Lebbeus Woods and Stephen Holl remain to the vintage class of architects celebrated across the globe for their attractive, courageous and influential use of their architectural genius to teach, explore, design and showcase their unquestionable passion for architecture. Woods in particular in particular was known as the American architect is by far the most successful architect to ever exist. His career started as an industrial designer at the Finnish American architect an experience that served as the spring board to the top of the architecture career. Stephen Holl too has an impressive and attractive architectural background. He is a close friend to Woods and their conversation on the rightful role of architecture in the society plays quite an important role in setting the socio-political structure (Woods, 1993).
These architectures applied theory in developing their arguments. Unlike his friend Holl; Woods chooses to pursue a visionary architectural path. This path entails the intentional and straight forward to the art of architecture such that he does not search for commissions. Holl on the other hand opts for the waiting style of architecture that relies on searching for certain commissions that control building standards in the quest to develop politically appraised and standard buildings (Fraser, 2013). These great friend get a chance to effectively integrate their different approaches to architecture when Holl seeks the services of wood to develop his four-story pavilion in Chengdu China.
Woods was able to communicate thought -provoking socio-political ideologies using architectural design. He personally develops his own meaning of architecture and redefines this profession in both his sparkling depictions and performances. He imaginatively and directly approaches the relationship between architecture and politics. His friend Stephen Holl on the other hand offers a more contemporary and legal approach to the art of architecture. In their captivating and resourceful exchange of ideologies between these architectures; there emerges an intriguingly fascinating approach on the art of architecture in the contemporary world.
These two geniuses divert from the bureaucratic way of architecture in which architects as scientists talk in complex languages that can only be understood by other scientists. “Scientists address other scientists. People on the street don’t know what they’re talking about. That’s why I made the distinction between the client- the excuse for the guy who has the checkbook who can pay for the idea. I want to address the architects who address the people.” (Woods, 1993). In their rich exchange of ideologies, these two depict a rich collaboration in their different architectural designs. They employ realistic approaches to the art of architecture.
We live in a violent society whose violence does not necessarily emanate from the socio-political variables. It is rather a violent society because of the professional indifference promoted by the scientific class and the political class. One of the most important principles of resist as per Woods, it the second principle that states. “Demolish the damaged and destroyed buildings and build something entirely new.” (Bevan, 2015). This is indeed an important step towards restructuring our infrastructure to adhere to the contemporary developments across the society. If change is inevitable, then the inevitability of change should be positive and of value to the immediate society. In the spirit of collaboration, Woods and Holl create the much needed support to one another and hence developing progressive architectural environment/
Fraser, MP. (2013). Design research in architecture: An Overview. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Bevan, R. (2015). Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War. Reaktion Books.
Woods, L. (1993). Pamphlet Architecture 15: War and Architecture.