Authenticity and Creative Invention

The dictionary definition of “authentic” starts with words like “of undisputed origin” and “genuine,” but it soon gets involved with techniques and schools of thought. I do not find any of this very helpful, especially when it comes to authenticity in architecture.

To me, architecture is a language of light and form that speaks for itself. The act of translating architectural experience into words is where the trouble begins. Consider the constant flux between words and meanings. Of course, writers are all too ready to take on the task of interpreting everything into words. In most architectural magazines, images take precedence over words, but that only transfers the job of interpretation to photographers, who have their own tricky conventions.

I tend to identify architecture primarily with the mental work of creative invention. Architecture is the result of that activity. Can thoughts expressed in words or pictures compete with sensory experiences? Is walking around and through a building comparable to being told about it?

There is a real joy in experiencing, and having one’s emotions stimulated by a building or a space. A work of architecture really stands up if, after experiencing it, you are driven to communicate it to others by recalling forcefully and vividly the things that stimulated your senses. The work holds up especially if you can repeat the experience at different times of day and in different seasons.

I believe that authenticity has to do with both aesthetic judgement and the emotional experience. As an architect in practice for many years, I am always gratified and delighted when clients, peers and complete strangers describe one of my pieces of work to me forcefully and vividly. For me, this is how architecture embodies authenticity.