Jenna Hosier / IDC 4001H Maciuika / February 17, 2014
Sudjic offers every possible answer to the main question of Chapter 1: “Why We Build”. Emotional and psychological purposes, ideological and practical reasons, to project power, and to give shape and form to political and religious impulses, all are the culprits in why buildings are structured. However, that does not enlighten us much. Of course there are varying answers to this question, but Sudjic seems to focus his argument around the projection of power.
I understand Sudjic wanted to use Saddam Hussein as an illustration of how a political figure can utilize architecture to assert, and in a sense validate, his power; nevertheless, I feel as though the entire discussion on Hussein could have been left out and Sudjic could have arrived at his main points a lot quicker.
That being said, Sudjic raises attention to important issues and questions concerning architecture in The Edifice Complex. For instance, can the architects and what they produce be separated from the patron and their actions? Can the art be appreciated aside from the political agenda that drove its creation? Furthermore, are certain styles of architecture indicative of certain governmental structures or national symbols, and can those meanings change throughout history? Sudjic also touches upon the media’s tendency to extrapolate, and how media can influence the meaning of architecture.
Overall, I feel Sudjic’s The Edifice Complex intention to explore the significance of architecture and how our lives are literally impacted by our interactions in architectural spaces is on point, but I find faults in his reasoning for why buildings exist.
Sudjic seems to completely overlook any ability for architects to think for themselves. They are just at the mercy “of those with their hands on the levers of power”. It is simply in architects’ biological makeup to make their mark on the land, no matter what that mark may be; he even goes as far as comparing them to salmon “making one last exhausting upriver trip to spawn before expiring”. I do believe it is true architects want to make a mark on the landscape with a building, but I will not stand by and say they will do so at the expense of their artistic integrity.
And I feel Sudjic somewhat contradicts himself by claiming that architects will latch on to any project offered to them simply to make a mark (I say “a” mark, not “their” mark, because according to Sudjic they have little power over what is constructed, they are simply their to execute the project). He contradicts this stance when he questions the outcome if Hadid had indeed been hired to design Hussein’s mosque, “But would Hadid- in the unlikely event that she had been asked, and the even more unlikely event that she had accepted – have been seen as playing a part in reasserting a more civilized Iraq?” If it were true that architects are just striving like salmon to spawn buildings onto the land, then there should be no doubt that she would have accepted Hussein’s offer.
Aside from Sudjic’s questionable stance on the role of architects and their motivations in creating buildings, I found this reading enjoyable; digging in to the rooted issues regarding architecture and its role in society at large.
