Style – Stylistics

Style is a crucial element of an architect’s work, a tool they use to sign and distinguish their creations. However, it should not be viewed as a choice that exists independently of the larger architectural discourse. Many young architects fall into the trap of thinking that they can choose their own unique style, often prioritizing originality over practicality and common sense.

This misguided approach has several consequences. Firstly, it misunderstands the nature of style itself. Styles do not emerge in a vacuum, but rather as a result of various choices and considerations. An isolated style that stands alone is less likely to be well-received by professionals than a style that is part of a larger, more nuanced conversation. This lack of understanding and proper combination of styles, driven by project-specific parameters, also contributes to the chaotic nature of the modern architectural paradigm, where quantity is often prioritized over quality and the relationships between elements.

The second issue with this hasty pursuit of an authentic style is that it can lead to a banalization of the work. Without a logical system of creative thinking, projects can lack definition and recognition for their aesthetic intensity. In these moments of weakness, inexperienced architects may turn to pre-existing styles as a crutch, rather than developing their own voice. This reliance on established styles can be seen as a form of prosthesis, a substitute for the lack of a fully formed and original language.

But when does a style truly emerge? It is the result of various choices made after considering semantic, pragmatic, and substantive problems. These issues, which have roots in philosophy, logic, and semiotics, can be thought of as an “architectural mission” and require an objective approach to be properly resolved. Only by approaching style in this way can an architect create something that is not simply a derivative of personal preference, but an analytic creation with true aesthetic depth.

It is important to understand that style is not something that can be chosen at the outset of an architect’s career. It takes time and experience to develop a truly original language, and rushing the process will inevitably lead to banality and a lack of depth. Instead, style should be seen as the result of a careful and considered process, one that takes into account the various problems and issues that arise in the course of a project.

This process should not be limited to visual and aesthetic concerns, but should also include philosophical, logical, and semiotic considerations. Without a solid foundation in these areas, an architect’s style is likely to be shallow and unoriginal. It is only by engaging in a deeper and more expansive discourse that an architect can truly develop a style that is meaningful and resonant.

In the modern architectural paradigm, it is easy to get caught up in the race for originality and to prioritize form over substance. But true originality comes from a deep understanding of the problems and issues facing the discipline, and a commitment to addressing them in a thoughtful and meaningful way. Only by approaching style in this way can an architect create work that is truly meaningful and enduring.