Ken Smith gave a presentation at Dumbarton Oaks on his
design for the newly completed Santa Fe Railyard Park. His design transformed the formerly degrade site into play areas for children and quiet areas for relaxing. Drainage ditches were cleaned up to
allow the stream to thread its way through shady places, historic rail
lines were preserved, and utility poles for light fixtures were cleverly designed
as glu-lam posts that concealed the electrical conduit. The surrounding areas are responding with new stores and cafes. I’ve been there, and it projects a sense of place
unique to Santa Fe: sunny, rugged and industrious. I asked Smith a question
that he and John Beardsley the moderator were unable to answer. Was this
park beautiful? I suppose it was a trick question because after looking at a
presentation of gorgeous landscape photography, the stage was set for thinking
about the park as a picture, or an image of an object. My intent was not to
challenge the representation, but to question what can be beautiful in design
today, and I wondered if these two imaginative innovators had a thought.
The contemporary beautiful is ecological health. This park
design had taken a derelict place and returned it to be a contributing member of a vibrant environment.
New graded land forms shaped distinct places within the park, shady plants and trees grew in their
naturally-occurring forms, flash-flooding was oriented toward channels that
could accommodate the occasional inundation without damage, and people had
places to walk, sit and play.
The park was hard to photograph. No single vista beckoned
or artificial composition of “features” begged to be captured as a
“photographic moment.” My memories are less visual and more recalled feelings
of experiencing gradations of light and shade, movement and rest, activity and
interesting details. Most think of the beautiful, as opposed to the sublime,
following Edmund Burke’s 18th century definitions. Beautiful objects were to
be small, smooth with gentle variation of form, and delicate with soft colors.
Smith’s aim was not to create the beautiful using these attributes.
Nevertheless, the park was beautiful even according to Burke, because it fit.
Fitness as an aesthetic attribute has been part of design principles - firmitatis, utilitatis, venustatis (strength, utility, grace) - since at least the treatise of Vitruvius in
the 1st century, CE. The underlying foundation for all three principles is fitness. Strength comes from using the right material and method of construction that are appropriate to the site and intended purpose.
Utility is often summarized as satisfying a list of operations of which the
network of natural processes and human activities must fit together to be
sustainable. Grace, the most difficult to interpret, can be reduced to the
design’s pleasing and elegant appearance, but it can also be considered to be
the design’s full perceptible vitality as a dynamic part integrated into networks of
ecological operations. What could be healthier than experiencing a design that is well-made
with local materials thoughtfully employed, performs well for all users
human and otherwise, and is intellectually and emotionally engaging; what could
be more beautiful?
No comments:
Post a Comment