Meaning in Architecture

I had to read an article for class, a theory class that I can't say that I think is really valuable to my education, except in that it only provides me of more examples of things I disagree with. One issue I would like to address is the idea of meaning in design. So many planners, designers, and architects feel the need to place some external importance or meaning in their works, which I don't completely understand.

Up until Modern architecture, the world as a whole was seeking meaning in architecture, landscape, and art. It was all about references, metaphors, and footnotes. Everything related to everything else, and everyone knew it. The purpose of this was to exclaim upon this foreknowledge, to underscore the fact that the designer or owner knew the historical basis for their designs and were flaunting it. The Renaissance was the 'rebirth', but really it was just a rediscovery of what the Greeks and Romans knew thousands of years before them. The Industrial Revolution was a time of great development, but while engineers and scientists were creating and using Bessemer steel and new forms of concrete, architects were (for the most part) taking these new or rediscovered technologies and covering them up with Historicist facades. The Romans were the first to copy the Greeks, and the rest of the world did the same until the turn of the 20th century.

A few designers have managed to break through this trend and create things that have been really original, not seeking 'meaning' from any external source by referencing or alluding. No prior knowledge was needed to see the beauty in these things, other than an understanding of practicality, usage, beauty and craft.

Today, I feel that we are on a threshold (another term theorists love to use) of determining what 'meaning' means to us. I think the majority of designers are still stuck in old ideas of making symbols, arcane ideas of things, and methods that contrive meaning in purpose, program, or process. Part of this problem, as I always contend, is society. This type of design is what they have come to expect and what they value (and therefore, pay for!). But we as designers have to direct the way that architecture and other forms of design come about. It is not only our right, but our responsibility.

'Meaning' is now being taught (at least to me) as something abstract that has many definitions, can only be found in eccentric yet vague terms, and is most definitely and certainly apart (and better than) science or practicality. We are now told that we must forsake our basis of making an architecture upon utilitarian principles first and foremost. I have heard more than one person say that it is in the inherent nature of humans to search for meaning. I do not disagree with this, not in the least. Why else would there be religion? Science? Math? We will forever and always try to find order, reason, and explicability for things in our world, but I only think that in the realm of design, as designers we must look to the effect upon the users of the things we make to find our meaning.

Instead of designing a building to reflect undulating water, or echo a boat sail, I think we must understand that the people who look at the building are in most cases not the people who use the building. The users will appreciate usability, comfort, practicality, and intuitiveness. By creating a space or an object or a landscape that fulfills these things, I believe that has 'meaning'. What is derived from the creation of a thoughtful design is what it means to the people that use it. No one else can truly have a valid opinion about the design without this knowledge.

Meaning will always have a different definition for every designer and every user, but I think the best that we can hope for in terms of this ambiguous term that we all seem to be in search of is that the things we design might bring meaning to the lives of those who use them.