture as a narrative device).
Architect + Futurist → Example: Liam Young, Sean Lally (speculative, unbuilt projects envisioning alternative futures).
Architect + Activist → Example: Assemble, WAI Architecture (design as a political and social tool).
Architect + Anthropologist → Example: Kéré Architecture (looks at integrating indigenous knowledge into contemporary architecture.).
Architect + Sociologist → Example: Gustavo Utrabo (studyieshow people behave and interact in spaces, using architecture to enact social change.).
Architect + Analyst → Example: Forensic Architecture (uses architecture as an investigative tool).
Architect + Landscaper → Example: Catherine Mosbach, Scape Studio, Snøhetta (creates spaces that evolve with nature).

Questionnaires: Where Do You Fit?

Building on this framework, we developed a set of questionnaires designed to help architects, designers, and thinkers assess where they lean within this expanded definition of architecture.

For my individual submission, I explored the Architect + Artist identity—examining how architecture can transcend function and become an expressive, aesthetic, and conceptual medium.

Anne Holtrop, Suq al-Qaisariya Muharraq © identiy

Architect + Artist

Within the Architect + Artist paradigm, reframing architecture through art illuminates its nuanced appreciation and sparks contentious debates. Architects’ recourse to ‘art’ often blurs responsibility, unveiling a dynamic threshold where architecture transforms artistically, inviting scrutiny into this intersection’s complexities.

Architecture has long danced at the intersection of artistry and functionality, but few architects have truly bridged this divide as seamlessly as Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, and Frank Gehry. Their ventures into the realms of aesthetics, expression, and creativity set the stage for a deeper exploration of the symbiotic relationship between architecture and art.

Le Corbusier, a luminary in the realm of modern architecture, deviated from the norm by infusing his creations with the sheer joy of artistic expression. His designs weren’t merely functional structures but canvases for his artistic passion. Mies van der Rohe, a modernist architect and former Bauhaus director, delved into the world of collage and drawings through his publication, ‘G: Materials for Elemental Form Creation.’ These collages weren’t just visual compositions; they were contemplative explorations of form, texture, and space, reflecting the architect’s restraint and compositional finesse.

In a similar vein, Frank Gehry challenged architectural conventions by assuming the mantle of an architect-artist. His iconic Fish Sculpture for Barcelona’s 1992 Olympic ceremony wasn’t just a structure; it was a symbol of architectural audacity, a monumental embodiment of the architect’s artistic vision.

However, amidst this convergence of art and architecture lies a complex debate on subjectivity. Its implications ripple through the very core of design discourse, leaving a trail of contentious debates and heady contemplations. Architects often use the realm of art as a cloak, a shield behind which they can justify controversial or unconventional designs. Architects wield the term ‘art’ as a potent elixir, a concoction that absolves their creations of adherence to normative standards. But within this refuge lies a paradox—the intertwining of architectural responsibility with the liberation of creative expression. The label of ‘art’ sometimes serves as a guise, offering a refuge from the responsibility architecture holds. This raises pertinent questions: Does architecture inherently lack the space for human fallibility, subjective taste, or bold creativity? Why does architecture need the label of art to legitimize unconventional designs? When does architecture truly transcend into the realm of art, and does it inherently require such a designation?

Could it be that the discipline of architecture, grounded in functionalism and practicality, grapples with an inherent fear of deviation? Is the invocation of art an escape route—a safety net—allowing architects to transgress boundaries they would otherwise fear to tread? Or is it a liberation from the shackles of conventionality, an avenue for unbridled creativity in an otherwise regimented domain?

Subjectivity in architecture becomes a playground, a frontier where the human element, replete with its whims, biases, and audacious impulses, collides with the austere precision demanded by the built environment. It becomes the canvas where architects paint their ideologies, their aspirations, and sometimes their folly.

But does this dalliance with subjectivity come at a cost? Does the ‘lapse of judgment’ inherent in this approach erode the very essence of architectural responsibility? Or does it breathe life into sterile structures, infusing them with the warmth of human idiosyncrasies?

Within this confluence of art and architecture lies a labyrinth of inquiries, beckoning us to navigate the enigmatic relationship between the two disciplines. This convoluted interplay raises more questions than answers, challenging conventional perceptions and beckoning us to delve deeper into the essence of creativity, expression, and functionality within the built environment.

Anne Holtrop’s emphasis on ‘context’ signifies an intention to ground his creations within the specific environment they inhabit. His unique methodology involves tracing materials from the site onto the building, effectively weaving the history and construction process of the location into the architectural fabric. This deliberate act serves to imprint the essence of the site onto the structure, creating a dialogue between the building and its surroundings.

Holtrop’s preference for model-making over traditional drawings unveils a deeper engagement with the creative process. He values model-making for its immersive nature, as it allows him to intimately engage with the production process, unlocking unforeseen possibilities. This tactile approach not only aids in discovery but also enables him to appreciate the ‘ugliness’ or irregularities within a site. His willingness to embrace these imperfections fosters interpretations that transcend his singular vision, allowing for a multiplicity of readings—a deliberate choice to keep his work open to varied interpretations.

Anne Holtrop’s reshaping of architecture through the interactive process of imprinting the site onto the building and cultivating a deep relationship with the intrinsic qualities of the site vividly demonstrates his artistic inclinations within the realm of architecture. This deliberate fusion of context, materiality, and interpretive openness reflects an artist’s endeavor for originality and depth in architectural creation.

Johnston & Marklee’s departure from architectural conventions finds its roots in their engagement with the art world. Their immersion in the art world offers them a distinct perspective on architecture, free from the entanglements of architectural politics. This detachment fosters a pure and unbiased approach to learning, allowing them to absorb influences without prejudice and avoid succumbing to trends or the pressure of novelty.

Their belief that completed projects become subjects for diverse discourses and experiences underscores their acknowledgment of architecture as a conversational entity. They rely heavily on photography as a medium to encapsulate architectural narratives. They perceive photography as both limiting and liberating—an art that condenses vast concepts into singular or series of images. Despite its confinement, they view these images as gateways, situated between the tangible built environment and abstract ideas. Their belief in the image as an intermediary aligns with their broader philosophy—that images form the foundational language, residing between the realms of ideas and tangible entities. Their recognition of the mind and history as repositories of images further solidifies their perspective, elevating the image to a pivotal role in their architectural practice—a threshold to access deeper insights merging the tangible and conceptual aspects of architecture.

Johnston & Marklee’s non-dogmatic approach, drawn from their experiences in the art world, exemplifies the fusion of architectural creation with artistic contemplation. Their reliance on historical references, detachment from architectural politics, and use of photography transcend architecture’s immediate confines, shaping a discourse that enriches architectural narratives beyond the physical structures.

As outsiders, their perception of architecture is tinged with a sense of freedom. Despite the centrality of art in their practice, their outsider perspective allows them to approach the practise from a distance and engage in a unique architectural dialogue that intertwines artistic sensibilities with a liberated architectural approach.

Pezo Von Ellrichshausen’s contemplation on the relationship between architecture and art highlights a perpetual interplay. They acknowledge the human tendency to compare judgments between architecture and art, recognizing the inherent challenge in ascribing architectural or artistic value.

Their emphasis on ‘intentions’ as the essence of architectonic artistry underscores their belief in the necessity of purpose in architectural creation. They delineate intention as the fundamental artfulness within architectural artifacts, contrasting it with the notion of the ‘naïve’ as an artless object devoid of intentionality.

Moreover, their assertion that art cannot exist without intention aligns with their architectural ethos, emphasizing the indispensability of intention in creating meaningful architectural works. They hold firm to the belief that while producing architecture without explicit architectonic intentions might seem plausible, the absence of genuine purpose renders it incapable of achieving architectural excellence.

Pezo Von Ellrichshausen espouses the indispensability of intention in artistic creation, particularly in architecture. They ardently believe that the essence of a completed building should encapsulate, without differentiation, the intentions of the architect, other involved parties, and even serendipitous influences. Their unwavering stance asserts that while producing architecture devoid of explicit architectonic intentions might seem feasible, achieving architectural excellence necessitates a profound rationale and genuine purpose underlying the structure’s conception. This steadfast belief underscores their commitment to imbuing architectural works with intentional depth, considering it an inseparable element for the manifestation of remarkable architectural endeavors within the Architect + Artist paradigm.

The architects discussed—Holtrop, Johnston & Marklee, and Pezo Von Ellrichshausen—illustrate how the fusion of architecture and art broadens architectural narratives, redefines boundaries, and embraces diverse influences from the humanities. By intertwining architecture with artistic sensibilities and other facets of humanities, these architects redefine the discipline as an amalgamation of varied influences, each contributing a unique lens through which architecture is perceived.

This interdisciplinary approach redefines what constitutes ‘architecture’. A structure that might not fit conventional standards of a ‘good building’ is transformed into architecture when framed through the lens of another humanity—context, history, or intention. This reframing enriches architectural narratives, diversifies interpretations, and fosters a discipline that resonates with the complex tapestry of human experiences and expressions.