'there is as much of a romance of failure as there is success'
'try to fail better the next time' samuel beckett
during a trip to london this january we went to the aa to get a feel for the place. luckily for us there was a lecture running that we managed to attend. mark wigley and brett steele discussed the architecture of failure. issues such as how to define failure were raised and the question of measuring success.
the failure of architecture: in its styles, in its movements, in its projects, in its personality, as an engine to try and draw us forward to the next level and try to solve the problems of a previous generation. all architects fail in nearly every project they undertake in a sense that they rarely realise the form to which they are drawn
erwin wurm celebrates the failure of modern architecture, a failed lifestyle.
architectural competitions are machines for failure. one entry is the winner - the rest in effect losers. unrealised projects: something that architects have to accept repeatedly in this discipline, so how do we learn from it and use it as a mechanism to excel?
steele and wigley look at failure as a topic in itself to be taught. the two founded the institute for failure. how best to achieve failure is taught in the curriculum, students are given the option to enroll for either three hours or three years. the expectation being that three years is what some people need to fail spectacularly whilst others can do it quite quickly.
failure manifesto:
1. where others teach success, the institute of failure (ioff) will teach not only the benefits of but the actual ability to fail.
2. where other schools beat their competitors by being a step ahead, the next fashion, the ioff will always be a step behind.
3. where other schools suceed in attracting the best and the brightest, the most ambitious, the ioff will actively seek out the meekest, the laziest, the least capable.
4. techniques of failure are as difficult to teach as are the principles of success. our curriculum is strong - but our alumini aren't.
5. the coming digital age offers architects entire new worlds of architectural failure but failure has a history which the ioff tries to avoid as much as the future.
the school was a failure but is to be relaunched this summer.
one of the ideas put forward to celebrate failure was to launch a counter version of the pritzker prize. the problem being that the architects nominated for the pritzker prize were the same ones suggested for the top failures. these architects manage to fail so well, producing uninteresting work when given the most interesting opportunities. through their success they are given many opportunities to excel and yet take little advantage of them. therefore success and failure in architecture are inseparable. to master architecture is to master failure.
the conclusion = i still don't know what good architecture is. so i am failing but therefore succeeding?