Q and A With Architect David Adjaye
The designer of the National Museum of African American History and Culture talks about his vision for the new building
- By Joseph Stromberg
- Smithsonian magazine, February 2012, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 2)
You said that the primary spirit behind your plan for the museum is one of "praise." What elements did you use to convey this emotion?
When I say praise, I envision it as a human posture. It’s the idea that you come from the ground up, rather than crouching down or leaning. The form of the building suggests a very upward mobility. It’s a ziggurat that moves upward into the sky, rather than downward into the ground. And it hovers above the ground. When you see this building, the opaque parts look like they’re being levitated above this light space, so you get the sense of an upward mobility in the building. And when you look at the way the circulation works, everything lifts you up into the light. This is not a story about past trauma. For me, the story is one that’s extremely uplifting, as a kind of world story. It’s not a story of a people that were taken down, but actually a people that overcame and transformed an entire superpower into what it is today. The sacrifices of the African-American people has made America better.
Your design calls for the outside of the museum to be covered in a bronze mesh. What effect do you hope to achieve with this?
This has been a really complicated part of the building, where we’ve really been sort of inventing a new material, a bronze-coated alloy and devising a new a new way of applying it. Essentially, we are looking towards the guild traditions of the South. The freed slaves would move into professional guilds, including the ironworking guild. There were very skilled African-American casters— a lot of the early architecture of Louisiana and the South was built by black people. So what we wanted to do was somehow acknowledge that important beginning of transition from the agrarian to the professional class, and to reference this powerful casting tradition.
You’ve also worked on a number of small-scale community projects, such as libraries in lower-income communities. How do you feel architecture can act as a force for social change?
My practice absolutely believes that architecture is the physical act of social change, and the manifestation of it. I believe in architecture as a social force that actually makes good. And one that edifies communities.
To be socially edifying, and socially liberating, it’s an emancipatory form. And in that, having a politic which is to do with bringing people up, the politics of progression, of the progression of people. That is really the core of my work. When it doesn’t have that, I don’t really do it, or I’m just not interested, I don’t feel it’s what architecture should be about. That’s why my work is predominantly in the cultural, education and civic sector.
Do you have any thoughts on the future of architecture?
Cities are growing faster than ever. I think that how we interact with each other, how we tolerate each other, and how architecture mediates these sort of things, will become more important than just, how well you can build structures and what sorts of techniques and tools you have at your disposal.
At the end of your career, what artifact of your own would you want to see in a museum?
I would hope that some parts of the discourse that I have been involved in is relevant to the world that is the future. I hope that there are fragments of this conversation, which I think is really important. But who knows? Sometimes you think what you’re doing is really important, and history sort of flat lines it. It’s a flat wave, you know? The big build up becomes a flat wave on the beach, and it’s not really relevant. I hope that it has relevance, and it becomes something which contributes specifically to the discourse of architecture and space and human beings.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments