EXHIBITION + PODCAST SERIES
Aesthetic of Disruption
2020
The Museum of Finnish Architecture / Helsinki, Finland
Aesthetic of Disruption is a series of discussions manifested in a podcast series as well as a physical exhibition. The physical shape evolves during the course of the exhibition. As a whole, Aesthetic of Disruption highlights the essential role architecture plays in solving the climate crisis by inviting discussion between various thinkers both from within the architectural profession and beyond.
Architecture affects everyone. The way architects react to the climate crisis in the early 2020s will make architectural history, both nationally and internationally. The exhibition discusses the role of architects and architecture and analyzes the turning point ahead.
We are facing an inevitable transformation towards more sustainable lifestyles and society, and architects as designers should assume a key role in shaping this shift. As of yet, architecture’s full potential is, however, yet to be harnessed, even though architects and designers are trained to envision and illustrate alternative futures that do not yet exist. To pursue a better future, we must first understand the power architecture can have in society. Then we must establish what kind we want to live in - a future worth pursuing - and begin to work towards it. As the theme is extremely complex and multidimensional, Vapaa invited the most inspiring thinkers of today to discuss the topic from four different perspectives.
Guest speakers: Mira Kyllönen, Aleksi Lohtaja, Noora Laak, Olli Metso, Efe Ogbeide, Maiju Suomi
01: The climate crisis and architects
According to the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), the built environment produces approximately 40% of all greenhouse gas emissions. When we factor in emissions indirectly caused by the built environment, the percentage is even greater.
In the discussion about climate change, the influence of architecture can be divided into quantifiable and unquantifiable aspects. The effect of construction design, materials and techniques on the climate can be measured with different indicators. In addition to this, however, the built environment impacts, at least indirectly, all the factors that make up a person's carbon footprint: housing, mobility, choice of nutrition, leisure activities, and the supply and consumption of products and services. On a more abstract level, the built environment both reflects societal values and contributes to shaping them. In the era of the climate crisis, our values are not only changing rapidly but they are also in urgent need of radical change. The cause and effect relationship between societal values and the built environment and the way this impacts carbon emissions is more complex than measuring technical data, and that is also why it has garnered less attention in public discussion. The development of new technical solutions is well on the way, but what kind of lifestyle does our current environment enable and what does this say about our culture?
The traditional pursuit of architecture to solve things by looking into the future over a long period of time does not suffice to solve the crisis at hand. According to the IPCC report on climate change, emissions must be radically reduced, and carbon sink solutions must be developed by the year 2030. If we fail to do this, the disruption caused by climate change will be irreversible. Architects today have no choices: architecture must highlight the importance of climate issues more than before, and the change must happen now.
The alarmingly short time frame of less than ten years that we have left to reduce emissions by an unprecedented amount makes all construction appear questionable. The relevance of the architecture profession in the future depends on how we can reform the culture of construction: architectural expression, use of materials, the way we build and the lifestyles we cater to. To achieve this, we need a shared mindset, and strong and meaningful visions of the future.
Iines Karkulahti, Charlotte Nyholm and Meri Wiikinkoski of VAPAA Collective will open the discussion series of the exhibition. They examine what makes architecture meaningful and what roles architects play in the era of the climate crisis.
02: Utopia
We cannot predict the future, but we must be able to plan for it. However, the planning of our time is characterised by an unforeseen conflict: how to be creative and inspired about designing for a future, which in light of the climate crisis seems to offer only disasters.
What we are experiencing is not just climate change, but a societal change set in motion by the changing climate. The future must be redefined – we need to be able to envision a future that is worth pursuing, although it is nothing like what we are used to. As designers, architects have the ability to envision and visualise worlds that are yet to be built, and therefore, they could use this ability to make the impending change conceivable to everyone. Amidst earlier societal disruptions, architects have usually stood at the forefront, as did modernists during the urbanisation of the industrialising society, and the Reconstruction Office of the Finnish Association of Architects (SAFA) when war-torn Finland was getting back on its feet. However, the ecological reconstruction required by the climate crisis is still waiting for visionaries. As we are facing a global crisis, are utopias and optimism seen as innovative and bold, or just naive?
Even if utopias might seem unrealistic in hindsight, the provocation they evoke plays an important role in planning the future. After all, utopias free our minds to challenge traditional conventions: In the Ville Radieuse by Le Corbusier, the citizens liberated from the daily grind of work and the dirt of the city were offered clean air and services that would make their lives more efficient, whereas in New Babylon conceived by artist Constant Nieuwenhuys, people liberated from the demands of efficiency and productivity spent their time creating, playing and socialising. Presenting visions that may even seem unlikely offers a platform for discussing alternative futures, which helps us distinguish between desirable aims and unfavourable developments, which should be excluded. At their best, utopias provide a creative method to theoretically test new lifestyles and societal structures. If in the utopias grounded in the transformation of work, people that were being liberated from working began to create, play and consume, what do people today wish to be freed from and how do they want to spend their time?
In the second part of the discussion series, we ask Olli Metso, from the future oriented architecture agency MUUAN, and Aleksi Lohtaja, researcher of political philosophy, why do we lack in utopias of our era and why are the rare visions of the future characterised by austerity and denial? Could the future offer something more than just “a little less of the same”?
03: Aesthetic
What we consider to be beautiful is also valued. What we value is also considered to be beautiful. Our environment affects our well-being, but it also portrays the values of the prevailing society. How can architecture communicate the ideology of ecological lifestyles? And on the other hand, what kind of message are architects sending if they choose not to let this societal shift influence their expression, instead pressing on with the aesthetic of the past? The climate crisis is inevitably altering our values, but how can that change be observed in architecture?
In art, aesthetic is usually perceived as the product of visual observations. However, when we talk about the aesthetic in architecture, we usually focus on multisensory observations and spatial immersion. What also sets architecture apart is that architecture has far more silent power in our society than other forms of art: we live in built environments constantly immersed in architecture. Therefore, the power of architecture lies in its ability to create spaces for being and doing – for living.
In the construction sector, the solution-oriented discourse about possible responses to the climate crisis has been technology-driven. Actions with quantifiable and demonstrable outcomes are easier to communicate to a wide audience. However, a high quality living environment is the product of various factors. Architects must also uphold the unquantifiable aspects. Are the quality, beauty and attractiveness of the environment in danger of getting lost in the climate debate, which focuses so intensely on quantifiable metrics?
In addition to discussing how to make new construction more sustainable, the magnitude of the crisis also necessitates a real debate about whether we should build at all. This kind of critical assessment places renovation and refurbishment at the forefront of architecture. The current aesthetic favours newness, which drives consumerism. In this age of polished perfection, do we value built heritage and renovation-oriented architecture enough and can we see the full potential of the existing environment?
In the third discussion, we ask Mira Kyllönen, chairperson of the Committee for Renovation and Conservation of the Finnish Association of Architects, and Maiju Suomi, teacher at Aalto University, how is it possible to build a sustainable future when our culture prioritises the aesthetic of newness?
04: Power
The climate crisis calls for a quick and comprehensive societal transition in which the traditional practices and systems are overhauled. For the transition to be successful, it must be made palatable to the masses. The transition must be fair and just in the way it affects different groups of people. What kind of effect will this have on architecture and urban planning?
As we have witnessed during the covid-19 pandemic, crises disproportionately affect groups that are already vulnerable and marginalised. The upheaval generated by the climate crisis is also expected to hit low-income groups the hardest. In urban planning, the concept of fairness challenges planners to assess the proposed solutions more comprehensively than before. Sufficient consideration for marginalised groups requires planners to involve the people, recognise the economic, cultural and social impact of the proposed plans and question and break down prevailing power structures.
Fairness requires not only recognising the variety of different groups of people but also regional differences. The powerful trend of densification and urbanisation has created an idea of urban living as the only sustainable way of life. However, pitting the rural and urban areas against each other only serves to alienate part of the population, some of whom then turn to populist movements aiming to discredit and impair climate action. Planners must be able to provide viable, attractive and sustainable options also for those who are not drawn to the cities. How can planning innovative and inspiring environments contribute to a geographically broader group of people feeling included and heard in the fight against climate change?
The climate crisis requires immediate action, and to be successful we need to see a change in every sector of society including construction. Construction and urban planning are slow processes, in which the outcome reflects the interests of several parties independent of the planner. Change has to start with architects and planners themselves, but also requires us to question and reform the prevailing system of how we build. Traditionally, architects have been active in solving social and societal challenges by developing, for example, standardisation and a new model for factory-built houses to alleviate the housing shortage during the post-war years in Finland. The climate crisis challenges architects to once again demonstrate similar activism.
In the final part of the discussion series, we invite Efe Ogbeide, planning geographer and partner of FEMMA Planning, and Noora Laak, politically active architect, to discuss who shapes the built environment we live in and what kind of power architects hold in the era of the climate crisis.
