Breaking the

Myth

First of all we should explain this two concepts that seem to be opposed, as tradition is “a ritual, belief or object passed down within a society, sill

maintained in the present, with origins in the past” and innovation, coming from the latin “innovare” meaning “to renew or change”.

So far, it is clear that the two terms are linked, but could they coexist together?

Tradition

Innovation

Breaking the Myth:Tradition & Innovation

1

In the world we live in, almost nothing it is done in a naïve way, every-thing has an implicit objective, even more in advertising, there is not a single detail that is not completely studied to give a certain sensation, the unpredictable is banned in this world and the target public do not

realise what is happening, but really, and this is the most beautiful part, they do not want to think that are being in�uenced. As we will see this

tool is not just in advertising, even architecture is playing with these tools.

�ere has been thousands of pieces of architecture �ltered through the media with di�erent purposes, but let’s take an example and focus on it.At �rst sight we can just see two silhouettes, one car, and two buildings

with no more meaning than the idea that each word represents, as Ockham would say, just the individual exist the rest is just created by our

minds.

Silhouette 1

Silh

ouet

te 1

Seattle Library

Seat

tle L

ibra

ry

Silhouette 2

Silh

ouet

te 2

Building

Build

ing

Car

Car

Diagram of the Space taken in the Ad

2

On a second level we perceive that the car takes up less room in the ad than the silhouettes, and the buildings but still is the more de�ned and attracting element. Getting deeper on this level we can achieve the idea of quality vs. quantity, no necessarily the biggest has to be better and we

could even introduce the idea of Mies Van der Rohe of “Less is more”, the most appealing object in the image is the smallest one.

Focusing the analysis on the building, we realise that it is not a common building like the one on the back, it is the Seattle Central Library by

OMA, the innovation of this building is absorbed by the car, but wait, is this really innovative? Breaking all the rules?

No, it is made by pure geometrical shapes (rectangles) joined together by the envelope that is just a line from corner to corner.

Why then choosing this building when we have much more innovative

designs like Frank Ghery with the Walt Disney Concert Hall for example?

3

�e answer is easy, because that it is not the image that they want to relate with this car that hasn’t changed almost for the past 10 years.

We need to dive deeper inside to �nd that there is something hidden behind, there is still the idea of less is more, having a “traditional” or let’s say, a not highly innovative façade doesn’t mean that it is not innovative,

because it doesn’t need to show it with aggressive exterior design, it is better than that.

�e architects conceived the new Central Library building as a celebra-tion of books, OMA wanted to let the building's functions dictate what

it should look like. �ey also went one step further in this sense, they implement the old traditional way of circulating from the 1920 Library

into this new one, but the implement it on the system, they get the tradition and convert it into innovation.

Innovation is behind

5

�e importance of the building is the function, OMA based the design on de�ning areas, how will they be connected, how everything work

together and when they reached a perfect system, they clad it in a subtle dress.

One step further than Mies with the Barcelona pavilion, he reached the perfect system but he innovated highlighting this system by cladding only with precious materials empowering the beauty of theis already

perfect system.

OMA believes even more in the beauty of their system, they based the innovation in no innovating, traditional geometries and shapes could reach greater levels of complexity and innovation but if we want to be

able to get a glimpse of this we need to unmask it, if we look through the veil they put on their building we will see that the real importance is not

outside but inside, it is not on the façade but in the system, it is not in the universal but the particular, it is not on the car but in the engine.

Quoting Barthes “Architecture is always dream and function, expression of a utopia and instrument of a convenience”. We will

see that this is pretty obvious with two examples from both sides, one from the

dream and other from function. In case of the Ei�el tower the architecture has no

function so it is all dream but little by little those dreams of people gave function to the tower and more on, they give a much

higher and relevant function than any other that could be given by the man

(telecommunication, meteorology, etc…) this dreams that in the beginnings were di�erent depending on the individual started to get together –thank to the

media- and started creating a more “collec-tive” and universal dream of the tower, this changed the tower and turned its meaning into the mythological one, started to be the

icon of those several “dreams” i.e icon of France, icon of love, etc...

�e answer is easy, because that it is not the image that they want to relate with this car that hasn’t changed almost for the past 10 years.

We need to dive deeper inside to �nd that there is something hidden behind, there is still the idea of less is more, having a “traditional” or let’s say, a not highly innovative façade doesn’t mean that it is not innovative,

because it doesn’t need to show it with aggressive exterior design, it is better than that.

�e architects conceived the new Central Library building as a celebra-tion of books, OMA wanted to let the building's functions dictate what

it should look like. �ey also went one step further in this sense, they implement the old traditional way of circulating from the 1920 Library

into this new one, but the implement it on the system, they get the tradition and convert it into innovation.

On the other hand we have our example, the Seattle Library, which has a completely opposed thought by part of the architect, it is

purely function, everything is dictated by the customers, how they use the space, how they travel through the building, which is the

needs of each space, etc.. �e design started from practical consider-ations as Rem Koolhas said, he started asking questions: What activities will the building be required to handle and how can

similar functions be grouped together? A�er analyzing functions and space requirements, �ve broad categories emerged: administra-tion and sta�, collections, information, public space and parking. �e architects visualized the space as �ve stacked boxes and used

that as a starting point for the building's design. �e rectangle boxes were repositioned to allow better views and light. Everything was already studied, nothing were le� to dream, even the façade which

by the times was one of the most important elements that de�ne the building was made for serving the overall function, the façade was

meant to be blocking the sunrays, protecting both visitors and books from direct sunlight, but letting the magni�cent views that were

already planned to each space.

We could think that with this overwhelming plan there is nothing le� to dream, but let’s quote the experience of two of the �rst

visitors to the building.

"It looks like a place where you can do a lot of dreaming," said Seattle resident Tom Bartlett

"Like climbing Mount Fuji to see the sunrise — if you go in the a�ernoon, you won't see it the same."

So there is still dreams in the mind of the visitors, because there will always be, in this case as in the beginning of the Ei�el tower, each

one has their own dreams about it, their own experience, but when the dreams of lots of people get together it creates the mythological

entity, and most of the times, the media have to interact between the dreams and create a collective one, architecture is a instrument of

convenience just because alone has no meaning, it is when it inter-acts with the individual when it acquires a real meaning.

9

And extending Barthes a�rmation “use shelter meaning” I would like to say also the contrary, meaning also shelters use, as we have

just seen the dichotomy between function and meaning is not such, they are linked and feedback one from the other in the way that if one do not exist, it is being created by the other and I would even say more, if one architectural piece has a lack of one of them for

giving total priority to the other, what you get in response is a huge development of the one you le� out as we have seen with this two

examples.