![]() Last year, the not-for-profit campagining organisation Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR) petitioned the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to amend their Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct in order to directly address architecture’s relationship to torture (AR April 2014). Such restriction asks architects to take an ethical and human rights stance on ongoing practices that could be considered out of their control. Client-side alliances and post-occupancy reporting complicate the architect’s societal duty. When we switch the question around, however, and ask if architects should curtail their involvement in designing certain spaces associated with prisons, specifically spaces intended for execution and prolonged solitary confinement, the answer becomes murky. The answer seems so clear, so unequivocally in line with the contemporary image of the architect as a just shaper of the society, a creative world citizen serving both client and public. Should architects design for torture? Of course not. The American Institute of Architects has rejected proposed ethical policy changes which would prevent US practices designing facilities for torture. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |