Reaction to Architecture = Art + Building + People

Yesterday I received my first fairly strong reaction to Architecture = Art + Building + People on Facebook. A totally unexpected reaction in fact but one that I feel it's important for me to address directly so others don't have the same misunderstanding. As such I have decided to quote the reaction here:

"Nearly every seriously-trained anthropologist looks at "architecture" beyond being merely functional and pretty. Nearly everything I write about of heritage preservation in Cartagena and Luang Prabang involves attending to and working with a particular type of architect. It was actually kinda hurtful to me to read that passage ... It's really hard to find a serious anthropologist who doesn't understand that architecture is more than just ... function and appeal. There's two edited volumes entitled Architectural Anthropology. My best friend from high school is in an MA Program (trained in Architecture) is looking into MA programs that involve social scientific approaches to architecture. If you are going to distinguish yourself an architectural anthropologist people will expect you to have some grounding in the fundamental literature of the field. If you want to call yourself an anthropologist (and after five years of studying and six months of fieldwork, I'm not willing to) people are going to expect you to have a grounding in some of the fundamental texts of both field (anthropology and architecture). If you are not ... then you have to come up with some sort of justification. Until you can actually demonstrate how your work fits in with ... the vast array of architectural anthropology already produced ... your going to have trouble verifying your legitimacy. I'm just trying to help. But of course I'm only coming from one side of the perspective. I would highly suggest you at least read some of those authors ... they all present various anthropological perspectives on architecture, and none of them are exceptionally difficult to grasp. Bachelard's prose, actually, is quite beautiful and I think the most pertinent to your interest. It's like reading theory written in a delightful poem. I returned his book to the library this morning so it's there. (The Poetics of Space). It will be preeminently helpful to your MA Thesis, if not your career goals. At least the ability to drop his name will be."

There are a couple of things that I would like to say to address this reaction. To start at the beginning I in no way wished to criticize anthropologists. I think many of these critiques come from the poorly-written Introduction. Therefore I would like to look at my intro with a more critical eye. As I said in the paper itself "Spatial anthropology has become increasingly popular, but overall anthropologists are not accustomed to dealing with architecture." This particular reaction suggests that I may be incorrect in saying this last part of the sentence. Indeed this individual may be correct, though historically anthropologists have been much more interested in studying kinship patterns and a wide variety of things that don't include architecture. I do not wish to suggest this to be problematic, anthropologists can and should study everything. As just one example, my MA Thesis has turned to embracing business anthropology, a field which I think is extremely helpful and necessary. This is also true for marketing which has embraced anthropology in relation to product development and advertisements along with a wide variety of other types of anthropology which I do not wish to dwell on.

Continuing on with the paper itself this reaction draws on my next sentence which may have been poorly worded: "This disconnect between anthropology and architecture may be primarily due to the fact that up until now architecture only fulfills two roles for the anthropologist, function and art." I think it would be more correct to read: "This disconnect between anthropology and architecture may be primarily due to the fact that up until now architecture only fulfills two roles, function and art." For in reality these are the two roles that architects and architectural theorists have reserved for architecture. This has little if anything to do with anthropologists.

Also I believe this question to be problematic: "Would architecture then become something important to study?" This is not what I really want to say here at all. For I really am not interested in trying to get more people to study architecture. Ultimately that would be great but it is not my specific aim. My specific aim is to get people to help architects in their role of creating architecture. I also wish for architects to understand other fields (including anthropology but also psychology and sociology) and how these other fields affect the day to day work of architects.

Finally I also wish to address a key point brought up in this article. That being the amount of knowledge that I lack. Despite the fact that this may be disputed I do indeed embrace the fact that I am a practicing anthropologist. This is not based on the number of courses I have taken in the department of anthropology. What it is based on is the fact that I embrace anthropology in what I do and how I live my life. I have been using anthropological methods daily for the last 10 years of my life. I have lived in other cultures and "gone native" ending up marrying one of these locals and trying my hardest to change myself to embrace his culture. I have experienced culture shock to the nth degree. I have spent a large amount of time studying cultures and languages. I have written both a BA and an MA that rely on anthropological methods and theories. This does not allow me to say that I am the best anthropologist out there or the ideal model of an anthropologist. I am far from either of these. However I can and do look at the world with an anthropological eye.

As far as being an architect goes, I am anything but. I have taken a few classes in architecture and read a few books but never practiced it nor do I understand much about the process at all. I fully understand this as being problematic and wish to spend as long as it takes now to remedy this. I wish to get my PhD in architectural theory. In order to further this I wish to spend the coming year volunteering and working with architects, as well as taking classes at Archeworks so I can better understand the architectural process. Moreover I wish to go to conferences that embrace architecture in relation to other fields.

Finally it is important for me to note that I have not read very much and will also be spending as much time as possible fixing this issue starting as soon as I graduate from the University of Chicago. Any suggestions that anyone has with this regard are extremely helpful and necessary.