Technology, Space and Architecture - Zaha Hadid at the Royal Academy

I attended an interesting interview with Zaha Hadid at the Royal Academy (RA) a few evenings ago. Behind her a flat screen played a show reel of the studio’s work.

The discussion raised some interesting issues, not least the globalisation of architectural brands.

From what I heard, Hadid would be the first to admit that her architecture, whilst informed by nature and art, continues the modernist project, albeit with the benefit of the advancements in 3d computer modeling that contemporary designers enjoy.

The result is a body of work that has a very clear visual identity, but arguably little reference to place and function. At first glance her work is as much about product design as it is about architecture. We see stadia, pools, schools, boats, tables, vases and shoes that all share the same aesthetic language. Architecture as object, sculptures shaped by computers, which, of course, are at the very heart of the creative process

There is no doubt that computer technology makes it easier to create complex geometries, but the spark of originality can still only come from the authors creative thought process. In Hadid’s case it is space that makes the buildings special, and some of these soaring white curvaceous rooms are truly beautiful. In less accomplished hands this type of architecture is disastrous, her studio has mastered the art. But it raises some questions too.

Has technology liberated architecture from the shackles of its historical progression, or is this just a diversion, a sort of Baroque embellishment of 20^th century modernism?

What became clear from the discussion was that for Hadid, the cycle of change has accelerated in the last two or three decades. Her architecture very definitely sits outside a political idea, as a result it carries little meaning, the buildings are monumental but not built to last for ever, in time they will be adapted, altered or demolished. For Hadid the visual language of contemporary architecture need not suggest the prolongation of tradition and longevity, it is constantly shifting and adapting to new technologies.

Throughout, she was at pains to emphasise how hard it is to be an architect. But was it harder for Saarinen to build his vision of the TWA terminal in 1962 than it was for Hadid to build Maxxi in Rome in 2010. (The Maxxi was she said, her most challenging project and as a result one of her favorites)

Ultimately they are both Buildings. The programme is at the core of the each project, they are functional and affordable alternatives to the commercial corporate architecture that Hadid casually dismisses.

From highly theoretical and esoteric beginnings, her work has become a brand that carries a certain status and cache globally. Much like a Frank Gehry, every country should have one. This alone places the work of architects like Hadid closer to the corporate art market than the corporate property market. A client thinks,“I must have one”, rather than “I really need one”. Does that justify it or make it better?

I think not.