Catherine: And how about the question of architects' responsibility in terms of influencing the world, how we live, shaping our attitudes, innovating?
Grzegorz: Architects feel powerless, this is what Reinier de Graaf writes about, for example. This probably stems from the very service-oriented nature of the profession. If you compare what it looked like now and fifty years ago, of course there have always been service architects, craft architects, commercial architects, but in general architects were given great proficiency and were expected to have momentum and innovation. This then contributed to criticism of the profession - architecture became very confident in its causality, and it was easy to criticize architects for their demiurgic drive. Now the pendulum has swung the other way - this is a very service-oriented, restrained profession. Architecture is also insanely standardized. It seemed that after the collapse of modernism and the complete criticism of standardization, architecture should sparkle with diversity, but through the globalization of capital that pays for architecture, the unfettered flow of patterns, the unlimited availability of materials on a global scale, the opposite is true. The pandemic and the recent logistical and transportation turmoil have shaken this availability, but we still live in a reality where everything at one point in the world can be done the same way as at another point. On top of that, there is standardization at the national, EU, global level. When some airport or stadium is built, there is an immediate outcry on the Internet that it is the same on the other side of the world. In my opinion, this cannot be avoided. Facilities such as international airports or international sports arenas are designed under very averaged global security requirements, requirements of international federations, TV and Internet broadcasts, which generates the same architecture. It's an interesting circle that architecture has come full circle in terms of originality and innovation. In fact, a single architect can say very little new in his design, because he is tethered by various factors and on top of that by an army of consultants, especially in large, but also smaller projects. Enter, for example, the fire engineer, who can rearrange the design at will, because he is the one who knows and interprets the regulations best. So do lighting specialists, who have their simulation software, and they are the next priests, ripping a piece of the priesthood from the architects. It used to be that the architect held all these threads in his hands, or at least pretended to hold them, and that was the public image he had - that he cheers up the tradesmen and agrees on what they can bring to the project. Today, architects have very little of that dexterity left, for the reason that our societies demand security and encase all areas of life in a million regulations, rules and controls. Mark Fisher, in his book "Capitalist Realism," writes about the invasion of bureaucracy that we have had in our supposedly liberal world for the past dozen years or so. First of all, he writes about the bureaucratization of schools and universities, but the grid of tables and various charts around us is getting tighter and tighter. Architecture is suffering from the disease of authentication - everyone wants to sleep soundly with everything signed, hence the problem of swelling project documentation. The same building built twenty or fifty years ago would have several times fewer drawings and appendices.
{Image@url=https://cdn.architekturaibiznes.pl/upload/galerie/73283/images/original/963efc16707a08907c3f866e33b1daee.jpg,alt=Przedszkole Public Kindergarten No. 6 KIDO, Aleksandrów Łódzki, proj.: xystudio,title=Preschool Public Kindergarten No. 6 KIDO, Aleksandrów Łódzki, proj.: xystudio}
KIDO Public Kindergarten No. 6, Aleksandrów Łódzki, proj.: xystudio
photo: Stan Zajączkowski
Katarzyna: The architect's causality is small, so does it make sense to fight against the system, architectural activism?
Grzegorz: Activism is certainly needed, but I'm not surprised that so few architects engage in it. This is due to the total marketization of the profession. Everyone is very busy, they have companies to keep and few have the time and comfort to be able to expose themselves. For example, I very much respect the fact that Maciej Miłobędzki or Jerzy Szczepanik-Dzikowski from JEMS are already in such a position that they are not afraid to say something uncomfortable, to call certain things bluntly in interviews or public statements, but most architects cannot afford it. I, for example, have the comfort that I do not design at all, I can say what I want, I am financially and institutionally independent, but how many people in Poland can afford it? This makes me all the more admiring if someone nevertheless speaks up. Agata Twardoch gives an excellent, accessible account of alternatives to commercial housing. Dominika Janicka and other designers who make up the Architects' Ball consistently remind us of the role of women in architecture and fight for the word "architect."
New Strzeszyn estate, Poznan, proj.: Insomia
photo: Tomasz Hejna Lagomfoto
Katarzyna: Do architects feel a burden of responsibility, for example for spatial order? It seems that society expects that an architect should act, and on the other hand, his causality is low.
Gregory: Yes, society expects it, I think the remnants of the belief in the causality of architects and the demiurgic image have been repressed, besides, the architect is often the one who gives a face to what has been built. I think that an architect under any conditions should do his job reliably and responsibly, so he should not do things that are ugly, bad and perishable. Halina Skibniewskaya, with whom I had the good fortune to come into contact at the university at the end of her life , used to say repeatedly that an architect is always working in some kind of rut, is always restrained, is always short of money and time. The trick is to bring, she said, added value in the form of ingenuity, resourcefulness, design awareness. In other words, the same money can be spent wisely and foolishly, and the architect should first and foremost ensure that the resources he is given to dispose of within the budget are used wisely. Recently, I've been impressed by a housing development in Nowy Strzeszyn, Poznan, designed by the Insomia studio. It's a dense development of the mixed, two-family, terraced type. Clearly a lot of PUM has been squeezed out here, but this density has been turned into an asset, into a certain coziness, intimacy. This is not only thanks to the cleverly staggered massing, but also thanks to the diverse and almost obsessively meticulous detailing.
New Strzeszyn estate, Poznan, proj.: Insomia
photo: Tomasz Hejna Lagomfoto
Katarzyna: Should architects become leaders of local communities in discussions about the quality of space, especially given the low level of public participation in public life?
Gregory: Outside the boundary of the plot of land he is currently developing, the architect has very little to say, but local architectural organizations should get involved in local affairs. A voice needs to be spoken, another issue is whether architects will be listened to. I also understand that people have their work and want time off afterwards, that an architect is just like any other citizen. Of course, he has the knowledge that would allow him to suggest something smart and moderate or lead these processes, but I wouldn't want to put anyone against the wall and say: you have to get involved. Maybe it's because I've turned forty, and I have the feeling that no day lived will be returned to me. More and more I understand people who prefer to focus on their garden and on living their lives well, rather than patrolling the world. This is Candide's conclusion after his experiences in the pages of the book. I used to perceive this attitude as a sign of self-centeredness, but recently it has come to me that it is about responsibility for one's episode.
Catherine: Do you see a gap between what architecture students learn at universities and what is possible in real life? For example, learning how to design social housing estates, which they later fail to realize, as opposed to those for which there is market demand?
Gregory: This problem has been going on for a century. If you look at student projects from before the war, there will also be projects like a luxury hotel for five hundred people or a house for an astronomer. More life needs to be allowed into the university, although I don't know if it's exactly in the form of project themes. I think the most that needs to be done is communication. At every level. Polish universities, like pre-matriculation schools, are based on competition, on individual struggle for points and grades, while architecture is a team game. Of course, some people work as one or two people for the rest of their lives, such as interior designers or designers of small houses. But even in small-scale work, you need to be able to talk to clients or contractors. Meanwhile, at the university, one works mostly individually, not in groups. Communication is not there, and it would be very useful - I think it would help better architecture emerge. Architects are often dramatically unable to explain what is on their minds. They are taught to have ideas that are based on values that are important only to our profession, rather than the values and language used by the other side - the client, the contractor, the viewer. At the end of November, as part of the Architecture Academy project, I led a workshop on writing for students. I tried to convey in a few hours that there are different levels of communicating about architecture. It is different when one writes a critique of a building for the press, and different when one sells an idea in an architectural competition, and different when one wants to convince clients or users. They are most interested in whether the building will answer their needs, not the ideas of the designers. It also turned out that this is what students really need, and this is what no one teaches. I was fortunate that in my first year I randomly ended up in Prof. Ewa Kurylowicz 's design class - she was one of the few who required reading and writing, deeply justifying their ideas, saying what they were about.
Katarzyna: And do problems with communication concern only Polish universities, or do architects in general have a problem with it?
Grzegorz: This is not just a Polish problem. I think it has accrued over the years. As the world's architects have become less and less efficient, there has been a growing need for priesthood - creating an aura of secret knowledge around themselves. Hence the jargon, which is incomprehensible to the public. Language, to be effective, needs to be worked on.
Catherine: Thank you for the interview.
