A Direction for Design


The closing address of the Convention at New Orleans was more than a
critique of the program. As a thoughtful commentary on some of the profes-
sion's philosophic pitfalls, it points the way to even greater accomplishments.


By SAMUEL T. HURST, AIA
Dean, School of Architecture and the Arts,
 Alabama Polytechnic Institute


 It is a simple fact of life that
thinking man continually seeks justi-
fication of his works; justification to
himself, to those whom he serves, to
that higher purpose in his life which
he feels and may call God. Justifica-
tion is necessary in any personal or
social order based upon responsibility
of choice and action. Where choice
is unavoidable, choice begets action.
Action risks success or failure and is
accompanied by responsibility.
Where responsibility is great, justifi-
cation becomes urgent. It poses for
man the great life questions of why
- why be, why work, why serve;
for us the questions why design, why
design as we do design? In the great
Biblical myth recently made so real
by ARCHIBALD MAcLEISH in the play
"J. B.", a good and responsible man
called Job seeks to justify the world
as God and Satan play tag with his
soul. whence cometh thou"
asks the God symbol to which the
Satan symbol replies, "from going
to and fro in the earth, and walking
up and down in it."
 Ours is not a simple "going to and
fro or walking up and down in it",
but is rather an avowedly purposeful
existence. We invite responsibility,
we seek leadership, we proclaim
beauty and offer our readiness to
provide it along with a full
measure of usefullness for as little
as six percent. No longer do we limit
our extended service to buildings, but
hold out our willingness and by im-
plication our capacity to "plan man's
physical environment; "to improve
the social order," "to design for
survival," to practice a "Social Art
for all men" and to do other high
sounding things of real and indis-
pensible benefit to mankind. Lest
AUGUST, 1959


we fall victim to our best public
relations, it is good that we annually
ask ourselves the questions the
whence, what, why, whither ques-
tions and seek honestly, and per-
haps humbly, to find answers in our
works.
 You have heard clear statements
from some of our profession's ablest
individuals and have seen here excit-
ing evidence of their work. They have
been justified by recognition and
indeed almost sanctified by succes-
sions of followers. It is not my
purpose to evaluate their contribu-
tions, but rather to call us back to
look at some of the troublesome
realities of here and now, to observe
a few things and to launch a few
ideas, simply if possible, not in the
elliptical phrases which so often
characterize our pompous utterances.
 How good is our "planning of
man's physcial environment" in
New Orleans, USA, or any other city
or town in the land? Humility be-
comes us as we answer this question
and as we contemplate the architect's
retreat from greatness and his equivo-
cal status in our time or as we
measure our national architectural
product as a whole against our vision
of "the Mother of the Arts". And
we hear the God symbol of MacLeish
as he says, "You won't find it beauti-
ful, You understand." To which the
Satan symbol replies: "I know that.
Beauty's the Creators' bait, Not the
Uncreator's: his Is Nothing, the no-
face of nothing, Grinning with its
not-there eyes. Nothing at all! Noth-
ing ever! Never to have been at all!"
 It is too easy for us to measure
our production of architecture by the
premiated published work which is
systematically and attractively served


up by the professional journals. To
do so is self-deception.
 Having passed the screen of the
publishers, such work is dealt with in
the most gentle manner. In the words
of one of our able editors, "let us
resolve that constructive criticism is
to be encouraged. If we are to pick
up our avoidable option to dotork
with deeper meaning then we must
have a sharper sense of evaluation.
The magazines are hamstrung in this
respect because the architects whose
work we publish will not allow critical
presentations."
 I applaud this resolve, but I cannot
accept this abdication of journalistic
responsibility, nor the implication
that architects are so thin-skinned as
to condone only the treatment of
sweet accord. I should like to direct
this commentary not toward the ex-
ceptional, recognized, published arch-
itecture of today, or the forward
echelon of designers it represents,
but rather to the ordinary, undistin-
guished, unrecognized* and unpub-
lished work which constitutes the
bulk of our practice and largely
shapes the new face of our land -
the no-face of the sprawling urban
scene which demonstrates our enor-
mous capacity to replace God's
beauty with man's ugliness.
 No profession can, I submit, be
justified by the exceptional perform-
ance of its ablest men. My concern
is for the norm of ordinary practice
and ordinary architects and for the
philosophy and method, or lack of it,
which predestines so much of our
effort to mediocrity.
 And my concern is with that body
of sensitivities and disciplines which
can produce a whole building and
make architecture a reasonable art,
available and useful to all men.
 I am not concerned with style as
a self-generating force, or with archi-
 (Continued on Page 12)


. 0