Marketing has no professional boundaries. We have moved into a 'beyond-modern' arena where brands are participants. Not simply the domain of corporate America's 'manifesto for success', the greater environment we as individuals design and inhabit are increasingly becoming the recipients of attention. With an ability to convey image and an iconography that breeds familiarity and homogeneity, such 'brandscapes' are serving no purpose other than to elevate its creator to star status.
Collectively forming the infrastructure of the information landscape, public space and site design continue to respond to the needs and desires of those that fund, build, and design them, but also become opportunities for the self-expression of one individual and/or organization. A new opportunity for transformation and identity, 'brandscapes' are that which become increasingly familiar with repeated intervention and exposure.
Increasing numbers of commercial companies and civic councils are seeking out star designer and/or firms to transform their cities in an attempt to earn themselves a seat at the table of global recognition - indirectly boosting their economic performance and favour of their citizenry. They see an opportunity to "brand their outdoor spaces by means of a narrative of or set or interrelated symbols". Toronto, New York, Bilbao, and Dubai are a few of the more globally-minded, urban centres that seek such creativity and input into their cities.
There is a trade-off I believe, where the rise and popularity of superstar designers/firms inevitably lead to the downfall of such places. Consistently seeking to 'outdo' their predecessor, or adjacent neighbour, these public and privately designed spaces lose their ability to heal and provide for its inhabitants. Instead they become trophies that brief the pages of glossy books and magazines, and often earn awards bestowed by those of the same ilk.
Perhaps I am overly cynical, or simply concerned. I embrace the work of conceptualist landscape architecture, but believe in the Olmstedian tradition of naturalism also. This could very well be where such cognitive dissonance resides in defining the multi-faceted profession in which I practice. I believe in our creative and healing tendencies as human beings. I also believe that these qualities are, in fact, inherent to human nature. Where the dividing line lies for me is 'humans being nature' - using design and landscapes to "speak to people of the human condition" in a manner that is purely based upon enterprise. What is our message?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment