Question 10

Frampton makes the argument that architecture today must assume an arriere-garde position, that it must distance itself from both "high tech" and old sentimentalism. He argues that chasing new technologies has the danger of wiping out the cultural roots of a civilization, or as Frampton writes, "the ground in which the mytho-ethical nucleus of a society might take root has become eroded by the rapacity of development. In the same way, digital fabrication has the same dangers of producing by means of the technology available rather than from the society it is for. Frampton talks about Jorn Utzon's Bagsvaerd Church as an example of a building that is only partially successful at taking on the benefits of prefabrication. The outer prefab concrete in-fill panels are great and economical due to its universality but the interior reinforced concrete shell speaks to a foreign form that does not relate to Western culture, but instead to eastern culture. One of Frampton's fears is that universalization destroys culture. In my sociology class over the summer, we learned that globalization actually creates two opposite responses. It both creates a homogenization as well as a greater investment to cultural roots. The greater investment to cultural roots is exactly the result of Frampton's and others who shared his fears. Then one can argue that both responses to universalization is good. A forward movement to economy, as well as global, shared understanding, as well as a movement to preserve the societies roots. Essentially the question for architecture is, "Is architecture suppose to be primarily from the society or for the society?"