Haterz gonna Hate, Hate, Hate...

I only make curves,
Got nothing but Rhino,
That’s what people say, mhmm-hmm
That’s what people say, mhmm-hmm
I get too much bad press,
And most of is hate,
That’s what people say, mhmm-hmm
That’s what people say, mhmm-hmm
But I keep building,
Can’t stop, won’t stop splining,
It’s like I got Grasshopper,
On all the time, press render and it’s gonna be alright,

Cause the moderns are all fake, fake, fake, fake, fake,
And the critics gonna hate hate hate hate, hate,
I’m just gonna shake shake shake shake shake,
Shake it off, shake it off…

Whilst listening recently to Patrik Schumacher’s fiery declaration for the Architectural Review’s series on Architecture and Freedom, he made an impassioned declaration once more on the separation of politics, political correctness and architecture. Although perhaps more defensive than I would have liked, and perhaps less eloquently catchy when compared to Taylor Swift’s response to ‘haters’, the Review’s series has raised extremely provocative questions on the role of architects and the relationship to morality and ethics.

I am of course already offending, as Jonathan Meades, eloquent orator and broadcaster has already declared, “Ethics and architecture should not inhabit the same sentence.” Whilst I understand his issues with the term, I shall for now, leave this to my next review of these debates. The core question around these minced terms of ethics, aesthetics, architecture and morality for me, is in fact whether architecture is complicit in shaping lives, and by extension, how do architects help to mould the lives of our societies.

Architecture and the pursuit of morality and ‘goodness’ is hardly new. The Roman philosopher Cicero argued that “if you have any skill [as an architect] you must build my house in such a way that whatever I do shall be seen by all.” This was, of course because Classicism was founded on principles of altruistic integrity, and collective progress, rather than individual segregation and identity. I should remind everyone here that the Greek origin of the word idiot is idios which meant ‘private’ or ‘privacy’.

But what does all of this have to do with the work of Dame Zaha Hadid? AA Graduate, RAIA Gold Medalist and Prizker Winner. It is that, begrudgingly as it is for me to admit, Schumacher is somewhat correct that ZHA’s projects have provided unparalleled opportunities into some of the world’s last strongholds of totalitarianism and oppression. Her brand of work, and yes, it is a brand, like Prada, Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent, has done what atomic bombs and United Nations blockades have failed to do: liberating nations like Azerbaijan. Yes, we may not see it now or even in a decade, but this nation, in permitting a globalised practice into their midst has provided an opportunity for debate, engagement and hopefully, democracy.

Her work in the slowly recovering nation of Iraq similarly, will, I believe breathe much needed fresh air after years of oppression, war and unrest. Why? Because whilst I do not agree with her forms in some instances (no they may be nice concert halls and museums, but not great apartments or schools - still sitting on the fence with her work I'm afraid to say), I believe that practices with her level of global brand penetration can serve as an agency for change. When we knowingly work for a dubious client we must of course ask if architects become complicit and subservient to their crimes? Yes and No. Although not entirely against the regime, she has nevertheless drawn attention to this small, once Soviet ruled Central Asian nation. And let’s face it, in all honestly, did the world know of a Central Asian nation called Azerbaijan and its many social faults until her building came to pass? Generating talk, which ZHA has never had trouble doing will, I hope, be a first step in the giant leap toward liberation.

As a young idealist, yet to be disheartened by the faults, follies and vices of modern society, I believe that architecture is not a case of the enlightened individual (architect) versus the collective (society), but an individual operating within a larger collaborative framework, ultimately to improve and further develop architectural practice and the built environment. Altruism? Yes, whatever I may also say of Ayn Rand, collective social goodness is to my mind, a core tenant of architecture. Thus, it would not, in my view be erroneous to argue that ZHA’s work brings momentary glamour to Azerbaijan, allowing progress, development and globalisation. It is of course not the ideal, but nor is military invasion. If architecture can be an agency for social change and change toward a progressive liberal society, then I say, AUX ARMES CITOYENS…