I find John's note interesting. Here are a few related observations.
I have observed that most architectural awards (by the AIA for example)
seem to go to really poorly designed buildings. It seems that this is a
way to protect their AIArchitects (not Architecture) members.
I find the use of the semantic "design STUDIOS" disturbingly stereotypical
as a concept for teaching-learning architecture. It sets up a potential for a
master-apprenticeship relationship rather than a research basis for learning
by the student with faculty guidance. It leads to the idea of "I've got to
get a JOB with some architect---who is a master or a hack. I fails to
develop the individual student as a master in their own right.
"Classes" as an idea for segregating students of architecture has always
botheredme since my reading of Ivan Illich's DESCHOOLING SOCIETY. Incinentally,
he teaches here at Penn State U. I had the experience of meeting him last year.
I think you will see what I mean, if you give it a quick read.
Yamasaki spoke to us at Berkeley back in the 50s. He pointed out that a
building is done to the best ability of the architect. However, clients
will complain about problems in that building. Then inthe next building
all of these problems are solved. However, the clients will complain again---
with a whole new set of problems. This is how the architect learns through
the experience of design---becomes a better architect. However, with such
organizations as EDRA, maybe some of this canbe avoided. I doubt that it
can all be avoided. It's in the nature of the process of designing buildings--
-or anything else.
Machine-like building come out of the use of machines from the industrial
revolution. The game is to use machines in an artful way, and to express the
nature of the machine. Architects can like the game, but they may not really]
like the results of the game. Hey! How many architects live in buildings that
they design for themselves---or can afford to?
I find it amusing to have some word about a Boston building. It prompts a
question. Which building came first? When was the Boston City Hall built?
When was the Birmingham, England Public Library built? How come they seem
appear to be the same building---with different funtions---when form and
and function are supposed to be related in Modern architecture? You tell me!
Anyway, I would like to see the DESIGN-L come alive on this discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard
I have observed that most architectural awards (by the AIA for example)
seem to go to really poorly designed buildings. It seems that this is a
way to protect their AIArchitects (not Architecture) members.
I find the use of the semantic "design STUDIOS" disturbingly stereotypical
as a concept for teaching-learning architecture. It sets up a potential for a
master-apprenticeship relationship rather than a research basis for learning
by the student with faculty guidance. It leads to the idea of "I've got to
get a JOB with some architect---who is a master or a hack. I fails to
develop the individual student as a master in their own right.
"Classes" as an idea for segregating students of architecture has always
botheredme since my reading of Ivan Illich's DESCHOOLING SOCIETY. Incinentally,
he teaches here at Penn State U. I had the experience of meeting him last year.
I think you will see what I mean, if you give it a quick read.
Yamasaki spoke to us at Berkeley back in the 50s. He pointed out that a
building is done to the best ability of the architect. However, clients
will complain about problems in that building. Then inthe next building
all of these problems are solved. However, the clients will complain again---
with a whole new set of problems. This is how the architect learns through
the experience of design---becomes a better architect. However, with such
organizations as EDRA, maybe some of this canbe avoided. I doubt that it
can all be avoided. It's in the nature of the process of designing buildings--
-or anything else.
Machine-like building come out of the use of machines from the industrial
revolution. The game is to use machines in an artful way, and to express the
nature of the machine. Architects can like the game, but they may not really]
like the results of the game. Hey! How many architects live in buildings that
they design for themselves---or can afford to?
I find it amusing to have some word about a Boston building. It prompts a
question. Which building came first? When was the Boston City Hall built?
When was the Birmingham, England Public Library built? How come they seem
appear to be the same building---with different funtions---when form and
and function are supposed to be related in Modern architecture? You tell me!
Anyway, I would like to see the DESIGN-L come alive on this discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard