RICHARD FOURNIER ART: 2011

RICHARD FOURNIER

adv. Dipl. Landscape design

Foreword: This thesis will often refer to ‘the path of least resistance’ (tPoLR) as a noun, a thing, a stand alone idea , a condition, but it is the Choice (verb) of individuals and or groups to engage in tPoLR that will be evaluated and synthesized in the thesis as an attempt to reduce the problem. I will acknowledge my clear and early bias of tPoLR as a negative condition. It is philosophically a way to beg a question. Although I do feel this way, the philosophy of the idea is better tested by choosing a side to evaluate. I would also like to acknowledge the reality that tPoLR could be the choice of greatest utility for individuals and/or groups in no, some, most or all cases. Regardless, I am prepared to discover whatever may come of this journey.

STATEMENT: We live in a (n) (increasingly? maybe so, maybe not) boring and uninspiring built environment.

PREMISE: The consequences of daily exposure to an uninspired built environment are subliminally/ subconsciously causing reduced production, determination, dedication, morality, pursuit in a society which claims to desire greatness and creativity (do we really?). These traits are important (are they really?). If the powers that be (we strive for power and/or look up to it) such as government, corporation etc. isn’t concerned with creativity and inspiration why should anyone be?

If determination, dedication, compassion, morality, self direction and pursuit are desired in a functional and healthy society (are they, or is something else desired?)

Then how can we expect greater society to express these traits when we are surrounded by a built environment which in many ways represents and/or suggests an opposite influence. Today’s environment (barring the rare project or instance) subconsciously represents the status quo, being average and standard.

A smaller scale example:

Assumed truth for now: Parents want their children to strive for success and meet their maximum potential.

Most of us have and/or know parents, or guardians, who want this for their children. How is this fostered? By being mundane, mediocre, passive, settling? Certainly not, the environment which we live at home (which is a smaller scale built environment) is a primary controller of our own passion and inspiration to pursue a greater livelihood for ourselves and those around us.

Are you sure of that? Even if it were true, why should anyone care? Why does it matter? How does it affect the greater mass?

If the masses prefer inspiring and creative elements in the built environment (ex. Hunterwasser vs. 619 William Street)

Then why is the built environment continuing to develop in a standard uninspiring manner?

How has this come to be, historically, has it always been this way

Is it a cultural condition?

We should be particularly interested in discovering if this seemingly standard norm “the path of least resistance’ (tPoLR) has always been practiced by the masses. My first course of discovery is to research and evaluate when/ where/ why and how the path of least resistance came to be a mass condition. I am even more curious to prove that it is a mass condition today and if so what catalysts and sources continue to provide momentum for the condition. I also hope to discover the anomaly to tPoLR , because there certainly are individuals and groups that break from this norm. What situations foster the desire and/or ability to pursue a ‘path of resistance’? How ironic, the acronym for ‘path of resistance’ is PoR (sounds like poor, as in poor starving artist). I have an early hypothesis that personal integrity (also to be defined) will be an indicator of the individual or group that break from tPoLR condition.

Ok, now that my prime problem of research has been identified, on to the reason it might matter to you or I.

I propose to first argue that the field of design has not been immune to the growing societal condition of choosing the path of least resistance and to in turn discover why this universal choice has become so main stream. Provided that reliable evidence of the above statement exists, I will move into the next step of my logic sequence.

I then propose to argue that choosing tPoLR has not historically nor will it in the future produce creative, inspiring nor perpetual built environments. I will also look to the historical record of those who apply PoR towards the built environment. I have chosen to use the term ‘built environments’ to remain scalable in topic and expose the potentially universal application of this idea. Provided that tPoLR has a record of disposable design and that PoR has a record of stability I will move into the next logic sequence.

I propose to argue that it takes creative and inspiring project elements to achieve a perpetual design. When the adjectives ‘creative’ and ‘inspiring’ (C&I) are appropriate definitions for a piece of design, and then experienced by a participant, that participant(s) capacity to contribute positively to society in their given field of interest is enhanced. If the above idea is shown to be true over the course of this thesis study, it would logically follow that cumulative societal improvement can be achieved through creative and inspiring design. What a beautiful thought; Ideas making the world a better place. Ideas construct things, it’s not the other way around.

In writing this, I have identified perpetuity as a diagnosis tool for C&I design. There has been much work written on the unsustainable nature of North America’s build and rebuild model and the counter idea that permanence in design is a more sustainable model. I will explore this idea to strengthen my argument for perpetuity as a ‘positive’ feature and end goal.

In the above pursuits I hope to hatch out the argument that the power of C&I design in cumulative absence or abundance in the built environment influences societal despair or prosperity.

The built environment certainly has many instances of C&I design. Intuitively we feel more alive in the presence of C&I design? But why do we feel this way?

In closing: A small personal and recent example has greatly helped clarify and summarize the above ideas for me. Although I have generally lived a life full of PoR decisions as a means to a greater end I was recently made aware of a decision that I made that followed tPoLR and the problem that it contributed to. Early in the semester I was busy like a bee getting courses selected, preparing my business clients for my transition back to school, re-acquainting with classmates etc... One afternoon while trying to gather my textbooks I headed to the student run coop on campus where profit margins are respectful and the people and environment generally provide a significantly C&I experience. I know in my heart that this organization contributes to the greater good, at least relatively, but in my haste I saw a long line and quickly slid this understanding aside in favor of speedy service at the corporate bookstore. Regardless of the innocence or seemingly minor implication of this choice I added to the problem, I added to the problem!!!! I shifted my support to the mundane, corporate, profit driven, non C&I side in favor of expediency, but most importantly, that simple relief of my integrity shifted support away from a C&I situation, the very thing that I am arguing as crucial to the betterment of society. Thanks for pointing that out. I was the problem that day.

cre·a·tive adj

1: marked by the ability or power to create : given to creating creative impulse>

2: having the quality of something created rather than imitated: imaginative creative arts>

3: managed so as to get around legal or conventional limits <creative financing>; also: deceptively arranged so as to conceal [the obvious concealed] or defraud <creative accounting>

Adapted from (Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 2011)