Originality is a Waste

Petra Brower and Matteo Kuijpers

In this article, the architecture historians Petra Brower and Matteo Kuijpers discuss the concept of Copy Paste. They argue that it should be brought back and that it should once again become a legitimate method that can be validly used in the creation of contemporary architecture. Contemporary Western culture has labeled copying as wrong. However, the authors argue that an architect must master the practice of Copy Paste. At the end of the essay, the authors propose a manifesto against the waste produced in contemporary Western culture, which insists on uniqueness and originality.

In today’s Western culture, the act of copying is associated with dishonest and illegal behavior. As for architecture, copying is synonymous with imitation and falsification. These views arise from the belief that copying or imitating does not allow for new ideas to surface. However, the problem with entirely labeling copying as wrong is that it results in the absolute separation from tradition and convention. Hence, the authors argue that we should reconsider the negative connotation that has been given to the practice of Copy Paste. The ability of an architect to innovate is just as important as his ability to master the practice of Copy Paste. For example, in c. 15 BC, Vitruvius’s De architectura established the rules and categories for classical perfection and beauty. Moreover, classical architecture has been copied by early modern architects, not as a mere act of imitation but as an attempt to thoroughly understand and recreate the classical principles. Also, Leon Battista Alberti argued that the only way that an architect can successfully accomplish the recreation of the classical principles is by being ‘learned’, in other words by knowing the past. The authors argue it is unfortunate for architecture that Copy Paste culture has been lost in the twentieth century. Learning from the past and being simultaneously novel have become two contradicting forces due to the obsession with having no predecessor and being unique.

For architecture to be considered a true creation, it must be “unique”. Nonetheless, the authors argue that nothing is truly unique, since everything has a precedent. Furthermore, there are an abundant number of copies of architectural designs. The authors believe this is no crime, but a “part of daily architectural practice”. (page 2) Throughout the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, architects openly applied the practice of Copy Paste in Western architecture. However, the modern movement has established that originality to be the center value of architecture. Moreover, Copy Paste has been replaced by a culture of waste of production, which is directly related to the waste of knowledge. Hence, the architect must understand that he cannot create an original work. However, what he can do is “respect, transform or destroy” (page 4) an original design. Unresponsiveness results in wasted creativity and in additional efforts since every challenge or adversity can be solved with a precedent. By relieving a Copy Paste culture, architects would be faced with the challenge of enhancing the design’s precedent. Uniqueness supports an egocentric culture that results in waste, while copying enables architects to work at faster speed, while solving problems in a more intelligent manner.

Referencia:

PDF - Originality is a Waste - Petra Brower and Matteo Kuijpers