Reflecting on last week’s session, the matter of authorship remains a very complex one. Looking beyond a creation itself, one can wonder the intention of the author and how they execute it in their work. The author’s intentions, in turn, can play a vital role in defining an author’s style. In this new phase of the authorship argument, both intention and result have the potential of being polar opposites in the sense that one will never be entirely known to the spectator while the other one is. Together, both aspects are helpful in understanding the nature of a work; especially in a field such as architecture, where finished products lie at the intersection between the aesthetic and the functional.
Intention is frequently an ambiguous concept. In the field of literature, University of Siena professor Dario Compagno explores theorizations surrounding the topic, and questions the contemporary habit of dismissing the author and their capacity to manage meaning for a conscious end, favoring the expressed words themselves. The relationship between intention and meaning also varies frequently from theorist to theorist. On the one hand, it can be argumented that, since readers will never be able to fully grasp the intention behind a work, as they did not create it, the value of the writing should is unrelated to it. Therefore, what matters is the perceivable product, not the thought behind it. Within a literary context, this argument is malleable: poetry can present multiple interpretations to a reader. Another standpoint arguments that biographical information can provide further context to understand an author’s motivations. Perhaps the best way to picture the argument can be through the deconstructivist perspective, which proposes that there are no ideal and objective meanings: interpretation is a form of guessing, and these interpretations are subject to the person formulating them.
In an architectural sense, intention can also be inferred throughout architectural elements that may or may not constitute a style, as well as what is known from the designer’s process. In Frank Gehry’s case, his sculptural approach is open to multiple interpretations (Do Gehry’s curves have a reason to be? Is the goal to create unpredictability through an apparent lack of formality?) The action itself of questioning Gehry’s reasons may be futile, but what is clear is his style. Through the repetition of elements, specifically metallic curves in odd geometries, Gehry develops a recognizable identity, or brand, that is also profitable; a characteristic among so-called “starchitects”. Ultimately, the style itself does not define whether his buildings constitute “good” or “bad” architecture, as taste is subjective; instead, Gehry’s particular style is associated to authorship.
Finding intention in an architect’s work is different from doing it in a literary, artistic or musical sense. There is the objectivity of specific functions a building must respond to in an academic sense. The inspiration (and thus the question of authorship) behind a work, as well as its conceptual development, shed light on an aesthetic or experiential intention set by the designer. The way the designer executes their vision when designing then results in the development of a style, which is solidified through time and practice. But then again, who’s to say the presence of a recognizable style is synonymous or more important than quality?
References:
Dario Compagno. Theories of Authorship and Intention in the Twentieth Century: An Overview. Journal of Early Modern Studies, Firenze University Press, 2012, 1 (1), pp.37-53. hal-01846362
Comments