In the FINAL position paper of the semester each student will undertake the writing of a personal manifesto for architecture.. This document will conclude the research into the topic outlined by each student in their first two position papers of the semester. It should succinctly describe the values, agenda, and vision for the architecture that each student (as related to their topic of study) values and should outline the initial frame of reference that will guide their education and early careers. As discussed in lecture 11, there is a long tradition dating back to Vitruvius involving architects framing their work within the issues of their "day" as well as outlining the ways that they feel the discipline of architecture could/should address these very issues. Manifestos are a "tried & true" method for architects to communicate the intended referential frame, context, and audience for their work as well as projecting how they feel this work should be measured and critiqued. It is a way of clearly defining and communicating an agenda or statement of why their work matters and how "architecture" can meet a specific challenge. It may outline something “new” , or something lost, that historically the discipline has failed to face or no longer faces properly. Therefore, a “new” way is proposed allowing for a path to properly adapt to emerging conditions.”

Though this is the "closing" argument of the semester and will encapsulate previous research and material, students should not "plagiarize" their previous work. This is to be a "new", more focused and refined argument with 3 NEW references added to the reference list of their previous research into the topic. It is the "finishing statement" for what they believe is a pressing societal issue and then a proposal for a means for architecture to address this circumstance. For instance, Le Corbusier saw his "age" as striving towards precision and proposed that the house was the proper expression for exploring this emergent "aesthetics of precision". His answer was the "five points of architecture" and his concept of the house as a "machine for living".

So again, this is not a paper about an individual building per se, but should be more about a particular typology or integrative architectural strategy. This manifesto could also be focused towards the “agency” of the architect, the power of the architect's design skill set, or the discipline's ability to address the contingent issues that must be addressed for the profession to successfully adapt to the changes that globalization has wrought. A good guide for creating a proper tone and strategy for this paper is the article "how to write an architectural manifesto".

In the FINAL position paper of the semester each student will undertake the writing of a personal manifesto for architecture.. This document will conclude the research into the topic outlined by each student in their first two position papers of the semester. It should succinctly describe the values, agenda, and vision for the architecture that each student (as related to their topic of study) values and should outline the initial frame of reference that will guide their education and early careers. As discussed in lecture 11, there is a long tradition dating back to Vitruvius involving architects framing their work within the issues of their "day" as well as outlining the ways that they feel the discipline of architecture could/should address these very issues. Manifestos are a "tried & true" method for architects to communicate the intended referential frame, context, and audience for their work as well as projecting how they feel this work should be measured and critiqued. It is a way of clearly defining and communicating an agenda or statement of why their work matters and how "architecture" can meet a specific challenge. It may outline something “new” , or something lost, that historically the discipline has failed to face or no longer faces properly. Therefore, a “new” way is proposed allowing for a path to properly adapt to emerging conditions.”

Though this is the "closing" argument of the semester and will encapsulate previous research and material, students should not "plagiarize" their previous work. This is to be a "new", more focused and refined argument with 3 NEW references added to the reference list of their previous research into the topic. It is the "finishing statement" for what they believe is a pressing societal issue and then a proposal for a means for architecture to address this circumstance. For instance, Le Corbusier saw his "age" as striving towards precision and proposed that the house was the proper expression for exploring this emergent "aesthetics of precision". His answer was the "five points of architecture" and his concept of the house as a "machine for living".

So again, this is not a paper about an individual building per se, but should be more about a particular typology or integrative architectural strategy. This manifesto could also be focused towards the “agency” of the architect, the power of the architect's design skill set, or the discipline's ability to address the contingent issues that must be addressed for the profession to successfully adapt to the changes that globalization has wrought. A good guide for creating a proper tone and strategy for this paper is the article "how to write an architectural manifesto".

This article was originally published on Common Edge.

Architecture lost itself in an identity crisis not long ago. The discipline wandered in self-reflection,

reexamining how practitioners go about their work, how the built environment should appear, and

why. Movements came and went. Promising paths dead-ended. Eventually, the profession gave up

looking for ways out of its uncertainty, leaving us where we are today.

In premodern eras, new construction techniques, evolving opinions on art, and shifting societal beliefs

drove styles. Advances were slow, but once established, became long-lived norms. The Gothic period

lasted four centuries, the Renaissance three. From the nineteenth century on, though, more than a

hundred aesthetic and philosophical movements lived quickly and died. As historian Charles Jencks

notes, there were “a plurality of live architectural traditions” even during the International Style’s

forty-year hegemonic heyday.

The century of robust mini-debates on form and function, meaning and intent, petered out ten years

ago. Evidence that contemporary theory and practice are threads of new architectural thought is

scarce. Arcade magazine published a survey of architectonic declarations and mapped thirty modern

movements from 1900 to 1960, and eighty more between 1960 and 2010. At 2015, they found only two.

For reasons unknown, the formation of new isms dwindled—but certainly, not because architecture

has found itself. One possibility could be fear. Taking a public stand against the status quo comes with

risks of ridicule and professional harm. In extreme cases, even physical danger. In 1957, Mao Zedong’s

appealed to China’s intelligentsia for a constructive philosophical debate. He said, “Letting a hundred

flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the

arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.” It turned out to be a ploy to flush

out dissenters. Many took the bait and were reeled in. The other possibility for the scarcity of new

thinking is that architects don’t give a damn. I prefer to think that architects have ideas but don’t know

how to toss them into the flows of current (albeit limited) discourse. No matter why, though, the result

is that the dominant architectural style today is a nondescript banality underpinned by minimal

debate.

There are, of course, exceptions, and it is through them that we find a way out of the woods. I present

herewith a means of reinvigorating the profession’s search for self.

When, in 2008, Patrik Schumacher of Zaha Hadid Architects penned a treatise proclaiming

“Contemporary avant-garde architecture is addressing the demand for an increased level of

articulated complexity,” and that “Parametricism is the great new style after modernism,” and further

stating, “Postmodernism and Deconstructivism have been transitional episodes,” he was following a

well-trod path to artistic innovation: the manifesto. Note the similarity between Schumacher’s rhetoric

and Walter Gropius’ 1965 assertion about the International Style:

A breach has been made with the past, which allows us to envisage a new aspect of architecture

corresponding to the technical civilization of the age we live in; the morphology of dead styles has

been destroyed.

Schumacher claimed to have found a demand for “articulated complexity” and answered the call to

action. He beckoned others to join him. Gropius saw civilization growing more technical, prompting

him also to respond. We heeded the wants of our age, each man effectively said, and—Eureka!—found

a better way. Both demanded Out with the old and in with the new. Both telegraphed Revolt! by

channeling Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles’ 1848 call for a “revolutionary movement against the

existing…order of things.” Gropius and Schumacher might well have written, Working architects of all

countries, unite!

By definition, the avant-garde is new. Surprise ensues when radical ideas burst on the scene, bringing

confusion and questions. In art as in politics, answers are often provided via declarations called

manifestos. Unique strategies cannot be judged without context, so pronouncements generally

provide a preamble, complaint, and a list of tenets. Reduced to writing, if a premise resonates, it has a

chance of becoming a movement à la Neoclassicism, Modernism, Metabolism, Postmodernism,

Deconstructivism. A Whateverism never codified goes nowhere.

The dearth of contemporary architectural movements indicates the profession is no longer

questioning itself—and that’s a problem. The built environment has no end of problems in need of

theories on how to respond, paramount being the existential threat of climate change.

Architecture’s first declaration of intent was arguably Vitruvius’ Ten Books on Architecture, written in

27 BC. But the idea of a publishing sets of core beliefs didn’t reach its stride until The Communist

Manifesto. That slim pamphlet became the template for numerous public proclamations, many

incorporating a version of, “It is high time that [ADHERENTS’ NAME] should openly, in the face of the

whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies.” The introductions of Futurism, Cubism,

Vorticism, Constructivism, Dada and Surrealism, De Stijl, and the Bauhaus owe much to Marx and

Engel.

Arcade magazine found more than a hundred architectural manifestos published over the last one

hundred years. Some of them reduced their argument to a single page or poster. Others were long-

form texts. Among the more notable are Frank Lloyd Wright’s The Art and Craft of the Machine in

1901, Ornament and Crime (Adolf Loos, 1913), Towards a New Architecture (Le Corbusier, 1965), The

Death and Life of Great American Cities (Jane Jacobs, 1961), Complexity and Contradictions in

Architecture (Robert Venturi, 1966), and Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth(Buckminster Fuller,

1968).

Mies van der Rohe wrote a manifesto. So did Philip Johnson, Louis Kahn, Paolo Soleri, Christopher

Alexander, Rob Krier, Renzo Piano with Richard Rogers, Kisho Kurokawa, Aldo Rossi, Daniel Libeskind,

Rem Koolhaas, Coop Himmelblau, Steven Holl, and Bjarke Ingels. Reader, if you’re an architect, are

you on the list? If not, why not? Conventional wisdom assumes lucid thinking behind the largest and

most permanent of humankind’s built works. One would like to believe that architects’ decisions on

aesthetics and art, function and form, economy and sustainability are the result of well-considered

and defensible rationales. At the least, designs should be based on opinions that can be coherently

stated.

Looking around at today’s built environment suggests it ain’t so. I’d venture asking most

contemporary architects to name their theory, describe their design philosophy, or recite what

principles motivate their work would yield befuddled answers or blank stares. I am not alone in this

opinion. Few “in the contemporary profession [are] willing to take a stand, to mount a soapbox and

exclaim a polemical notion,” wrote Michael Holt and Marissa Looby in a 2011 Domusmagazine op-ed.

The take-away is that today’s architects have little to say about what they design and why.

Let’s change that. Let us all write a manifesto. I’ll go first, guided by the wisdom of Dr. Anna Tahinci, a

professor and art history chair of the Museum of Fine Art Houston’s Glassell School of Art who teaches

a workshop entitled, Write Your Own Manifesto!, based on MFAH’s 2015 exhibition, Violence and

Precision: Artists’ Manifestos.

The French poet Tristan Tzara wrote in his 1918 Dadaist manifesto, “To launch a manifesto, you have to

want: A, B, & C, and fulminate against 1, 2, & 3.” According to Dr. Tahinci, three steps are taken:

One: Designate an enemy and chronicle a fervent (and somewhat limited) history of persecution

leading up the climactic moment of rupture.

For my manifesto, this will be easy. I find no end of problem buildings in Houston (my home town),

including contemporary examples designed by God architects of our time. My issue isn’t with their

beauty, for many are pretty. Nor is my problem function, for, as far as I know, they work as intended.

My criticism is the same I have with many contemporary buildings—they seem arbitrary and

capricious, as if no guiding principle rooted them into existence. Even when there is stated rationale, it

is often glib, or invisible in the work, or based on a theoretical position that time has invalidated.

Take, for instance, the architecture of Houston’s museum district, populated with well-regarded

buildings of brand name design firms. William Ward Watkin designed the Museum of Fine Art

Houston’s original Neoclassical building in 1924. Kenneth Franzheim added a small wing in 1952. Mies

van der Rohe designed a free-spanning addition in 1958 and another International Style expansion in

the late 60s, shortly before his death. Rafael Moneo produced a modernist building in 2000, and Steven

Holl completed a new Glassell School of Art in 2018 that replaced a 1979 Brutalist building by Gene

Aubry. Down the street from MFAH’s campus is Venturi Scott Brown’s children’s museum, constructed

in 1992.

I can’t pick a fight with Watkin, who delivered a classical building at a time when Neoclassicism and

museums were joined at the hip. Nor can I argue against Mies’ 1958 example of universal space, given

Modernism’s at-the-time honorable promise that form following function would lead to an egalitarian

society of light and air. By the time of his death, however, Mies should have known his version of the

Industrial Age wasn’t living up to his ideals. Instead of serving the common good, the International

Style had sold out to Big Business, the antithesis of what should house a cultural institution.

Rafael Moneo’s big box looks like a department store, so its meaninglessness is worth knocking.

Steven Holl borrowed shapes from Isamu Noguchi’s wonderful 1986 sculpture garden, which abuts the

new Glassell School. Meaning received. Unfortunately, and despite Holl saying in his Five Minute

Manifesto, “More than a mere ingredient in a building’s conception, a SITE is both its Physical and

Metaphysical Foundation,” the new Glassell’s plaza does severe damage to Noguchi’s work. What had

been a destination, a secluded courtyard, an intimate sanctuary to contemplate art, is now an open

passageway to somewhere else. The magic is gone.

Venturi Scott Brown’s Children’s Museum of Houston is the best of the bunch. It’s a playful Postmodern

period piece that riffs off Neoclassicism without also ripping it off. Although PoMo was flawed, I don’t

have it in my heart to ding the building. VSB was more faithful to the movement’s goal of reconnecting

architecture to its history than most Postmodern buildings, and much better than attempts to revive

the movement as Neo-PoMo.

I, therefore, declare Pritzker Prize winner Rafael Moneo, and AIA Gold Medal winners Mies van der Rohe

and Steven Holl enemies of my state of mind.

Two: List demands and declarations in response to wrongdoings.

For me, there is no more pressing need than for architecture to reassert itself as “the great book of

humanity,” as Victor Hugo urged. I call for re-establishing buildings as houses of societal

metanarratives. I yearn for architecture as gentle influencers that nudge, shape, and reinforce positive

behaviors. I want a Persuasive Architecture, not voiceless aesthetic gestures, inconsiderate form-

making, and unintelligible architectural gymnastics. I ask that architects take on the anthropogenic

calamities of war, poverty, hunger, preventable disease and death, intolerance, illiteracy, and climate

change.

Three: Antagonize a group and pit “us” against “them” in an aggressive call for action.

Marx and Engels wrote, “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism.” Them were the

capitalists (the bourgeoisie); us was the public (the proletariat).

Dr. Tahinci encourages manifesto authors to employ this same we-speak and make us-against-them

demands for action. Don’t be shy. Over-the-top isn’t over the top in manifesto writing. Outrage and

anger are not out of place, either. Quirky and crazed is not only acceptable; it’s preferable. Shock has

value, so make generous use of exclamation points in your writing. Feel free also to scream in ALL

CAPS.

Other tricks of the trade include listing your demands, bold typography, the use of storytelling with a

dose of drama, even theatrics. Do (almost) anything to get attention and command an audience. One

art student reportedly presented his “man”-ifesto in the nude with beliefs and opinions written on his

skin. Yes, he received an A for the assignment.

To that I offer a more modest polemic:

PERSUASIVE-ism

Architects of the world, WAKE UP!

Humanity’s greatest problems are anthropogenic, not architectural

CAST OFF THE YOKE OF MEANINGLESSNESS!

***

As civilization faces a human-made END OF TIME,

Beautiful boxes have become IRRELEVANT.

And form for form’s sake is IRRESPONSIBLE.

They who reproduce Classicism belong to ANOTHER TIME.

They who promulgate the International Style have LOST THEIR WAY.

They who reintroduce Postmodernism will MISS THE POINT.

***

Buildings are OPPORTUNITIES to CHANGE THE WORLD!

A NEW architecture IS NEEDED—an architecture of CHANGE AGENT.

***

We REJECT architecture as fashion statements and me-too knockoffs.

We REJECT buildings as illiterate objects.

We REJECT buildings as empty sculptural gestures.

We DEMAND built environments overtly address critical issues.

We DEMAND architecture that positively influences what people do.

***

RESTORE ARCHITECTURE TO THE GREAT BOOK OF HUMANITY!

That’s it; that’s my soapbox, my criticism of contemporary architecture with suggestions for a new

direction. In poster form, my rant looks like this:

Yeah, admittedly, PERSUASIVE-ism needs work—but hey, how’s yourmanifesto coming along?

Architecture’s historical progression—from a thought to a theory, to a movement, to a manifesto, to an

accepted style—has stalled. We can restart evolution, but only if architects put their thinking caps back

on, force themselves to decide on what they believe, and publish their thoughts in direct and

straightforward terms. There are numerous go-byes to guide us out of the forest.

“We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries!” wrote Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in The Futurist

Manifesto (1909). “What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the

mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday.” Naum Gabo and Antoine

Pevsner declared in the Basic Principles of Constructivism (1920), “We are no longer content with the

static elements of form in plastic art. We demand the inclusion of time as a new element and assert

that real movement must be employed in plastic art, in order to make possible the use of kinetic

rhythms in a way that is not merely illusionistic.”

Dr. Tahinci encourages architects to publish their opinions, motives, intentions, and meaningful and

assertive concepts. That’s a superb recipe for food for thought, and since architecture is hungry for

ideas, an excellent idea for a competition.

ANNOUNCING THE COMMON EDGE ARCHITECTURAL MANIFESTOS CONTEST!

Write or draw what you feel and email what you think to [email protected] Attach a Microsoft

Word file of 150 words or less if submitting as prose, or a poster in JPEG format 1,280 pixels wide by

1,656 pixels tall. Common Edge will publish the best manifestos online. You never know, your

viewpoint might go viral.

Let a hundred manifesti bloom.

Suggested Reading

The Communist Manifesto (1848), by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles Programs and Manifestoes

on 20th-Century Architecture (1975), by Ulrich Conrads

Manifesto: A Century of Isms (2001), by Mary Ann Caws

Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture (2006), by Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf

News Articles Common Edge

#TAGS

Cite: Richard Buday. "How to Write an Architectural Manifesto" 26 Jul 2019. ArchDaily. Accessed 26 Oct 2020.

<https://www.archdaily.com/921760/how-to-write-an-architectural-manifesto> ISSN 0719-8884

Powered by Disqus

3 Comments ArchDaily 🔒 Disqus' Privacy Policy Login"1

t Tweet f Share Sort by Newest

LOG IN WITH OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS

Name

Join the discussion…

?

Rob • a year ago

• Reply •

Personally I thought that manifesto was pretty good. I might just borrow it if that's okay. △ ▽

Richard Buday, FAIA • a year ago

• Reply •

> Rob

Ok by me. △ ▽

rktrixy • a year ago

• Reply •

Interesting. Just when I was enjoying the quiet, the lack of screaming bombast if you will, you lay out some good reasons to pick up the flag and carry it forward.

That said, I had to laugh at the picture. I've always imagined what the people in the painting are saying. With apologies to the entire nation of France and the memory of those who died for freedom, as well as the artist.

△ ▽

Subscribe✉ Add Disqus to your sited Do Not Sell My Data⚠

Recommend)

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

ArchDaily Articles How to Write an Architectural Manifesto

How to Write an Architectural Manifesto

Bookmarked

Written by Richard Buday July 26, 2019

Richard Buday Author

FOLLOW

About this author

MORE ARTICLES

More Articles »

Architecture and Nature: A Framework for Building in Landscapes

Pavilions in Cities: 10 Structures that Foster Human Interactions

Exploring The New Vernacular That Will Emerge as a Response to Climate Change

MOST VISITED

R Micro Housing / Simple Projects Architecture

Villa K / Marion Regitko Arquitectos + Igloo Design

Bamboo Formwork and Exposed Concrete in Architectural Projects

MOST VISITED PRODUCTS

Hidden Panel Fastener – Standard Range|Fastmount®

Building Performance Platform|cove.tool

Lamp – PH 5 + PH 5 Mini|Louis Poulsen

FREE SHIPPING + RETURNS

Support ArchDaily’s Mission Share your idea or submit your project.

SUPPORT

Work at ArchDaily Terms of Use Privacy Policy Cookie Policy RSS

© All rights reserved. ArchDaily 2008-2020 ISSN 0719-8884 All images are © each office/photographer mentioned.

BROWSE THE CATALOG

BRICKS

Randers Tegl

Facing Bricks – Ultima RT 162

METAL PANELS

Dri-Design

Metal Panels – Perforated Imaging

FIBER CEMENTS / CE…

Swisspearl

Swisspearl Fiber Cement Roof Panels

BRICKS

Randers Tegl

Facing Bricks – Ultima RT 155

FIBER CEMENTS / CE…

EQUITONE

Fiber Cement Facade Panel Pictura

WOOD

Lunawood

Interior Thermowood

SKYLIGHTS

VELUX Commercial

Atrium Longlight, DZNE Germany

EXTERIOR DECKING

Lunawood

Thermowood Decking

METAL PANELS

RHEINZINK

Panel Systems – Horizontal Panel

WALL / CEILING LIGHTS

Alcon Lighting®

Garage Lighting – Remy

METAL PANELS

RHEINZINK

Seam Systems – MULTI-FORM

WORK CHAIRS

Interstuhl

Chairs – SHUFFLEis1 Chair System

More products »

Save the content you like using this button.

Got it

Projects Products & BIM Folders News

Search ArchDaily

Submit a Project Advertise

the world's most visited architecture website

World m.k.