Story courtesy of 'The Age'. View the original article here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/auctioning-off-boyds-cultural-legacy/2007/07/02/1183351119479.html?page=2#
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
'The Age' Article, 3/7/07
Story courtesy of 'The Age'. View the original article here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/auctioning-off-boyds-cultural-legacy/2007/07/02/1183351119479.html?page=2#
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
It seems to me that the whole thing about the sale of this house has brought up the issue of what 'design' means to most people (including a lot of architects). Boyd was quite visionary in the way that he approached the whole idea of dwelling and the city, and this can be seen in his work, especially in this, his second house. He was interested in modes of living that were progressive and proposed alternatives to what preceeded him, and it seems that the legacy of a lot of modern architects of his time is the small (by todays' standards) dwelling. 'Design' for them had some sort of public component, some idea of the greater good, and often could be extrapolated to the scale of a suburb or a city, creating a variety of ways to achieve better ways of living. If one looks at the mainstream (read: non-architectural) press nowadays, the adventurousness and propositional aspects of design have by and large been lost. Instead, 'design' seems to have taken on the same meaning as 'status symbol', where expensive materials and fittings adorn essentially what are contemproary versions of Victorian mansions (more Italian marble, more anodised German aluminium with funky cast-iron trivets, more automation). It seems the idea of the 'public' seems to have gone out the window as well - what the 'haves' aspire to nowadays is entirely anti-public, with houses resembling small cities, whereby their occupants never have to engage with the public realm. Why would they have to? They have 4 car basement garages, home-cinemas, home gyms larger than most Hong Kong apartments, large kitchens with fittings that match the status of their euro R.V's, pools (sometimes indoor), studies (with no books) 27 bedrooms, etc. etc. you get the drift. The 'haves' used to do things like build universities, improve public services, make sure the museums stayed open. Design is now something you can buy, a comodity rather than an idea. Being interested in 'design' used to mean supporting the development of design education, or the encouragement of public egs of good design. Boyd was interested in this, and worked hard to promote this approach. Boyd's house is certainly a shining example of what design can be, of new ideas that can be put forth through design, and it should be saved for the good of both the design profession as well as the public, preserved as a reminder of what good design should be about. Maybe the designers of some of those fully automated houses-as-citadels (with full defensive and security connotations) should be lobbying their clients who claim to be interested in design to put their money where their mouths are and actually contribute to the public promotion of progressive design through the preservation of its legacy.
Post a Comment