DOOMSDAY DOMES , Book Essay Reference
DOOMSDAY DOMES by Eva Diaz
Book - Intervention Architecture: Building for Change
IN THE SPRING OF 1949 a course by architect Buckminster Fuller presented students at the Institute of Design in Chicago with the problem of apocalypse homework assignment: “The city is to be evacuated. All residential and industrial concentrations of 50,000 persons or more are in immediate danger of annihilation. Consumable goods now directed toward these areas will be diverted to smaller decentralized communities. Seven days are allowed in which to gather all living mechanics necessary to maintain a high standard of living for a family of six—two adults, two children, two guests. Everything not decentralized will be destroyed.”
In the first decades of the twenty-first century, many artists seem galvanized by Fuller’s charge, and often the works they produce appropriate Fuller’s own iconic geodesic dome designs as prototypes for catastrophe shelters. Is this resurgence of domes the dawn of a new age of “outlaw design,” as fans of Fuller predicted when estimating his future influence on alternative architecture in a 1997 book?
At first, I thought that in recent Fuller-inspired art projects a marked shift had taken place in twenty-first-century quotations of the geodesic dome, distinguishing them from many 1960s and ’70s incarnations. The difference between then and now: gone was the frontiersman logic of Arcadian, back-to-the-land, drop-off-the-grid, atomized micro-environmentalism; gone, too, was the technological euphoria about the consumption of appropriate tools. In contrast to popular dome-building practices of the 1960s and ’70s reception of Fuller, a new set of concerns seemed to come to the fore, sometimes in direct opposition to the ambitions of that earlier generation. What emerged instead was a return to issues that had been explored by politically radical collectives such as Ant Farm and Archigram, which were bent on politicizing the technocratic, libertarian logic of Fuller’s theories so often rehearsed by his acolytes: sculptural structures as temporary interventions in urban sites, as kiosk production, or as shelter/information-display hybrids.
- Shift in Fuller-inspired art projects:
- - Distinction from 1960s and '70s incarnations
- - Absence of frontiersman logic and technological euphoria
- Emergence of new concerns:
- - Departure from drop-off-the-grid, atomized micro-environmentalism
- - Contrast with popular dome-building practices of the past
- Return to politically radical collective concerns:
- - Emphasis on politicizing technocratic, libertarian logic
- - Focus on sculptural structures as temporary urban interventions
- - Utilization for kiosk production or shelter/information-display hybrids
Domes were and continue to be important to artists as a form of improvised construction using recycled materials, and for their multifunctionality as pavilions and gathering places for culture and communication. At the axis of alternative architecture and of political art, artists working in this vein today speculate and experiment with a complex and often parallel set of issues: how to historicize the utopian imagination of the 1960s, and how to prototype ecological sustainability in sculptural form. These approaches concern access to shelter in a wider sociopolitical sense and question the social responsibility of the artist for connecting art in public places to matters of civic concern.
- Importance of domes to artists:
- - Utilization as improvised construction with recycled materials
- - Multifunctionality as pavilions and gathering places for culture and communication
- Intersection of alternative architecture and political art:
- - Speculation and experimentation with a complex set of issues
- - Historicizing the utopian imagination of the 1960s
- - Prototyping ecological sustainability in sculptural form
- Sociopolitical concerns and social responsibility:
- - Access to shelter in a wider sense
- - Questioning the artist's role in connecting art in public places to civic concerns
This shift in practice represents an ideological battle to uncouple Fuller from his reputation as a technocrat obsessed with recognizing universal patterns and preoccupied by the apolitical post-scarcity logic that positioned inequality as an outcome of inefficiency rather than a result of a capitalist logic of endless growth. Instead, contemporary artists seem interested in Fuller in order to highlight his advocacy of equitable resource distribution and his paradigm of architecture as information display.
Many contemporary artists and designers have used obvious references to homelessness and the unequal distribution of basic resources to the underprivileged in their work as a part of an argument against eroding the public functions of the city street, and for reinforcing public spaces as multivalenced sites in the face of neoliberalism’s tendency to privatize and limit public exchange. In Fuller’s case, the kind of information housed by the dome connects various historical struggles concerning the distribution of resources. (The propaganda poster by Marjetica Potr, appearing on page six, reads: “We are doers! The thinkers of the 60s were dreaming about us.”)
- Use of obvious references to homelessness and unequal resource distribution:
- - Part of an argument against eroding public functions of city streets
- - Reinforcing public spaces as multivalenced sites
- - Counteracting neoliberalism's tendency to privatize and limit public exchange
- Connection to historical struggles concerning resource distribution:
- - Information housed by the dome connects to various historical struggles
- - Acknowledgment of societal challenges and inequalities
- Example of propaganda poster by Marjetica Potr:
- - Quote: "We are doers! The thinkers of the 60s were dreaming about us."
- - Illustrates the continuation of historical ideals and struggles in contemporary activism and art
 |
| Jill Newman, REFORMERS AND NEIGHBORS, detail. |
The retreat from popular dome building in the 1980s had represented (yet another) rollback from the high-water mark of late 1960s utopianism, though perhaps only because this form of idealism (do-your-own-thing libertarianism) was itself a departure from the radical social justice demands of the New Left. Lloyd Kahn, one of the editors of the Fuller-inspired Whole Earth Catalog and the author of the influential “how-to” Domebooks series, had by 1989 repudiated the euphoric claims about domes he had once espoused. “Inspired by Buckminster Fuller to work on solving ‘mankind’s’ housing problems,” Kahn wrote, he had once proselytized for domes. But by the late 1980s he mournfully concluded, “They don’t work … Domes weren’t practical, economical, or aesthetically tolerable.” He hoped that in revising his previous position he could help others illuminate the continuing fascination with domes by presenting future readers with “the results of an experimental voyage … the bitter and the sweet.”
- Retreat from popular dome building in the 1980s:
- - Represented a rollback from the late 1960s utopianism
- - Departure from radical social justice demands of the New Left
- Lloyd Kahn's disillusionment with domes:
- - Editor of Fuller-inspired Whole Earth Catalog and author of Domebooks series
- - Initially inspired by Fuller to work on solving housing problems
- - Once proselytized for domes but repudiated claims by late 1980s
- - Concluded that domes weren't practical, economical, or aesthetically tolerable
- Revision of position to illuminate continuing fascination with domes:
- - Hoped to present future readers with the results of an experimental voyage
- - Acknowledged both the bitter and the sweet aspects of the dome-building experience
But in following Fuller’s call for architecture responsive to catastrophe, are we seeing a “bitter” side of the 1960s returning to art practices today? Originally, Fuller had argued his project of dome construction was a utopian one: his articulation of “total thinking”—what he termed “comprehensive, anticipatory design science” that tests traditional artistic and architectural forms in order to teleologically progress toward a Utopia of efficiently managed resources. Probing the influence of Fuller on art practice today and understanding how his ideas of equitable resource management and holistic planning—what he termed “comprehensive design”—are received in the present will always be mediated by his reception in the 1960s and ’70s. The geodesic dome was one of the rare grass-roots, DIY forms of the twentieth century: in its close-to-two-decade heyday from the 1960s to the early ’80s, it was appropriated as an easy-to-build, cheap modern alternative to traditional values, both social and architectural.
Now, as geodesic domes are once again returned to public consciousness, this time almost exclusively in the work of contemporary artists, it seems crucial to ask why. For in recent years there is a sense of the dome as an exemplar of a new art of utopian public sculpture that uses the dome more neutrally as an architecture of gathering places. Recent works seem to consider the political implications of shelter design as a topic of critical importance for artists by proposing nearly functional, yet ultimately quite farcical, prototypes of rolling domes or clumsy walking shelters, for example.
- Geodesic domes returning to public consciousness through contemporary art
- Questioning the reasons behind this resurgence
- Dome used as a symbol of utopian public sculpture
- Recent works exploring dome's political implications in shelter design
- Proposing experimental and often impractical dome prototypes
Yet disquieting elements of the recent works by contemporary artists color a too-rosy interpretation of contemporary dome works as a new form of idealistic political art and urban intervention. Artists now return to Fuller for his Cassandra-like call to ecological responsibility. Domes are seen as dystopian architecture, spaces to begin society anew under threats of being rent by conflict and scarcity, and as a means to rescue the planet from bad stewardship, over-consumption, and waste. Not to imply a causal relationship, but several factors seem important in considering this shift to a more pessimistic reception of Fuller. They include the calamitous political and infrastructural failure in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the ongoing housing crisis in the New Orleans region; the related problem of the increasing scientific evidence for and ineffective legislative response to global warming; and the near-total privatization of once collectively owned natural resources that further troubles the feasibility of post-scarcity arguments.
- Disquieting elements in recent works by contemporary artists:
- - Challenge a too-rosy interpretation of contemporary dome works
- - Return to Fuller for his call to ecological responsibility
- - View domes as dystopian architecture and symbols of societal renewal
- - Aim to address threats such as conflict, scarcity, and environmental degradation
- Factors contributing to the shift towards a more pessimistic reception of Fuller:
- - Calamitous political and infrastructural failure post-Hurricane Katrina
- - Ongoing housing crisis in the New Orleans region
- - Increasing scientific evidence and inadequate legislative response to global warming
- - Near-total privatization of once collectively owned natural resources
Another side of Fuller has crept in: an urgency about nomadism in which improvised, off-the-grid shelters may become unavoidable features of a coming post-apocalyptic world. (This was evident even in Fuller and Shoji Sadao’s 1960 proposal to skin midtown Manhattan with a plastic dome, ostensibly to provide a controlled climate to economize snow-removal costs, but with an unavoidable implication that the dome could provide protection from nuclear fallout.) A sense of ecological catastrophe, both regional and global, permeates artists’ works today, as though the construction of alternative architectural forms such as domes becomes a prototyping technique for generating forms of emergency shelter.
