Patron and Community
Patron and Community
A patron is one that supports and protects someone or something, such as an institution, event or cause without specifying the product or service he wants in return. Thus he is a sponsor or benefactor. He is someone who understands the person or institution being supported and believes that the object or service produced will be worthwhile. In return, he is rewarded with honour and status rather than economic benefits.
In the essay I will expound upon the various arguments brought forth in the two readings “Morality with Regard to the Commission” by Oriol Bohigas and “Patrons or Clients?” by Robert Gutman. Both the readings discuss the patronage of architecture in earlier days and how in the recent years clientage and capitalism has taken over architecture. How today the architects are harassed by the demands of the narrow minded clients contrary to the earlier centuries where architects enjoyed the trust and respect of the patrons who granted them autonomy over the design.
Clientage, as stated in Gutman’s writing, is a type of sponsorship in which the sponsor clearly specifies his requirements and expects an object or service that will yield him profit. Bohigas believes that architecture today comes from clients who convert it into a symbol of power or an instrument of status and propaganda, clients who just want publicity and alluring images. This is the consequence of the political and economic structure that has taken over the world. Sadly, the architects have given in to this idea of capitalism and work on all sorts of theories to justify the immoralities of ‘the big clients’. Thus, the production today is devoid of any kind of moral content or freshness and offers no prospect of research and progress.
According to Gutman, patronage is accompanied with autonomy and control over a project. Among the major professions, it is only in architecture that patronage still serves as an operating ideal. This is because the position
A patron is one that supports and protects someone or something, such as an institution, event or cause without specifying the product or service he wants in return. Thus he is a sponsor or benefactor. He is someone who understands the person or institution being supported and believes that the object or service produced will be worthwhile. In return, he is rewarded with honour and status rather than economic benefits.
In the essay I will expound upon the various arguments brought forth in the two readings “Morality with Regard to the Commission” by Oriol Bohigas and “Patrons or Clients?” by Robert Gutman. Both the readings discuss the patronage of architecture in earlier days and how in the recent years clientage and capitalism has taken over architecture. How today the architects are harassed by the demands of the narrow minded clients contrary to the earlier centuries where architects enjoyed the trust and respect of the patrons who granted them autonomy over the design.
Clientage, as stated in Gutman’s writing, is a type of sponsorship in which the sponsor clearly specifies his requirements and expects an object or service that will yield him profit. Bohigas believes that architecture today comes from clients who convert it into a symbol of power or an instrument of status and propaganda, clients who just want publicity and alluring images. This is the consequence of the political and economic structure that has taken over the world. Sadly, the architects have given in to this idea of capitalism and work on all sorts of theories to justify the immoralities of ‘the big clients’. Thus, the production today is devoid of any kind of moral content or freshness and offers no prospect of research and progress.
According to Gutman, patronage is accompanied with autonomy and control over a project. Among the major professions, it is only in architecture that patronage still serves as an operating ideal. This is because the position