Identity Aesthetics: Approaching an Aesthetic Relativism of our Built Environment

The limited capacity to base architecture on individual taste could also be explained through the
"Mediating Change Function" of place-identity, which was elaborated earlier. The average Joe is less adept to
understand the design and construction of a hospital than that of a chair. The given knowledge, power and
skill level makes him or her less able to implement (or state a reasonable wish for the implementation of) a
desired change to the design of a hospital than to that of a chair. Another difference that exemplifies the
complexity of architecture, is stressed by Reich et. al. in their research paper Varieties and Issues of
Participation and Design: "… , in the market-based approach to participation, users "participate" via their
purchasing decisions." 14 Architecture cannot base itself on user participation, the same way Coca-Cola
launches a new flavored soda. To include the desires and opinions of laymen into the design of our
environment, a communicational bridge between the user and the architect (the "know-what" and "knowhow")
has to be established. In the case of combining the intricacy of identity with the complexity of
architecture, the positive implications of participatory design has proven to be a valuable technique for
securing individual needs and desires. 15 The proper execution of participatory design still require
competency and knowledge regarding aspects of for example participatory progression, group decision
support systems, multi-party communication and various forms of prototyping with users.
16
! 8 / ! 10
The Identity of the Architect
In all of this discussion and inclusion of identity as a general concept in designing our built environments, it
is important to consider the architect as a distinct identity, relative to the rest of the world it is designing. Of
course, one cannot go as far as to say that architects share the same identity, but one must ask, according to
our definition of identity: what are the membership rules, and characteristic attributes or expected behaviors
of the architect as a social identity? Most architects share a common base of knowledge and environmental
past and, among other topics, a certain attitude to materiality, construction, formal aspects and technique – at
least enough to separate a group of architects from a group of laymen. If we are able to define the social
group of architects as a culture, we are able to state that valued perceptual experiences may vary from
architects to laymen.
Studies also suggest several differences in perception itself, between artists and laymen. For
example, it has been found that laymen show a larger interest to identify familiar objects within their
perceptual experience, whereas the artist have a tendency to see the more abstract and structural features.
Also, when asked to visually scan pictures, eye movement pattern was shown to differ between artists and
laymen. This is seen in connection with the training of an artist. 17 If we could draw parallels between an
artist and an architect (at least pertaining to perceptual and aesthetic aspects) we should also consider the
possibility of architectural training to affect perception – not only what an architect perceive, but also how
they perceive it and what is valued in their perceptual experience.
14 Reich et. al. Varieties and Issues of Participation and Design. p 4
15 Henry Sanoff, Participatory Design in Focus
16 Reich et. al. Varieties and Issues of Participation and Design. p 4
17 Stine Vogt, Perceptual processing in artists and laymen, University of Oslo, Faculty of Social Sciences, 2006, part 2 p. 20