The Revitalist

Does architecture define our own personal views? As Pogrebin argues in his article, “I’m the Designer. My Client’s the Autocrat”, all architecture has ulterior motives in many spheres—be it financial, political, religious—architecture is not architecture without contextual purpose.

Still, many architects believe they can separate themselves from the context and design simply for the sake of design. Consider many of the great buildings throughout history—most encompassed some political or religious ideal. Even within the movement of humanism, powerful merchants used the archetypes of the time to raise their status and power. We could even argue that much of significant architecture, which remains, is such because of its surrounding context. Perhaps it even remains because of its context—consider the basis of preservation initiatives.

But, the ethics of designing for a nation or person whose actions or beliefs you are fully against still remains. As China and Dubai suck in many of the major architects of our day, few architects remain who stand for national ideals through refusing to accept enticing international commissions. The reward is too great and the loss of integrity undervalued.  (Image: CCTV in Beijing, Rem Koolhaas; This is where China will screen and censor the Olympics before they're broadcast to the world.)

So, what do ethics mean in design? Is it more ethical to design in the hope of engaging societies through architecture to help them move in the right direction, or should architects refuse services to nations who are not in accordance with their own nation’s values? But perhaps design transcends ethical boundaries. Just consider the following:  if Bernini had refused to design for the Vatican or Postnik for Ivan IV, would architecture have progressed to where it is today?

Read more in the July issue of Architectural Record about China and building ethics.