- - The original note follows - -
From: rbmurray@xxxxxxxxxx (Robert B. Murray)
Subject: Re: Can this profession be saved?
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 02:14:37 GMT
Architecture has always been "in trouble." A vanishingly small portion of
all buildings ever built were designed by architects, but our perspective
is compressed by history so that successful buildings and their designers
stand out.
As a practitioner who also manages architectural consultants in municipal
projects, I see some repeated failings in the field.
The first, and probably the worst, is a general (though not universal)
failure to accept responsibility for a comprehensive understanding of the
project. By this, I mean that architects are for the most part not well
educated in the engineering disciplines that they must coordinate in order
to implement a design. This frequently undermines the success of even
attractive buildings, but also leads to an aesthetic failing in those
buildings because of a lack of integration of _all_ the architectural
disciplines into the design.
I'm not sure if there is a way to address the following problem, but the
fact is that the majority of architects are mediocre or worse. This may
be a simple result of Sturgeon's Law (90% of anything is sh*t) or it may
be that licensing standards are too low or don't address critical
issues. The fact is, though, that there are a lot of practitioners who
are stretching their abilities when they design subdivision houses. How
would I change licensing standards to weed out the aesthetically unfit?
I have no idea...
A third problem is embodied in the standard contract provided by the
largest architectural association in the US. If you read this contract
from the owner's perspective, it seems to absolve the architect of any
responsibility for errors or omissions, or for the quality of the final
product. Liability for failures in large buildings are financially
imponderable. It is frightening to consider that a simple mistake could
ruin you professionally and monetarily. But if you are not willing to
_take_ responsibility for the outcome of your work, why should the owner
hire you? This failure of nerve, if you will, has caused enormous decline
in respect for architects in the last two decades. It has, in a sense,
forced clients to stick with the proven, to avoid experimentation - post
modernism is, after all, just pretty paint on a modernist structure.
One final comment before I get down off my soapbox. The monetary rewards
in architecture do not go to the gifted artists, they go to the gifted
salespeople. If a gifted artist and a gifted seller team up, theirs are
the good buildings that actually get built. Be wise enough to know your
limitations, and how you fit into this equation. 'Nuff said.
Dale Bushnell c/o rbmurray@xxxxxxxxxx
From: rbmurray@xxxxxxxxxx (Robert B. Murray)
Subject: Re: Can this profession be saved?
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 02:14:37 GMT
Architecture has always been "in trouble." A vanishingly small portion of
all buildings ever built were designed by architects, but our perspective
is compressed by history so that successful buildings and their designers
stand out.
As a practitioner who also manages architectural consultants in municipal
projects, I see some repeated failings in the field.
The first, and probably the worst, is a general (though not universal)
failure to accept responsibility for a comprehensive understanding of the
project. By this, I mean that architects are for the most part not well
educated in the engineering disciplines that they must coordinate in order
to implement a design. This frequently undermines the success of even
attractive buildings, but also leads to an aesthetic failing in those
buildings because of a lack of integration of _all_ the architectural
disciplines into the design.
I'm not sure if there is a way to address the following problem, but the
fact is that the majority of architects are mediocre or worse. This may
be a simple result of Sturgeon's Law (90% of anything is sh*t) or it may
be that licensing standards are too low or don't address critical
issues. The fact is, though, that there are a lot of practitioners who
are stretching their abilities when they design subdivision houses. How
would I change licensing standards to weed out the aesthetically unfit?
I have no idea...
A third problem is embodied in the standard contract provided by the
largest architectural association in the US. If you read this contract
from the owner's perspective, it seems to absolve the architect of any
responsibility for errors or omissions, or for the quality of the final
product. Liability for failures in large buildings are financially
imponderable. It is frightening to consider that a simple mistake could
ruin you professionally and monetarily. But if you are not willing to
_take_ responsibility for the outcome of your work, why should the owner
hire you? This failure of nerve, if you will, has caused enormous decline
in respect for architects in the last two decades. It has, in a sense,
forced clients to stick with the proven, to avoid experimentation - post
modernism is, after all, just pretty paint on a modernist structure.
One final comment before I get down off my soapbox. The monetary rewards
in architecture do not go to the gifted artists, they go to the gifted
salespeople. If a gifted artist and a gifted seller team up, theirs are
the good buildings that actually get built. Be wise enough to know your
limitations, and how you fit into this equation. 'Nuff said.
Dale Bushnell c/o rbmurray@xxxxxxxxxx