Where Do We Draw Inspiration From?
Honestly speaking, the beginning of the creative process for most architects typically involves:
- Immersing oneself in analogs: What does the global experience say about the proposed theme? Here, we study everything within the style specified by the client.
- Developing layout solutions: These can also suggest the image of the building or interior being designed.
- Relying on our own experience and preferences, because, ultimately, this aspect allows us to create a new project.
However, more and more often, unsettling thoughts arise: Is this chain of inspiration entirely correct?
Such “heretical thoughts” don’t just appear out of nowhere—they are the result of years of practice, studying the creative approaches of renowned colleagues, and personal reflections on the subject.
If we look at the history of architecture and art, we see that the emergence of new and, especially, revolutionary forms (we’re not talking about styles, as we believe their era has passed) depended primarily on the views of the authors themselves, rather than the traditions and cultural layers of the periods they lived in.
Take, for example, the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Had anyone seen anything like it before its creation? Most likely not. Yet, we know well that the current symbol of Paris initially provoked a very mixed reaction—many at the time considered it ugly. Similarly, many works of the Impressionists were deemed obscene by their contemporaries, and Abstract artists faced a barrage of criticism.
I still remember lectures from my student years about the so-called “decadent” bourgeois art and the disdain for any works that didn’t fit into the framework of “socialist realism.” But I also remember the magnificent “Moscow-Paris. The 1930s” exhibition held in 1980 at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. There was Malevich’s “Black Square,” Tatlin’s tower model, his clothing designs, Kandinsky’s extraordinarily beautiful large canvases, and much more.
Why do I recall this now?
What inspired these people? What was the meaning of their creativity for them? It was certainly not about “treading water” and reproducing forms from previous eras. They were all avant-gardists creating entirely new art and architecture.
What was primary for them—new technologies or new societal views? Both, of course, influence the way of thinking, but is that the only reason for the emergence of new art, different from what came before? I think not.
Read Kazimir Malevich’s manifesto “Black Square,” where he clearly sets priorities for contemporary authors—not to repeat the forms of the past, not to “dig up corpses from their graves,” but to create new ones, thus not merely solving the task set by the client and society, but challenging this society—what is possible for it? Because only the emergence of new forms is directly linked to the advent of new technologies (never the other way around). This, in turn, gives rise to understanding new meanings and sources of inspiration.
But if there is no previous experience, where do we find it?
We seek inspiration in the depths of our own minds—both conscious and subconscious (especially here!), as this is the source we do not know, but which can lead to new discoveries. Nature also suggests many forms, and there are numerous examples of this.
So, going back to the beginning, is it worth “surfing” the internet for inspiration? Or is it better to turn to our own minds, the depths of which are unclear and unexplored to us? Each person is free to answer these questions in their own way. This path is not easy—but it is the one that leads to discoveries.
