Projects like these are problematic because they do not answer the important question of how architecture is a crystallization of the society that creates it. Work of this type is simply about style and does not attempt to reflect the larger sociological and psychological conditions that are produced by contemporary culture. Moreover, by accepting that formal difference is an effective strategy of resistance they fail to develop a critical discourse on architectures manifestation in society.

A concept that frequently is discussed in current architectural discourse is that of fluidity. This phrase has been largely misinterpreted and is typically used to describe formal motives as opposed to organizational methods. Fluidity is the flexibility of space, the de-investment of territory, and the ability of an object or individual to maintain a constant state of adaptation. Fluidity does not necessitate formal complexity, it simply needs a developed structure to work within.

Fluidity does not require difference. The notion of difference is deeply rooted in peoples desire for the authentic. With the proliferation of Modernism, the search for authenticity has reached a fever pitch, as individuals scramble for definition in the vacuum of global economic culture. In the world of capital flows the authentic and formally unique are consumed and regurgitated as lifestyles. By using formal difference as a means of resistance, architecture is unable to adapt to the changing requirements of contemporary forces.

back/next