森原正希
FIG.1
“Design is the expression of a purpose .” Couldn’t we say that “creativity” as a “means”—which embodies strategic thinking and political intent born within constraints—is the expression of a purpose, and thus what we might call design “creativity”?Furthermore, I believe that “design-oriented creativity” is closely akin to the architectural act—as a comprehensive art form—and its conceptual perspective, which have always been generated within purposes that inherently encompass multiple constraints, complex elements, and strong political dimensions.
As mentioned earlier, “creativity” as any “means” necessarily encompasses a purpose.Conversely, “creativity” without a purpose is likely to remain nothing more than a personal self-expression by the privileged, carried out while implicitly conforming to a peaceful, stagnant status quo. It is conceivable that, due to the fragility of such intent, it has inevitably fallen into being exploited as state propaganda or adopted an attitude of mere personal consumption.
For example, contemporary artist Makoto Aida, in his book, likens “comfortable art activities and communication among art students—devoid of social consciousness and confined solely to their own circle”—to animals grooming one another, coining the term “Grooming Art ”, analyzing and critiquing how art—which should have been grounded in social ambition—is gradually being consumed as a product of comfortable communication.
In the former Yugoslavia, within the tradition of the left-leaning art collective *Zemlja/Earth* , the naive art of the Hlevine School emerged as a form of expression by the farmers themselves.Initially positioned as a social practice depicting rural realities such as labor and poverty, after the war, this form of “art by peasants” was reinterpreted in socialist states as a cultural symbol (propaganda) demonstrating workers’ creativity.Here, too, we can see the structure by which expressions that originally possessed a critical edge are co-opted into a larger political narrative. Furthermore, the Hu County peasant paintings from the period of China’s Cultural Revolution also clearly illustrate this structure.Initially, it was praised as an expression of creativity by the peasants and workers themselves, but in reality, it functioned as visual propaganda that visualized the ideals of the socialist state and the “correct” ideology through images of a bright and happy rural life.Here, the very form of the people’s own creativity is transformed into a force that reinforces the state’s objectives.
The only way to transcend these dilemmas is to secure a “position” from which to redefine or reinterpret those objectives—that is, to adopt a stance of independent, exploratory research and curation(OMA’s “observation process ”) and simultaneously exercising design-based “creativity” that leaves room for interpretation regarding those objectives.However, it seems that the ability to carry out these actions simultaneously is, in reality, limited to cases where “① there is economic leeway, ② the national situation allows for detours, and ③ the nation aspires to a democratic model.”
Therefore, for design “creativity” to be possible, these prerequisites must be in place; unless a situation is created that satisfies all of them simultaneously, we will fall into a similar dilemma.Consequently, we must be extremely conscious of the existence, current status, and ideal vision of the “public” and “private” sectors—which, as the entities setting objectives, bring things into being within society as a system—and furthermore, it is crucial to have the ambition not merely to accept them but to fundamentally transform them.
For example, Brunelleschi’s dome of the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore is famously regarded as a harbinger of the Renaissance; however, it was not merely a belated manifestation of architecture as a comprehensive art form, but possessed overwhelming pioneering spirit and purposefulness for its time.Behind it lay a strong belief that humans could transcend the limits of nature through intellect and technology. It was also a product of the high cultural literacy of Florence’s citizens and government officials, as well as the city’s sophisticated administrative decision-making capabilities.When ambitious and socially driven initiatives emerge, the creativity that brings them to fruition stems not only from the individual talent of the creator but also from the depth of cultural literacy among the private sector, the public sector, and the citizens themselves.
Is this not why fostering the expression of citizens’ creativity—alongside the public sector—and nurturing expectations for creativity is so important as a “means” for giving shape to “creativity” itself?
In the postwar era, architecture and cities were rebuilt from the nothingness of scorched-earth ruins. Our generation is rebuilding architecture and cities once again from the scorched-earth ruins of capitalism and finance caused by endless urban redevelopment. In that sense, we may be the “second generation of scorched-earth ruins.”With no money, no resources, and a slumping economy—in a state of utter emptiness—we turn our apathy toward society on its head and, together with our peers, take action starting with what we can do, dreaming of the future of space, architecture, and the city.
Credit
Related Works
