For the past two days we’ve been doing a Studio Six / Studio Two joint workshop, with Berlin architect/academic Mathias Heyden. It was about “A collaborative investigation on social and economical, political and cultural implications within designing the built environment”.
Central to Heyden’s discussion were the theories of Joseph Beuys, an artist who was famous for championing the healing potential of art and the power of a “universal human creativity”. Beuys was confident in the potential for art to bring about ‘revolutionary change’ and was famous for his statement “Everyone is an artist”. So in that sense he’s relevant to my project and whether an ‘artistic revolution’ in Garston can ‘heal’ the town. Beuys’ concept of “Social Sculpture” – in which society as a whole is regarded as a great work of art – is notable when considering Garston as a potential ‘Artistic Republic’.
Some of the questions we were considering were:
What kind of powers you see involved in and conditioning your design? How to determine what you – as an architect – are able to handle, and why, what for and when should others be involved; or even why, what for and when should certain aspects left to others alone?
An obvious and probably one of the most important aspects seems to be inter-human dialogue, even if this aspect is incorporated within neoliberalism and global capitalism today.
As part of the workshop, we were each asked to make a model to explore some unanswered questions. My model uses beermats from Krakow, Sheffield, and Garston, to refer to some of the project themes, with regard to the “powers” of investment and economy.
Beermats particularly refer to the historic importance of pubs in Garston as facilitators of community cohesion. Beermats are like tiny pieces of art. They’re indicators of global trade and advertising and commerce, while they’re also very personal and user-specific, each serving a prescribed function in a given scenario.
They’re all about tables. Like the SuperWindowTable, the beermat model is made from interlocking components, working together to make something. It starts to suggest spatial form, with planar elements arranged in a beermat tribute to Schroder House [arguably the most significant example of 'architecure as art'; typifying the 'De Stijl' movement, along with Piet Mondrian, et al].
The model can be read both at a 1/1 human scale [as beermat], and as an indication of a built form; something larger. But more than that, the study suggests a means of expressing a relation between art and advertising. It suggests the introduction of sponsors or private investment – which the project may need, to get off the ground.
Could the architect make a building as large-scale showcase for images and messages? Or at the opposite end of the scale, could the building and it’s message be disseminated, as a tiny piece of art on a beermat? Reaching new audiences in pubs across the city? Would it need a building at all?
