Psychology, history, and art are all intertwined in Deyan Sudjic’s fascinating read: The Edifice Complex. Sudjic claims that architecture is used as a tool for the rich and powerful to mold the environment to comply with their worldview. While I do agree that it only these few people have the means to hire architects to alter the cityscape, this does not mean that every building will continue to hold its intended significance.
I think that Sudjic focuses too much on the people commissioning the architect and not enough on what the building is actually used for. I mean, consider a beautiful old Manhattan mansion that has been converted into a popular bar (please tell me if this exists, it sounds awesome). While I’m sure that there were all kinds of considerations that the architect had while building the stately manor for his patron, today’s generation would see it as a cool hangout. And so that mansion changes from a testament of wealth and prestige into a casual place to meet up with friends.
Landmarks end up being visited by many different people from different cultures who do not know of the patron’s original intentions. And so, to Mr. Sudjic, I would counter-posit that architecture does often end up being shaped by the many. Maybe initially the wealthy determine the function of the structures being designed, but as generations pass the people will decide for themselves what the architecture means to them. As subjective as art is, its impossible for it to be making a single, unchanging statement to humanity.
