Abstract
Almost two years ago, when the editorial board of Architectural Histories proposed its first thematic issue of the journal, the topic of ‘crisis’ seemed timely. It alluded to the mounting bankruptcies of financial systems in America, the deterioration of economies in Europe, the perpetual failures of G20 summits on climate change, the rapid overthrow of regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and the new geopolitical reconfigurations all this caused. It called to mind the disparate but constant rise of religious fundamentalisms and the reincarnation of forms of militarism, within and without national boundaries. In the world that came after Lehman Brothers, Fukushima, Mubarak, and Greece’s near default, historical contemplations on ‘crisis’ promised to give important perspectives on current culture and architecture. In addition, architecture has not only been infused with the realities of crisis, but sustained by them. Crises that arise in the world have forced practitioners to reconceptualize their stances towards social or political turmoil, their responses to scientific and technological breakthroughs, their attitudes to economic adversity or their relationships with other modes of cultural production. The theme of ‘crisis’ also resonated, as indeed it still does, with the internal crises of architecture. The quest for legitimate historical models or modes of production; the competing definitions of the profession; or the historiographic critiques that repeatedly reconceptualized the relationships between history, theory and design: all these underline the constructive possibilities of crisis and give a worthy purpose to Architectural Histories’ thematic call. From global events to the discipline’s own history, it was obvious that ‘crisis’ was certain to preoccupy architectural history, theory and practice for the next several years. The discipline was already faced with serious dilemmas. What would be the role of architectural production in saturated built environments in need of less (not more) building? What can historic cities be if heritage is a ‘business’? How might architecture’s environmental responsibilities be contemplated if ecology became a brand? Simultaneously, new questions were emerging: What does architectural production mean in the midst of changing public spaces, either due to neoliberal policies or to the riots reacting to those policies? How could architectural pedagogy constructively react to the ups-and-downs of the construction industry? What are architecture’s and urbanism’s subversive possibilities in the midst of all the expositions of state or institutional corruption? And what of architectural history?
Highlights
Almost two years ago, when the editorial board of Architectural Histories proposed its first thematic issue of the journal, the topic of ‘crisis’ seemed timely
The term quickly became overused, inflated or compromised, a buzzword evoked by disparate lines of cultural production
One may speak of a ‘culture of crisis’ in the sense of a ‘way of life’, and in the sense of ‘cultural production’ and ‘cultural consumption’, whereby crisis has its own politics of social antagonisms, local and global
Summary
Almost two years ago, when the editorial board of Architectural Histories proposed its first thematic issue of the journal, the topic of ‘crisis’ seemed timely. One may speak of a ‘culture of crisis’ in the sense of a ‘way of life’ (per the ethnographic or anthropological definition of culture), and in the sense of ‘cultural production’ and ‘cultural consumption’, whereby crisis has its own politics of social antagonisms, local and global.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have