Building Comedy

Almost all forms of art have a comedic genre, yet such a category doesn't really pop-out in the world of architecture.  However, I've started to think about this quite a bit.  First, can architecture be funny.  Secondly, if so, should it be.  I think it's fair to describe goal of architecture, at least in one way, as the pursuit of improving the human condition through our built environment.  Now it has been shown that laughing causes people to live happier and healthier lives, but should we be content with our diet of laughs coming from the things and people like youtube, Judd Apatow, and Flight of the Conchords, or should our buildings help crack a smile too.

To answer the first question, I think architecture can be funny.  But usually, humour that can be found in sophisticated, progressive architecture is in a word, dry.

Take OMA's Prada transformer: a sarcastically perfect building fit for whatever space it finds itself in.  Rem's mantra, "fuck context", a funny way of thinking in itself is never better exemplified than in the 16th century home that the transformer has found in Seoul.  But is Koolhaas' goal for this project, as well as many of his others, to be funny?  Architects often like to point out the absurd and Rem is no newcomer to such observation.  Yet while something like the transformer can benefit from its absurd rationality, does the absurdity of the building directly impact anyone who would see/enter/urinate on it?

Another way that I have found buildings to be funny is through ornament.  There are several Victorians here in San Francisco that are painted vomit inducing shades of purple or green, but while such a coat may cause someone to choke a bit on their coffee when driving by, its not a feature that improves the building.  But what about something like the "hell yes" on SANAA's New Museum.  Originally intended as a piece of work by Swiss artist Ugo Rondinone on display, the sign has become synonymous with the already clumsy looking building.  In this case, while not directly part of the architecture, the installation is used as an architectural element, and I think quite convincingly.  It boldly shows to the outside world that the otherwise uniform and nondescript galleries house comparatively offbeat and provocative works of art.  It's also, I think, pretty funny.

Architects can be funny people and I always enjoy a class or a lecture much more if speaker can invoke some humour into the presentation.  However, comedy is certainly not our primary business.  I think buildings aren't supposed to be funny because of two reasons: money and politics.  If a large sum of money is invested in a development, it should appeal to as many people as possible and hopefully offend nobody.  But at the same time, architecture can be seen as a rather excessive profession.  Some people are content with basic things and question the necessity of designers.  I feel that it is often important to approach things, like this blog, with a bit of brevity and light-heartedness in mind.  Perhaps architecture is best suited for a supporting role to create environments that facilitate the growth of other standard forms of comedy, but it could be interesting to see what the effect would be if our buildings more actively engaged our funny bone!