<\/p>\n
Architecture vs. Architecture: A Manifesto <\/em>By Rainier de Graaf | Verso Books | $26.95<\/p>\n Since publishing his first book almost a decade ago, architect Reinier de Graaf has positioned himself as both an insider and an outsider, continually criticizing the architecture industry while maintaining a lucrative and successful role within it. Where is his last book? architect, verb: the new language of architecture<\/em>appeared to be a list of reasons why an architect might throw up his hand and declare that he was “done with” the profession, de Graaf’s Architecture vs. Architecture: A Manifesto<\/em>was published in March and, despite all its flaws, makes it clear that the author has no intention of abandoning the field.<\/p>\n The manifesto is divided into two sections and aims to spell out what is still wrong about the profession (such as long working hours and unreasonable expectations) and what could change (which is less clear). The opening chapter begins with an unsettling call to consider the company over the founder. Here, the author uses the example of David Adjei, who was reportedly fired following accusations of sexual misconduct and a “toxic work culture.” Rather than pointing out that their power is unchecked, De Graaf’s opinion can be read as a warning to these founders, pointing out that “when pushed into a corner, the system can be as cruel to those who have achieved great fame,” as it has been to those “sentenced to live in the shadows.” Reflecting on the fact that no legal charges were brought against Ajay, the author takes a sympathetic view. “His big flaw may be that he is, after all, a human being, and like all of us, prone to abuse of power when given too much power.”<\/p>\n Throughout the book, it becomes clear that this is a manifesto written by the boss, the person in charge. Although his previous writings showed an interest in and understanding of worker solidarity, socialism, and the concept of architecture producing substance rather than waste, the reality of his stature places this book in the category of continuity rather than revolution. Like the ramblings of tech and finance founders on some shitty podcast, this boss’s conclusion is that he should continue to be the boss.<\/p>\n The devil is in the details, and details are severely lacking here. He wonders if architecture is art, and concludes that it is art simply because he wants it to be. He ponders the “sustainability” trap and the need for more practical training, but neither can create a meaningful future. He has long understood that his profession has been replaced by developers, but the difference between the new additions to his work and his previous books is that he now seems to have settled into it. In a confusing chapter on his belief that architects should unionize, he argues that architects identify themselves as part of the “pure and simple working class.” As a side note, he makes a small note that his company denies unionizing. His concept of architects as a working class therefore comes across not as the enthusiasm that such a distinction is aimed at for broader material, but rather as the notion of bored substitute teachers organizing their classes into groups to perform activities that ultimately have no effect on grades or futures.<\/p>\n Then, in an unforgivable chapter that once again fails to reach any concrete conclusions, he proposes a deal with artificial intelligence: “Let’s rely on AI for matters of taste. The ultimate liberation of humanity will be to delegate pleasure.” I read that chapter completely flabbergasted, not knowing if he was joking or not. A quick look into his day job cleared up any ambiguity. The author designed a data center for a German artificial intelligence company in 2023 that is “a perfect synchronization of geometry and economics.”<\/p>\n It is not until the second half of the book that de Graaf leaves the memory. architect<\/em> teeth<\/em>to think about what exactly it is. architecture<\/em> teeth<\/em>that the critical talent he had previously shown had resurfaced. Here, his best ideas are clearer and more vivid. Specifically, his advocacy for an end to new building construction altogether and his emphasis on retrofitting rather than demolishing. But this reunion of focus and belief is constantly undermined by his current role in the world he seeks to critique. After all, his business depends on these ideas not coming to fruition. His company, OMA, continues to build new buildings, including in places where labor practices are routinely criticized, with no signs of stopping.<\/p>\n Similarly, whereas his reflections on social architecture previously felt explicitly in favor of architecture for the masses (his first book was a return to Marxist theory, so it was easy to forget that you were reading a book about architecture), his politics has been redistributed from the spatial and programmatic to a politics of material scale, zooming in on circularity as a path to a more radical architectural future. So the story that would have surely horrified the author of his old book, that material from the destroyed Palace of the Republic was used to build Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, now seems to be an inspiration to him. In his new book, he says the two buildings do not represent opposite ends of the spectrum of how capital and workers should be treated, but are simply “the whims of those in power.” By convincing himself that all buildings are the same, no matter how or by whom they are built, he convinced himself that all conditions are the same as well. The only difference is the choice of what results from these conditions. In other words, other bosses are deciding things just like you are.<\/p>\n This is both a nihilist proposition and a disgusting one. For de Graaf, the answer to how we continue to build a world where acting means doing more harm than good is simply to abandon the concept of good. “The true legacy of globalization is not world politics or even world trade, but a collective world beyond good and evil,” he writes at the end of his eccentric manifesto. “Choosing where to work or not to work is no longer a demonstration of morality. Navigating the world a la carte in hopes of keeping a clean conscience is a vain hope.”<\/p>\n There’s a word to describe the type of person who thinks this way, but it’s not an artist. If de Graaf’s goal is to completely demolish and rebuild the architecture, he will need the masses he has long lost touch with: the workers. architecture vs architecture<\/em> This is not a revolution, but a report on the current situation on the ground. To build means to make a profit. There is nothing to think about other than the construction of these four walls and their roof.<\/p>\n Lily Puckett is a writer based in New York City.<\/b><\/p>\n This post contains affiliate links. <\/em>bean paste Purchases made through these links may earn us a commission.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n