Abstract

INAUGURATION OF A SERIES: ARCHITECTURE AND LOVE
Why is architectural mainstream so insignificant?
The mainstream of architecture is being shown ad nauseam in hundreds of magazines all over the world. Every week, every month, every quarter, the same names are being juggled, so that you want to call it pop archi¬tecture, while famous design factories keep on degenerat¬ing as they gain in size and popularity and put on layer upon layer of bureaucracy. They are becoming self-emu¬lating and backward. The mechanism is evident. The bigger the practice, the bigger the money. The more busi¬ness, the less architecture. Why? Because whoever draws from the system will be the least interested in changing the system, even if it is bad... because it is not bad for him. Even where we are dealing with an environmental hazard or where new solutions are necessary y– what is being promoted is make-believe changes, catering to current fashion. A celebrated architect who is standing before the gates of a large bank will cater to any request. He or she is an in¬telligent person and will be able to justify his or her new product with a glib essay.
The reason behind the popularity of High-Tech (and behind draping buildings with technological novelties like with some jewellery) is the general strive for the prestigious visual effect. Large organisations are usually those that make a living by effectively convincing people that you cannot be 'at the top' without technological novelties, meaning: you cannot grow, ergo you probably cannot exist. This huge lie of today has become the oblig¬atory myth. We see great mainstream architects promote anonymity, neutrality, metal, aseptic cleanliness, inhu¬man accuracy—all the characteristics of administrative technocracy. No matter how hard the High-Tech artists try to pretend concern about the natural environment, they won't be able to conceal the fact that they are the lackeys of the manufacturing industry that is destroying that environment.
There is yet another direction, often presented in trade publications. Those are the people who are not trying to imitate anyone, to kiss up to bankers, but rather want to set an example. They refer their exploration to what is alive – man or nature – rather than what is dead, i.e. money and technology. Thus, it is possible to apply Erich Fromm's distinction between biophilia and necrophilia to architecture.
This is a start of a series of articles presenting the Low-Tech style. Low-Tech architects are trying to offer a humanist alternative to the overtechnologised modern architecture. We would like to present the artists and the institutions experimenting with low-budget, low-energy, sustainable technologies and materials—people aware that architecture is shouldering the burden of social re¬sponsibility.
In Low-Tech, independence from the manufacturing industry is coupled with a high level of reason, creativity and emotional involvement.
Architecture and Love – isn't this the very essence of our profession?