“A folly is a costly, generally nonfunctional building that was erected to enhance a natural landscape” (Encyclopædia Britannica). One often thinks of the luxurious garden towers of England with no intended function than to portray wealth. Tschumi
describes his structures in Parc de la Villette as folies (French), meaning a form as a result of aesthetics rather than programme.
One might not consider Zumthor’s Bruder Klaus chapel or Ando’s meditation space as follies, because that is “architecture”. A perfect combination of form and function
that would delight Sullivan and make Le Corbusier exhilarated.
But, is not the Bruder Klaus chapel just a result of subjective aesthetics and fascination for materials?
Is not the meditation space in Paris only an outlet for Ando’s obsession with concrete and narrow light openings?
I mean, a church and a meditation space… Do they really serve another purpose than sheltering its inhabitants?
Are not these structures only an excuse for Ando and Zumthor to be recognised as
“real architects”?
Are not they also follies?
If so, are not the Pyramids or the Parthenon when they have lost their original purpose, but not their relationship to the landscape also follies?
Is not the Lada a folly?
Of course, these structures have programmes – functions they all seem to serve quite well. The Lada stores the hay. Bruder Klaus creates an illusion of God.
The meditation space creates an urban void for contemplation.
But, the programme is not what makes them interesting. The storage of hay did not catch my eye on a bus ride to Skellefteå. The illusion of God or the contemplative
void did not give Zumthor and Ando their Pritzker Prizes. It was their sense of aesthetics and intuition for the perfect balance of materials that did. Who is the architect to decide whether someone should eat, make love or die in their structure?
