Style | Daily Prompt: No, Thank You

watches 01

If I could permanently ban a word from general usage, which one would it be? Since I write about architecture, the word that first came to mind is style.

I’ve been clear all along I don’t like this word. It’s not that I don’t “like” style or that I can’t understand why people use the term. Admittedly it is difficult to describe the visual qualities of architecture without a simple term that endeavors to encompass the overall look into a single word or a means to liken works of architecture with others.

However, that’s part of the problem.

Trying to boil down a work of architecture into a single word is trying to describe your wife/husband, child, Mom or your faith or something else very important to you into one single word. I find it difficult or unfair to liken a work of architecture with another. How can you qualify one building against another, especially if it is only through a photograph or simple visual cues?

The other reason I dislike the word is people (innocently) see the visual characteristics of architecture as merely that, a style. It is as if the designer merely adds make-up or a cloak over top of a functional box and dares call it architecture. One could take the “jacket” of one style off and replace it with another. Do you think I’m kidding; look around people? It happens all of the time. One of the frustrating questions I’ve gotten is from someone looking at a (suburban) house from the late 20th century and asking me “what style is this house?” I think they’re expecting a term like Colonial, French Chateauesque or Greek Revival. I’m sorry, but your house is none of those and I really don’t have a term for it.

Where is the experience, the mood, or other measures for how architecture works and makes one feel or behave in their setting? How do the visual elements work in concert with the functional elements? Are all objects just pasted on in the mind of the public? Don’t we as architects have the responsibility to include elements not just for mere looks but to serve a purpose or achieve another goal?

watches 02

Don’t misunderstand me now. I don’t find a conflict in good looking architecture for the sake of it looking good. People hire us for that sometimes. I do believe in branding and that architecture can give a business an image, serve to lend identity and that in turn can make the business or institution more successful. Colors and other visual qualities do impact our moods and behavior. However, that is part of the functional aspects of visual elements. But is that all the visual characteristics do?

I think the word style gets in the way of people understanding what architects really do. Perhaps its innocent perhaps it’s amoral, but people want choices. They like what they like and when they choose a building, a car, their hairdo or even lunch they want a certain quality to it that is typically described as style.

Frankly, I find it limiting. As soon as we state a “style”, then aren’t we constrained by the definition of that style, the rules of that style and the materials of that style? It shuts off the opportunity of knowing where the architecture could go based on more important criteria. On the other hand, our historic styles have been mutated and stretched beyond their rules by so many 20th and now 21st century designers decision makers to where we have lost a particular style’s true meaning. Again, this adds to my extreme dislike.

Is it more trouble than it’s worth? Does it cause confusion and misunderstanding? What does it bring to architecture? There’s no need to apologize for what looks good to your eyes. I understand you like things and don’t like things. I do too. However, I bet it’s not the style you like, it’s probably something else. Talking about that something else will have to wait for another day. Just don’t ask me about style.

watches 03

photos are from bjearwicke’s stock photo gallery on Stock.Xchng (used under the Standard Restrictions)

Advertisements
Style | Daily Prompt: No, Thank You

6 thoughts on “Style | Daily Prompt: No, Thank You

  1. I agree with some of what you say, but writing about architecture for almost 17 years, I’ve never known an architect to like the word style. The problem is, though, many of those architects (not all of them ) HAVE a style. I often can tell you what architecture designed a house before I’m told the name. Despite what many architects say, a lot of them have THEIR style rather than A style. Or they use materials in a similar way on houses or buildings.

    When consumers use style, i think its just because they dont know what else to use. Consumers are not educated in design or architecture, so the only thing they have to go by is style. A friend of mine likes the style of production houses, even though I tell him those homes are bad examples of traditional work.

    1. I don’t disagree with your point about “A style”. It is difficult not to use the word style or not to think in terms of style. I just prefer to stay away from it at the beginning because it puts the focus on the wrong elements too early in the process.

      I’m told my work is most associated with a style, but I don’t “think” in a style, my eye just prefers certain arrangements and certain compositions that put me in a certain camp.

      The overall point is people have deeper reasons for liking certain styles and they tend to like more than one style. When we talk about historic styles, I’d rather be a purist. Trying to superimpose “dead” styles on contemporary “production” homes has lead to a lot of bad looking houses. It’s also wreaked havoc on our suburban commercial strips too.

  2. Totally with you. I often say that there is no such thing as style in architecture to which I get very strange looks. Particularly from Town Planners, urban designers. The need to define will restrict. It aslo shows a basic misunderstanding about what design is. Style in architecture is for critics, journalists and historians. But the people who make it …..well its defined as architecture. Nothing more, nothing less…We have a problem in the west because we only see whats on the surface. We dont feel anymore…

Please leave a reply, and consider sharing this with a friend.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s