Aesth | ethics
The anniversary marking one year since the Grenfell Tower disaster has now been and gone. Most survivors have yet to be permanently rehomed[1]. The cladding material that transformed the 23-storey government housing tower into a chimney, well, it is still used in construction today.[2],[3] Seventy-two dead and yet, no culpability? Despite lodged complaints regarding fire escapes and accessibility, the government pressed forward with the superficial refurbishments, not only catalysing the death trap, but ignoring the actual issues, favouring instead a band-aid solution to cover up the ‘eyesore’ of the dilapidated façade[4] (Fig. 1). An emblem of how 20th century design permitted socioeconomic status to dictate living conditions, this tale unfortunately is not new. We all now know profit margins have replaced fundamental civil rights. Yet, it does not have to be this way.
Aesth | ethics demands a rebrand; a new architecture. There must be an educational reform to challenge the ethical character of every tertiary student come future-architect. What is architecture? What should architecture do? Should these not be questions we interrogate prior to being given the green light for creating a public development, addition or revision that ultimately shapes the way we live? Through an understanding of good intention and right action, Aesth | ethics does not shy away from such questioning. Imagine an architecture that helps society; Aesth | ethics does. However, first it is necessary to hear the story of how we arrived at Grenfell. Without recognising this history, acknowledging too our own complicity, the architect is at risk of merely becoming an execution artist for the corrupt. We are all culpable.
Since the Age of Enlightenment, Western thought has been globally colonising the deepest recesses of society. However, when brewed with the second wave of industrialisation at the turn of the century and unshackled from the preordained traditions of neoclassicism and Beaux-Arts, architects soon fell into an existential crisis. Consequently, some, captivated by ideas of utopianism took to redesigning modern life, as can be seen in Le Corbusier’s Ville Contemporaine in 1922[5], followed by Yona Friedman’s Ville Spatiale in 1958.[6] Despite neomorphic in design and futile in built outcomes, this deep-dive into fantasy resemblant of science-fiction futurity created an unprecedented desire to reimagine the city of tomorrow. Whilst opening a field of discussion regarding urban growth and the role of modern capitalism, as well as environmental degradation, both projects essentially boiled down to one solution: build vertically.[7]
And we did, no matter the cost. The skyscraper itself has long been equated to progress and economic status, beginning well before Mies van der Rohe’s futuristic sketches of Friedrichstrasse in 1921.[8] In medieval Edinburgh, aristocrats occupied only the upper floors of tenement buildings, above tradespeople and commoners, avoiding the stench from the street sewers below, potentially, one of earliest historical references of vertical segregation of upper and working classes.[9], [10] Hundreds of years later, Grenfell Tower’s burning façade besmirching the architectural discipline reminds us we have yet to address issues of inequality and indifference within social, political and economic facets of design. Where are our ethics? Architecture must regain its duty.
Architectural theory has long borrowed conceptual ideas and terminology from Western philosophy, albeit, rarely in the branch of morality. In the early 1920s, Edward Bernays, inspired by Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytical theories of the unconscious, believed it was possible to harness the biological drivers and desires of society for corporate economic benefit.[11] Bernays converted free-thinking individual citizens into passive mass consumers by carrying forth manipulation and persuasion techniques formulated in wartime propaganda into peacetime.[12] Architecture soon became concerned with selling a lifestyle, not a building.
Moral philosophy on the other hand, or the study of what is right or just, good or virtuous supplies a neutral lens of critical inquiry and reasoning in attempt to answer central questions concerning how ought we to live?
According to Michael Sorkin, Phillip Johnson, one of the first to embody the pseudo-role of architect-come-marketing-executive, created a “deluge of well-orchestrated publicity” to deflect from the rather derivative and lifeless design of his AT&T Building, yet nevertheless garnered acclaim as radical, provocative and daring.[13] Johnson, in the wake of Bernays’ public relations-led society, commercialised the idea of architecture (Fig. 2). Architectural representation, especially the perspective render, became pivotal in selling to the public a lifestyle. Yet, as Sorkin highlights, such illustrations became tools of immoral deception, with Johnson’s AT&T rendering depicting a “monumental vista that real life would never offer.” [14]
So, it follows the generation of architects trailing the legacy of Johnson, concerned with unearthing a new stylistic movement with an influence akin to modernist or post-modernist epochs, became shamelessly egoic. Educated in the art of self-promotion, they pursued concepts of architecture-as-brand and architecture-as-logo, fashioning what we now refer to as starchitecture. Yet, despite having some element of fame, starchitects have failed to deliver a voice outside their own echo-chamber. In fact, the work of this generation, of the Bjarke Ingels’, Zaha Hadid’s and Frank Gehry’s (Fig. 3), will not only be considered passé in years to come, but will be branded culturally insensitive, responsible for gentrification and ‘whitewashing’ on a global scale. Starchitecture has become the self-appointed disciple of contemporary architectural colonisation.
Preoccupied by career trajectories and corporate backed Pritzker Prizes, the notion of property development slid into the crevices of the architectural discipline, siphoning power away not only from the architect, but so too from governing bodies[15]. With almost no push back, architects began to design for warranty and administrate for corporations. Greed ensued, and supply began to predate demand. Unfortunately, a sentiment still alive in the Ghost Towns of China today (Fig. 4). And, in a reaction to this diminishing power, governments globally have added more bureaucratic red-tape, whilst regulating only bare minimums. Corporate architecture and development overlords capitalising on this weakness continue to request dispensations on such short standards, usually related to accessibility, safety or emergency.
Clearly, we are not able to trust a revolution will synthesise in the hands of officials or policy makers, a sentiment Grenfell knows personally. In fact, much like Alexei Yurchak’s anthropological theories of hypernormalisation in the Soviet Union during the late-half of the twentieth century, architects, unable to imagine a real alternative to the failures of the built environment and the aftermath of modern industrialisation resigned to the delusions of a functioning society.[16] The complexity of issues ensured the preference of a ‘fake world’ over the real. In fact, today individuals are disconnecting from reality at an alarming and unparalleled rate, favouring their own architectural builds in the virtual sandbox cyber-realities of Minecraft or Second Life, over our own built environments. Yet, in order to avoid all future Grenfell’s, the revolution must be real.
Aesth | ethics will be just that; a revolution. From the ashes of Grenfell Tower arises a new definition of architecture. No longer solely the summation of design and construction, architecture must ask how ought we to design? Currently, tertiary architectural education teaches us how to rationalise not rethink. And so, Aesth | ethics will be implemented here. It will not be a one-hour professional development seminar you can half-attentively consume to gain annual currency for registration. It will be a complete educational reform. History, design and codes of conduct embodies the extent of what we are currently taught. If you are lucky, maybe you have skim-read construction technologies. Aesth | ethics does not care how you design. Nor what you design. It is an introduction to the why of designing architecture; an epistemological inquiry.
So, why design architecture? Aesth | ethics posits architecture is created to shelter, not just physically, but conceptually also. Architecture must move beyond the political and economic issues of the time, and not be a direct embodiment of them hindering social progress. Let us think ethically. However, to do so we must embrace the findings of applied ethics, one of the major divisions of the ethical landscape, analysing the application of moral norms to specific issues.[17] More specifically, let us borrow lessons from the three major normative theories[18]; utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics.
Utilitarianism, coined first by Jeremy Bentham and developed further by John Stuart Mill, affirms the right decision is the one that directly produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number.[19] A form of consequentialism, classic utilitarianism posits morality ought to be judged by consequences alone.[20] Good effects colour an action right, no matter the will. Despite rarely overlapping with the fundamental workings of the justice system, granted this isn’t necessarily a praiseworthy benchmark, utilitarianism compels the intellect to think more altruistically.[21] With impartiality at its core, Bentham’s ethics offers not only an antidote to discrimination, considering the interests of all beings equal, it also promotes beneficence and human welfare.
Corners cut that permitted the approval of Grenfell’s external cladding bereft of fire performance test evidence (Fig. 5), well, they surely wouldn’t have passed any sort of utilitarian ethical considerations; the risk would have overshadowed almost any justification. Not to mention that the same risk would have been adopted by the body corporate who silenced tenants concerns prior to the tragedy.
So it goes, utilitarianism offers architecture an unbridled dedication towards social-egalitarianism. Designing for accessibility would no longer be reduced to an afterthought given to gain compliance certification. Granting the simplicity and accessibility of this theory it remains however, that the time taken to calculate the right course of action could deter most. And unfortunately, standing alone it does not offer a solution to our current failings.
The second and potentially more well-known ethical theory, in direct opposition to consequentialism, deontology, introduced by German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, centres around the duty and obligation of an individual to follow the moral law.[22] Kant believed right is achieved through goodwill alone.[23] And yes, the rules, principles and imperatives intertwined in Kantian ethics are demanding and unyielding. Yet, no matter the typology, architecture is a mass public intervention and should not be approached lightly.
Stating that “it is our duty to better ourselves,” deontology extends a lens to rethink our hedonism.[24] Say goodbye to the self-interests of starchitects. Universal by nature, deontology would overwrite cultural and subjective relativisms throughout architecture harbouring unfairness and inequality. No, you will not receive dispensation; such a notion doesn’t pass either utilitarian or Kantian reasoning. Nevertheless, goodwill itself cannot defeat the tyrant. Nor will consequentialism kill corruption.
Aesth | ethics rests between both frameworks. It argues for good intention expressed through right action. Asserting the Confucian adage, “Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you,”[25] this framework asserts non-attachment (balancing individual needs with those of others), benevolence and knowledge. More than rules to be followed, it hopes to create right motivations and reasons behind the decisions of architects. But how is one to know what the right action is? True, there will never be just one answer to this question. For Alejandro Aravena and his collective ‘Elemental’, the idea of half-completed incremental social housing (Fig. 6) meant a solution to the financing problems of Chile.[26] Yet, unfortunately, such a project has “paradoxically reproduced what it tries to fight,” [27] rendering the welfare-dependent inhabitants as second-class citizens.[28] However, Aesth | ethics importantly also calls upon teachings from the third prong of ethical inquiry, virtue ethics. Stating “the unexamined life is not with living,” Socrates, one of the founding fathers of virtue ethics, advocates for self-education, asserting morality is achieved through the transformation of character, or rather, virtuous actions stem from a virtuous person of virtuous character. [29] As such, Alejandro Aravena’s project has in fact highlighted the very failings of Grenfell; we can no longer expiate our mistakes onto the needy. From the fires of Grenfell, we must rebirth a new ethical pheonix; may Aravena learn from his mistakes. Blending the philosophies of utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics the new Aesth | ethics framework calls for a revolution within tertiary architectural education, schooling students in how to express good intention through right action. Aestheticism will take a backseat to ethical considerations, and architecture will regain its morality through the transformation of the character of to-be-architects.
Allowing ideas such as architecture-as-product, -as-logo and -as-brand to dilute our duty, we are now facing a “disillusioned, disenfranchised and despondent underclass.” [30] In pursuit of the Pritzker bronze-medallion we have alienated our own public and segregated communities through ignorant design and the creation of architecture-for-architects-sake. Aesth | ethics ethical architecture offers an answer not only to social reform and economic division, but many other areas not yet explored such as resource depletion, environmental degradation, sustainability and urban growth.
The revolution must be morally woke.
[1] "Four out of five Grenfell families still need homes, says support group," The Guardian, last modified December 7, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/07/grenfell-families-need-home-support-group.
[2] "Grenfell Tower: fire-resistant cladding plan was dropped," The Guardian, last modified May 8, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/08/grenfell-tower-more-costly-fire-resistant-cladding-plan-was-dropped.
[3] Seraphima Kennedy, "Grenfell was a foreseeable, entirely preventable, tragedy. Here’s the proof," The Guardian, published August 4, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/04/grenfell-tower-prentable-tragedy-proof-warning-combustible-cladding.
[4] Kennedy, "Grenfell was a foreseeable, entirely preventable, tragedy.”
[5] "Le Corbusier, Ville Contemporaine," MoMa, last modified 2018, https://www.moma.org/collection/works/558.
[6] "Yona Friedman, Spatial City Project," MoMa, last modified 2018, https://www.moma.org/collection/works/800.
[7] "Spatial City," Architectuul, last modified February 12, 2017, http://architectuul.com/architecture/spatial-city.
[8] "Friedrichstrasse Skyscraper Project, Berlin-Mitte, Germany," MoMa, last modified 2018, https://www.moma.org/collection/works/787.
[9] "Scotland's History: Tenement Housing, Carnegie Street, Edinburgh," National Records of Scotland, last modified 2018, https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/article/tenement-housing-carnegie-street.
[10] Stana Nenadic, "The Rise of Edinburgh," The BBC, published February 17, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/scotland_edinburgh_01.shtml.
[11] Hypernormalisation, directed by Adam Curtis (United Kingdom: BBC Films, 2016), DVD.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Michael Sorkin, Exquisite Corpse: Writing on Buildings (London: Verso, 1991), 12.
[14] Sorkin, Exquisite Corpse, 13.
[15] Hypernormalisation, directed by Adam Curtis.
[16] Alexei Yurchak, Everything Was Forever, until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006), 79.
[17] Lewis Vaughn, Beginning Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2015), 17.
[18] Vaughn, Beginning Ethics, 103.
[19] William M. Taylor and Michael P. Levine, Prospects for an Ethics of Architecture (New York: Routledge, 2011), 19.
[20] Ibid.
[21] "The History of Utilitarianism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, published March 17, 2009, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/.
[22] Vaughn, Beginning Ethics, 120.
[23] Ibid.
[24] "Immanuel Kant," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, published March 20, 2010, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/.
[25] "Confucius," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, published July 3, 2002, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
[26] “Inequality is Elemental,” Fabian Barros, ARKRIT, last modified November 28, 2015, http://dpa-etsam.aq.upm.es/gi/arkrit/blog/la-desigualdad-es-elemental-conjeturas-ideologicas-para-una-critica-a-quinta-monroy/
[27] Ibid.
[28]Sukjong Hong, “Can Half a Good House Become a Home?,” New Republic, last modified June 15, 2016, https://newrepublic.com/article/134223/can-half-good-house-become-home
[29] Vaughn, Beginning Ethics, 155.
[30] McNair, Brian et al. Politics, Media and Democracy in Australia. (New York: Routledge, 2017), 62.