Re: Can this profession be saved?

- - The original note follows - -

From: Fra Diabolo <ast107@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Can this profession be saved?
Date: 14 Jul 1994 22:08:54 GMT




Architecture=Art? Surely you jest. I am thoroughly convinced that the
reduction of architecture to a visual aesthetic has been the downfall of
this profession. How would you qualify beautiful or quantify good design?
How is FLW's architecture more beautiful than Robert Stern's or Joe "the
hack" architect? How can you support the construction of beautiful
architecture when the its main ingredients are so misunderstood and
direction so misinterpreted? Most architects probably still equate beauty
with composition.

Architecture=useful? To keep things in perspective, I would probably
agree that architecture should address the issues that warrants its
conception. Does this mean it has to be useful? Not necessarily. The
reason behind my statement is not easily nor succinctly explainable but
I'll venture to say that I would rather have Lebbeus Woods attend to the
design of my abode than Joe the developer extraordinarie. Risky but true.

Victor Hugo recognized the impending doom of architecture when the first
books were printed. We know from architectural treatises from Le-Duc,
Alberti and others that Period Churches represented a great deal more to
people then than to us now. Architecture, once used as knowledge
containers and designed to be read, were then being replaced by books
that were more widely available and accessible. The architectural
profession oversight in this matter has been the lack of response, or
better, the wrong response to the opportunities afforded by printed
books. The great oversight came in the renaissance when it became
commonplace to proportionately equate images to architecture. The
development of facade architecture seems to be the direct result of this
misfortunate evolution.

The PA article reflects truly the general nature and direction of
architecture today. Do people really care, I don't think so. Architects
were once more than visual interpreters, structural engineers and color
coordinators. In any case, I'm not really worried. Besides, if the
architectural profession is indeed obsolete, why should it be saved? Let
it die a natural death.


anthony tan
penn state
Partial thread listing: