The Muses are Not Amused

In his article “The Muses Are Not Amused,” Silvetti addresses a shift in the methods of form-making, particularly in an academic setting. He is concerned that certain aspects in form-making today (such as turning representations or diagrams of data into the architecture itself or creating random blob forms with computer programs just because it’s possible due to the current advancements in computer technology) have hindered the architect’s creativity and control over his or her work. Although I understand his concern and agree with him to an extent, I think that he tends to generalize his accusations. For instance, he talks about Blob architecture, in general, as not requiring much intellectual thought. He states that people generate these buildings just because they can; there are no referents considered. This perception can’t be applied to every obscured building in existence. There are “Blob” buildings that do consider site, context, occupancy, etc.
I remember a discussion we had with Steve Lee after reading “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.” We had to classify ourselves and our approach to architecture as either being classic or romantic; were we form finders or form makers. The result was that most of us considered ourselves a little of both, which I think shows promise. It shows that we aren’t people who strictly fall into one category or another (Silvetti’s categories being programism, thematization, blobs, and literalism). I think our education today gives us the opportunity to explore different ways of defining form and computer technology is a tool that helps us to explore more possibilities but not forget or disregard fundamental processes or strategies of form-making.