After a very demanding week I deem it necessary to wind down and talk about something unrelated to Architecture but I do want to tie it in at the end a little bit.
ALADDIN, you know...the Disney movie that recently came out. I found myself watching Aladdin to try and escape the vicious demands and terrible let-downs of my course. I was waiting for one helluva disappointment as live action movies are notoriously underwhelming compared to their animated original counterparts that they draw their inspiration from.
Here is a trailer to just get an idea of what we are about to dive into:
...but to my very pleasant surprise the movie was sophisticated. It dealt very deftly with mature themes and subject matter. One cannot help but equate Disney with childish content but what we do forget is that their content is made so the parents can enjoy it alongside their children.
As I was watching the movie it dawned on me that the writers did something extremely ingenious! The animals! The animals in the movie serve as extensions to the characters that own them. They do a seamless exchange of being companions and minions the one moment and being physical manifestations and representations of their subconscious selves. I do not know about you but this is a pure stroke of genius! I found myself asking myself; "do general movie-goers even pick this up? Do they have any idea the genius they are witnessing?"
Jasmine
This realization first occurred to me when I noticed that whenever Princess Jasmine was angry her tiger would roar and snarl in her place. When she was drawn to another character, alas Aladdin, her 'cat' would lick the character. When Jasmine felt combative her tiger would leap in for a physical fight.
Her being the Intelligent and mouthy Princess she is, is not moved by all of her suitors who are 'buying' her for her ravishing looks. No, she seeks mental stimulation and her greatest desire is not materialistic. She seeks adventure and freedom, which she finds in Aladdin. She does use sarcasm, to her father's dismay, to reply to the foolishness of her suitors and of course it does fly right over their heads.
Aladdin
As a thief and orphan, Aladdin has to steal to eat, as a means of fending for himself. He finds solace and companionship in his monkey. His monkey, akin to Jasmine's tiger, is an extension of his subconscious. Aladdin sees no problem stealing if he can justify it but he does have honour...a code so to speak. Whenever he is judged for his theft, like when he is scolded by Jasmine, he readily blames it on his monkey. Now the genius in this is that every time something is stolen and he deems it not okay to steal it's his monkey that is to blame. Coincidence? No.
In fact, his monkey stealing when it is not okay is the writers' way to illustrate that his monkey is his subconscious and he blames it. The reactions of the monkey when it gets reprimanded shift blame away from Aladdin and the audience sees it as being more forgivable.
The Vizier
The Sultan's Adviser has a parrot for an avatar. The adviser has a chip on his shoulder, one that comes from being undermined by the Sultan and being mere second. That and also growing up poor and wanting to have everything in the world he never had when growing up. The other stroke of genius is the choice of a parrot to be his pet. A parrot is essentially not capable of its own speech, it merely repeats and imitates. That is akin to the Vizier constantly issuing out the Sultan's instruction and never his own. He is essentially a puppet.
Other aspects of the movie I found impressive were Will Smith's performance. His 'Fresh Prince of Bel-Air-esque' performance really pulled the movie together. It became a conduit for the rest of the cast whose characters otherwise take themselves way too seriously and just were not gelling for people who stay in the same castle.
The last thing that I was impressed by was the use of themes that tackle real life issues that 'pegged the linen to the washing line' for me. The use of magic as a basis worried me as I do have qualms with conjuring of superstition, the metaphysical, and mystique to explain complex ideas or answer deep questions. I suppose that is why I hold the movie; Interstellar to such high regards(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSWdZVtXT7E). The themes were great anchors in that regard. They kept the movie on earth, if you know what I mean.
So...Architecture...How does it relate to all of the above? Let me get Frank Gehry out of the way first. It is no secret that I am no fan of his work. I am what our great urban poets would term 'A Hater'. I DO NOT LIKE HIS WORK!!! Admittedly, I have nowhere near his level of talent nor artistry but man I do not like his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.
Architects who give preference to form above function, I do tend to have an inclination to dislike their body of works. The fact that they are designing sculptures that are habitable, according to some that is debatable, bothers me. Those who have visited these behemoths report that they feel overwhelming, cold, so big they make you feel insignificant, complain about the internal climate etc. Okay rant over...
I think that the same applies to architects. Some architects, if not all, produce buildings that are extensions of themselves, their subconscious. I find that this is more so true for architects that design sculptures. I cannot, for the life of me, remember who I heard this from but somebody did describe it as 'A Dick Wagging Contest'.
If you look at Zaha Hadid's buildings they take on a very feminine aesthetic and feel to them. The curves and rounded edges of her buildings may reflect the urge of a female trying to plant a female flag on what one may regard as masculine soil. Basically her 'tiger'.
And then you get Architects that value function over form. This is probably owing to their altruistic and selfless personalities, but an extension of their subconscious nonetheless. My personal favourite; Renzo Piano's buildings make more sense to me, scale-wise, functionally, and climatically.
Here is a quick look at the functionality of the building;
I would much rather be in a building like this that allows me a connection to the outside world and has beautifully climate controlled conditions than being in a sculpture that boasts nothing but how it looks.
Just as in the Movie Aladdin, Architects' buildings are their pets. A physical manifestation of their egos and subconscious. So then I ask; Do we really design buildings for people to inhabit or do we design them to house our egos? Think on it...
Comments