Response: "The Muses are not Amused"

Jorge Silvetti's "The Muses are Not Amused" brings to light many methods of thinking in the world of architecture today. Two of these themes or trends that initiated a response are: 'Blobs' and 'Literalism.'

Blob
Silvetti writes:
"The computer could produce forms that not only do not have precedent, but, more perplexing, may not even have referents!"
"Freedom from semantics, history, and culture was perhaps made possible for the first time in civilization."
"My only interest in producing architecture is because it is a practice within cultural practices, which is to say that that play with referents is not only of interest to me, but also inherent in the very idea of architecture."

What if "Blob" architecture is creating a new cultural practice - the first creation may not have a referent, but the ones following it will become the referents to each other? The computer has allowed architecture to transform into something that is individual to itself and not directly connected to anything before it. This machine has given almost any architecturally minded (and technically savvy) individual the power to create something that captures the imagination at first sight. Granted, it will probably not hold within its depths a meaning that connects the site to the context or any other kind of analysis, but allows a more approachable form of architecture looking from a non-architect point of view. Blob architecture is a form generator, but the lack of substance to support the form creates a definite fault with this method of architecture.

Literalism
I see Literalism as essentially a first year student strategy. As a student not knowing where to start you look at the variables that are connected to the project/site and then use those ideas directly to create the form. There is no filter, no centrifuge to transform those ideas into something more substantial than a visual metaphor.

Finally with the discussion of "Architecture as Art or the art of architecture," I'm beginning to understand the metaphor Silvetti uses with music to describe what architecture should be - a subset of Art, not another definition of it. Architecture can try to be something that is greater than itself, to try and respond to a theoretical idea or solve a problem, but usually this creates a form that is useless in Architecture's first goal: shelter. I understand that people who are not educated as architects are able to create shelter, but Architecture's version of shelter involves study and analysis to create a structure that is (or should be) uniquely situated for the situation at hand. Who cares if the house addresses whichever theory if the walls, floors, and ceilings do not allow for privacy or safety? In the end such a structure will become a monument to itself and Architecture will become creator of "something to look at" not "something to experience."