Even as a young student, I did not think that architecture was, or should ever be, a straightforward endeavor about building design. In my opinion, architecture essentially deals with the perpetual, even painful, agonism between the need to express and the obligation to respond. Expressiveness is the artistic side of crafting the built environment, for which the architect is most proactive in asserting all of her vision, desire, and judgment to the world around her. Responsiveness, on the other hand, is about understanding the environment as much as one’s knowledge allows; any new additions to the system cannot be arbitrarily made – what the architect can do is to deduce opportunities for interventions from the existing context’s economic, political, cultural, and spatial dynamics – in this way, architecture is not made, but found.
Late in my education and early in my professional career, I became increasingly drawn to the responsive mode of design. I am interested in people and fascinated by how their interactions, conflicts, and collaborations can influence and be influenced by the society’s physical environment. I got more excited when I figure out how things work and why they operate the way they do rather than when I design a brand new world of wonders and surprises. Architecture is the most interesting to me when it provides me with an opening to observe the society and comment on it, and I ultimately pursued social science in my advanced degrees and walked away from the professional practice of designing buildings. To be honest, I still adore the artistic and creative side of things. What I believe, however, is that, for me, creation comes after understanding, and I have hence chosen to keep art and expression as a personal interest instead of a professional one.
Return to the Design page.