In David Pye's "The Workmanship of Risk and the Workmanship of Certainty," he mentions that without workmanship there would be no design and that without workmanship, design can't be realized as the designer intended. It seems workmanship has a double hold on architecture. When choosing materials, most architects design considering finished materials that have been crafted by workmen. Workmen provide architects the pallet they use for their designs. What would be designed if there was nothing to build with? Then workmen determine the quality of the finished building. A mistake on their part in the construction could ruin the architect's ideal vision of his intent.
How do you view this relationship between design and workmanship? Could design have a hold on workmanship? Do they both make each other better? Can architecture still be good using poor materials? Can good workmanship make bad architecture better?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel it is back and forth between the two. Although workmanship has holds on design, design has equal or greater holds on workmanship. Just as when shitty workmanship can ruin design, shitty design holds little or no potential for good workmanship. Furthermore, we are at the point where designers can choose to use workmanship or machine manufacturing and fabrication. With this hold, design can remove workmanship from the relationship.
ReplyDelete