Patrik Schumacher no es un arquitecto cualquiera, en todos los sentidos, es co-director de la Architectural Association de Londres y también socio de la oficina de Zaha Hadid, por lo tanto cuando realiza una declaración como la publicada en AR, el pasado 31 de enero, no hay nada de ingenuo en sus afirmaciones. A los dos días se produjo una buena carta de contestación, que hemos conocido gracias a Bart Lootsma, realizada por Lépold Lambert.
Aristóteles comentaba en su libro clásico para conocer la historia de la ciudad, "Política", que en la polis los únicos que tenían derecho a opinar eran los miembros de la polis, es decir, los políticos y señalaba que no eran políticos los esclavos, los extranjeros, los idiotas... Por tanto, coincidir en lo esencial con Léopold Lambert parece algo obvio, pero dado que el discurso de Lambert puede quedar menos visible lo traemos para que vosotros decidáis en este frío, frío, fin de semana.
”I also doubt that architecture could be a site of radical political activism. I believe that architecture is a sui generis discipline (discourse and practice) with its own, unique societal responsibility and competency. As such it should be sharply demarcated against other competencies like art, science/engineering and politics. Architects are called upon to develop urban and architectural forms that are congenial to contemporary economic and political life. They are neither legitimised, nor competent to argue for a different politics or to ‘disagree with the consensus of global politics’ (as David Gloster suggests).”
Patrik Schumacher. "Schumacher Slams British Architectural Education". The Architectural Review. / 31.01.2012 |
You believe that architecture cannot be a site of radical political activism; I would argue, on the contrary, that each architecture is actually a site of radical political activism. Most of them are indeed a radical embodiment and a violent implementation of the dominant power. However, some of them manage to transgress the rules of this same power, not by liberating themselves from the system, but rather, by operating and creating in the folds of matter of this very same system. Architecture is indeed a political weapon and it is never as effective as such -in favor for the established relationships of power- as when it is not thought as such.
My conclusion would therefore be that I agree with you about the fact that Architectural education has to be questioned and re-questioned; however, your realism that declares architects as non legitimized nor competent to address the political debate is a direct invitation to inhibit any critical attitude towards the relationships of power and of production that structure our society. I would therefore argue for the perfect negative of your project, whether you call it irrealism, idealism, utopianism or any other ‘isms’ that we thought we got rid of in the past.
Léopold Lambert. "# ARCHITECTURAL THEORIES /// Open-Letter to Mr. Patrik Schumacher: Yes, Architects are Legitimized and Competent to address the Political Debate". The Funambulist. 02/02/2012.
