"The Muses are not Amused"

“The Muses are not Amused” by Jorge Silvetti is a commentary on the current direction of architecture, both taught and practiced. He is critical of the categories into which architectural process has fallen because they do not adequately produce the necessary form making to make architectural objects of consistent consequence. Although troubling in the manner it is presented, I do not think that Silvetti is entirely correct in the way he goes about reducing the essence of contemporary architecture or the conclusion he reaches as an affect. Surely Silvetti’s basis for organizing architectural types and process is valid, his examples make that clear, but is it few and far between when one group can truly classify a work. This blurs the lines and is fundamentally detrimental to the argument of defined processes. Furthermore, I do not think that attempting to reducing the creative process into such defined lines is beneficial. If anything, it just reinforces stereotypes and allows an architect or, more destructively, an architecture student to classify and justify a means of process which may or may not be beneficial to the practice of architecture. If Silvetti would indeed like to see a change in the manner with which we go about producing, would it not be more beneficial to offer more concrete alternative methods instead of reducing and classifying that which already exists? He also seems to fail to acknowledge the moments, grant it they may be few and far between, when a masterpiece does result from one of these processes. I also think it is a bit misleading of him to reprimand our current generation for its practices by comparing our works to that of historical precedent. He does not view the large majority of what we produce as even close to art, as architecture use to be, but is it not the case that some of the most significant and awe inspiring creations were not appreciated for their brilliance until long after their completion? It is not difficult to criticize the failures in modern society, there are many, but would it not be better to celebrate our successes and allow the profession to grow in a natural always exploring way instead of reverting into ideals that are tried, tested and true? Do architecture and art need to go hand in hand, or perhaps have we evolved past art into a new frontier where a building can be so much more?