On Sat, 19 Mar 1994 HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> One could object to a person (art critics and art historians, for example),
> who have only a verbal understanding of the products of architecture rather
> than an understanding informed by design process, or practice. A person
> like that is really on the outside, looking in. The Prince should under-
> stand that situation very well! Howard
Howard:
So would you say that unless one is trained as an architect that one
should not comment on the adequacy of an architect's work?
I don't want to mis-quote you or mis-understand you. Certainly, the
non-architect can speak with only limited authority about the architect's
perspective in the PROCESS of designing a building.
But the non-architect can speak with enormous authority about whether a
particular design is successful, in any of the numerous ways in which the
term 'successful' may be understood. For example the non-architect might
not be able to explain why in some 'technical' sense, having buildings
come to the sidewalk in commercial areas is so important.
But the non-specialist can speak about how these environments feel and
function with limits placed only by their own ability and common-sense.
Most people would agree that Jane Jacobs, Lewis Mumford, John Ruskin and
now, perhaps, Brendan Gill, have very valuable things to say about the
built environment and none of them were professional designers Let us
critique Prince Charles for what he says, but, not for his education.
You certainly couldn't be saying that speaking about the built environment
should be left to 'trained' designers? Or are you?
David
> One could object to a person (art critics and art historians, for example),
> who have only a verbal understanding of the products of architecture rather
> than an understanding informed by design process, or practice. A person
> like that is really on the outside, looking in. The Prince should under-
> stand that situation very well! Howard
Howard:
So would you say that unless one is trained as an architect that one
should not comment on the adequacy of an architect's work?
I don't want to mis-quote you or mis-understand you. Certainly, the
non-architect can speak with only limited authority about the architect's
perspective in the PROCESS of designing a building.
But the non-architect can speak with enormous authority about whether a
particular design is successful, in any of the numerous ways in which the
term 'successful' may be understood. For example the non-architect might
not be able to explain why in some 'technical' sense, having buildings
come to the sidewalk in commercial areas is so important.
But the non-specialist can speak about how these environments feel and
function with limits placed only by their own ability and common-sense.
Most people would agree that Jane Jacobs, Lewis Mumford, John Ruskin and
now, perhaps, Brendan Gill, have very valuable things to say about the
built environment and none of them were professional designers Let us
critique Prince Charles for what he says, but, not for his education.
You certainly couldn't be saying that speaking about the built environment
should be left to 'trained' designers? Or are you?
David