philosophy

I find these diagrams fascinating. While they have helped me understand and extract valuable information about my own design and political compass in the global scene, they don’t fully apply to my constellation, as I come from a different land and era. However, they have definitely helped me pave a path and develop other diagrams for myself. MP

source : https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/jencks-theory-of-evolution-an-overview-of-20th-century-architecture

Through a set of mind maps-diagrams, Charles Jencks provides an insightful and creative overview of the architectural landscape in the 20th century, examining the rise and fall of movements, key figures, and architectural innovations. The article highlights the complexity of the century’s architectural narrative, which defies a single, linear story. Instead, it is portrayed as a turbulent and competitive drama driven by social movements, technological advances, and individual creative forces.

Key Insights:

The ‘10-Year Rule’ of Reinvention: Jencks emphasizes the cyclical nature of creativity among major architects of the 20th century, such as Mies, Le Corbusier, and Gehry, who reinvented themselves every decade to stay relevant. This reflects the constant evolution of the profession in response to shifting societal and technological forces.
Le Corbusier’s Influence: Jencks explores Le Corbusier’s enduring impact, noting his ability to adapt across multiple architectural traditions throughout his career. His work spanned several periods, from the Heroic Period of the 1920s to the symbolic architecture of Ronchamp and the High-Tech movement, cementing his reputation as a dynamic force in architecture.
Architecture as a Reflection of Turbulent Times: The 20th century’s architectural creativity was heavily influenced by the tumultuous global events, including wars and technological revolutions. The constant shifts in style and fashion, driven by both individual visionaries and mass movements, contributed to a fragmented but vibrant architectural landscape.
The Role of Non-Architects in Shaping Architecture: Jencks highlights that much of the architecture produced in the 20th century was not the result of individual architects but stemmed from broader societal forces such as building regulations, mass housing, and economic imperatives. These larger processes often went unrecognized in architectural discourse.
Ecology and Architecture: The environmental movement became a shared concern across architectural traditions, with different schools of thought—including Classical, Post-Modern, and High-Tech—adopting ecological principles in their designs. This marks a significant shift towards sustainability, transcending traditional divides.
Gaudi as a Creative Standard: Jencks presents Antoni Gaudí as one of the most creative architects of the century, surpassing even Le Corbusier in his ability to merge art, craftsmanship, and architecture. Gaudi’s use of structural innovation, combined with deep symbolic meaning, set his work apart, making him a standard of creative architectural genius.
The Influence of Corporate and Government Forces: Jencks discusses how corporate Modernism, shaped by economic forces and patronage, became dominant after World War II. This style, though powerful in terms of output, lacked the creativity and depth seen in earlier movements.

Jencks’ article paints a picture of the 20th century as a constantly shifting and highly dynamic period in architecture, marked by rapid change, creative reinvention, and competing ideological and technological forces. The legacy of this era is not just in iconic buildings but also in the larger forces that have shaped the built environment.

Published in Charles Jencks’ article “In what style shall we build”. Architectural Review, 237(1417), March 2015, 90-101. [Charles Jencks usually mentioned that these maps were free of copyright so they could be an open source for further developments]

Published in Charles Jencks’ article “Jencks’s Theory of Evolution: an overview of twentieth-century architecture”. Architectural Review, 208(1241), July 2000, 76-79.

other references> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338555839_Six_Traditions

ARTICLE REVIEW

https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5853/c564/e58e/cebf/5700/0221/slideshow/161101_Political_Compass.jpg?1481885005

find the diagram in the link in the source magazine. The full political compass diagram (Version 0.1) produced by Alejandro Zaera-Polo and Guillermo Fernandez Abascal. Image © Alejandro Zaera-Polo & Guillermo Fernandez Abascal

The article “Architecture’s ‘Political Compass’: A Taxonomy of Emerging Architecture in One Diagram” offers a fascinating look at how the architectural landscape has shifted in response to the political and economic challenges of the post-2008 world. The authors set out to categorize the emerging architectural practices by political inclination, developing a “political compass” that attempts to map these practices within a broader ideological context.

It breaks down seven broad political positions within architecture that have gained prominence in the years following the financial crisis:

Activists – Architects who reject the market-driven approach, focusing on community building, direct construction engagement, and alternative funding strategies.
Populists – Those who aim to reconnect with the public through diagrammatic forms that are media-friendly and easy to digest.
New Historicists – Responding to the neoliberal “end of history” narrative, these practitioners embrace historically-informed design.
Skeptics – A return to postmodernism, with a focus on contingency, playfulness, and the use of artificial materials.
Material Fundamentalists – A reaction to the spectacle of pre-crash architecture, these architects emphasize a tactile, material-driven approach.
Austerity Chic – Architects who focus on the production process and the resulting performance of architecture, emphasizing simplicity and functionalism.
Techno-Critical – These architects use advanced technologies like parametrics but critically engage with these tools, offering speculative architectural forms.

Some practices embraced the categories, while others offered alternative political stances like “Utopian” or “Pragmatic. While the exercise was clearly ambitious, the authors highlight that the reluctance of some practices to accept fixed political stances indicates the fluidity and complexity of contemporary architecture. Many practices, particularly those categorized as “Activists” and “Populists,” expressed dissatisfaction with their placement, suggesting that their work is more nuanced and doesn’t fit neatly into these predefined labels.

What stands out from this experiment is the growing interest in the political dimensions of architectural practice and the desire for more ideological engagement within the field. Interestingly, many practices indicated a preference for positioning themselves in the center of the diagram, suggesting that hybrid, less rigid stances are becoming more common in contemporary architectural discourse. There was also a notable reluctance from Asian practices to engage, possibly signaling a disconnect between Western-centric political categories and global architectural trends.

This experiment provides a valuable lens through which to view the evolving political and ideological dimensions of architectural practice. However, it also reveals the difficulty of neatly categorizing these practices, as architecture today seems more fluid and open to new forms of engagement than ever before.

How would this diagram look like today?

https://www.archdaily.com/801641/architectures-political-compass-a-taxonomy-of-emerging-architecture-in-one-diagram

Tag: philosophy

Jencks’ theory of evolution, an overview of 20th Century architecture, 12 July 2000 By Charles Jencks Archive

Architecture’s “Political Compass”: A Taxonomy of Emerging Architecture in One Diagram by Alejandro Zaera-Polo and Guillermo Fernandez Abascal