Responding to messages by Robert Murray and Mark Darrall:
Why do so many architects resent precisely that view of
architecture defined by profession practice?
Probably because the architectural domain is much more than the
profession. Professional practice is the least interesting
part of architecture because it is mostly about fitting the
prosaic rules that govern society: contracts, costs,
schedules, codes and regulations, all usually defined and
controlled by people with limited architectural interest.
And just about anybody who focuses on these rules can handle
them better than architects. Good for them, I say, and I
appreciate all they do to make better architecture. The main
tasks of architects still remain and all these rules are no
substitute.
So while the issue of responsibility contra liability may be
important to the legal and financial aspects of the profession,
it does not get at how architecture meets goals that have
nothing to do with law and finance. Loss of a practice should
not be a big deal for an architect. It might be a goad to
start a more creative way to do architecture.
I suspect that most architects outside large firms only
occasionally fret about legal and financial matters, and
probably should not do more. Only unwary architects are
frightened into over-emphasizing these matters by falling under
the spell economic security mongers.
It is reported that fewer and fewer architects carry
professional liability insurance. That sounds like a good
correction to the over-hype.
That some architects use the profession as their conceptual
framework for practice does not mean that all do so the same
way, or even that there is much similarity among them.
Construction attorneys say that the AIA Handbook of
Professional Practice and related documents are not well known
by architects in spite of wide distribution and usage. To me
that is good news and shows that architects continue to go
astray in disregard for the Sisyphean efforts of the AIA.
It may be that saving the profession as an end in itself is not
an beneficial goal. If the profession as we know it
disappears, perhaps not much of architectural value will be
lost. It might clear the ground for more imaginative ways to
do architectural work free of the legal and financial
constraints we now bemoan. Maybe there should be as many ways
to practice architecture as there are architects.
John Young
Why do so many architects resent precisely that view of
architecture defined by profession practice?
Probably because the architectural domain is much more than the
profession. Professional practice is the least interesting
part of architecture because it is mostly about fitting the
prosaic rules that govern society: contracts, costs,
schedules, codes and regulations, all usually defined and
controlled by people with limited architectural interest.
And just about anybody who focuses on these rules can handle
them better than architects. Good for them, I say, and I
appreciate all they do to make better architecture. The main
tasks of architects still remain and all these rules are no
substitute.
So while the issue of responsibility contra liability may be
important to the legal and financial aspects of the profession,
it does not get at how architecture meets goals that have
nothing to do with law and finance. Loss of a practice should
not be a big deal for an architect. It might be a goad to
start a more creative way to do architecture.
I suspect that most architects outside large firms only
occasionally fret about legal and financial matters, and
probably should not do more. Only unwary architects are
frightened into over-emphasizing these matters by falling under
the spell economic security mongers.
It is reported that fewer and fewer architects carry
professional liability insurance. That sounds like a good
correction to the over-hype.
That some architects use the profession as their conceptual
framework for practice does not mean that all do so the same
way, or even that there is much similarity among them.
Construction attorneys say that the AIA Handbook of
Professional Practice and related documents are not well known
by architects in spite of wide distribution and usage. To me
that is good news and shows that architects continue to go
astray in disregard for the Sisyphean efforts of the AIA.
It may be that saving the profession as an end in itself is not
an beneficial goal. If the profession as we know it
disappears, perhaps not much of architectural value will be
lost. It might clear the ground for more imaginative ways to
do architectural work free of the legal and financial
constraints we now bemoan. Maybe there should be as many ways
to practice architecture as there are architects.
John Young