In reply to John_Deamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Deamer) who wrote
<alt.architecture>
on 20 Jul 1994:
>You could substitute the name of any business,
>profession, design or art profession for the word
>"architecture" in this statement. No matter what
>life's work or road you follow, the statement will
>always be true.
>
>It has finally dawned on me that to send graduate
>architects out into the world essentially unarmed to
>fight the good fight is a major short coming of our
>education. Obviously, the faculties are composed of
>folks who could not, or chose not, to work in the
>world of built architecture (as opposed to the
>arhitecture of grapics and icons). So they are ill
>equiped to inform others about this reality (nor do
>they want to). Their reality, I suppose, is formed by
>their professional battles in academia.
Practitioners squabbling with academics and students has taught
me more than hacking architecture for 32 years (no geezer
flames, please). For me, periodic teaching, design judging,
lip-flapping with all professional ilk stew my brew of
architecture.
If I get your point right, I agree that professional practice
sucks for all professionals. That's what I hear from
attorneys, doctors, teachers, accountants, engineers, midwives,
computer programmers.
And, if I get a second point right, I agree all bitching about
clients, peers, payrolls, budgets, contracts, codes, insurance,
regulations, compensation, standards, and social stature is
exculpation.
Architects need to get rid of professional camouflage for
failure. It is not nearly enough to abide by all the rules of
society for architects: building codes, meeting budgets,
licensing, liability insurance, AIA, NCARB, accreditation of
schools, prizes, publication, and other forms of professional
validation only obscure the lack of good architecture. That
the same is true in other professions does not excuse us.
On the contrary, maybe because architects have less at stake in
this privileged system, we might shed this dead skin more
easily than others.
The profession of architecture has become a trap of failed
expectations, for architects, their clients and the public, or
so the whine goes. Give it up them, I say. The students and
youn architects I talk to want more than professional armament,
they want us to stop using professional bamboozlement to hide
from responsibility.
And, to get out of their way. I gotta agree.
And, let us heed this reminder of our inevitable
superannuation, posted a few days ago by Deborah Natsios:
>From dn@xxxxxxxxxxxx Thu Jul 15 16:25 EDT 1994:
<As a practitioner and teacher I would add:
<Regrettably, architects' infatuation with immutable
categories
<(classical canon, archetypes, typologies) seems to apply to
<their own professional idealism. The nostalgic attempt to
<'save' the architect's role based on a fixed archetype -
<whether the model is the architect of the 16th, 19th, or
<mid-20th century, is bound to fail.
<To the extent that they consider themselves a profession of
<quasi-scientists, architects would do well to consider
<mid-19th century biology, when the essentialist concept of the
<fixed species was discredited by Darwin's theory describing
<the mechanism underpinning the species' evolution.
<The mechanism underwriting the evolution of the architectural
<profession should be similarly reckoned with. As has dawned on
<the more thoughtful practitioner, this transformation is
<occuring on a level more foundational than that of aesthetic
or
<morphological novelty. Inexorably changing conditions of
<society and marketplace should be confronted with contemporary
<insight and courage (eg. the agile and adaptive tactics of the
<beetle or guerilla), not with escapism into the static
<categories of the past.
<Deborah Natsios
This seems to me good advice for architects and professionals
of all stripes.
John Young
<alt.architecture>
on 20 Jul 1994:
>You could substitute the name of any business,
>profession, design or art profession for the word
>"architecture" in this statement. No matter what
>life's work or road you follow, the statement will
>always be true.
>
>It has finally dawned on me that to send graduate
>architects out into the world essentially unarmed to
>fight the good fight is a major short coming of our
>education. Obviously, the faculties are composed of
>folks who could not, or chose not, to work in the
>world of built architecture (as opposed to the
>arhitecture of grapics and icons). So they are ill
>equiped to inform others about this reality (nor do
>they want to). Their reality, I suppose, is formed by
>their professional battles in academia.
Practitioners squabbling with academics and students has taught
me more than hacking architecture for 32 years (no geezer
flames, please). For me, periodic teaching, design judging,
lip-flapping with all professional ilk stew my brew of
architecture.
If I get your point right, I agree that professional practice
sucks for all professionals. That's what I hear from
attorneys, doctors, teachers, accountants, engineers, midwives,
computer programmers.
And, if I get a second point right, I agree all bitching about
clients, peers, payrolls, budgets, contracts, codes, insurance,
regulations, compensation, standards, and social stature is
exculpation.
Architects need to get rid of professional camouflage for
failure. It is not nearly enough to abide by all the rules of
society for architects: building codes, meeting budgets,
licensing, liability insurance, AIA, NCARB, accreditation of
schools, prizes, publication, and other forms of professional
validation only obscure the lack of good architecture. That
the same is true in other professions does not excuse us.
On the contrary, maybe because architects have less at stake in
this privileged system, we might shed this dead skin more
easily than others.
The profession of architecture has become a trap of failed
expectations, for architects, their clients and the public, or
so the whine goes. Give it up them, I say. The students and
youn architects I talk to want more than professional armament,
they want us to stop using professional bamboozlement to hide
from responsibility.
And, to get out of their way. I gotta agree.
And, let us heed this reminder of our inevitable
superannuation, posted a few days ago by Deborah Natsios:
>From dn@xxxxxxxxxxxx Thu Jul 15 16:25 EDT 1994:
<As a practitioner and teacher I would add:
<Regrettably, architects' infatuation with immutable
categories
<(classical canon, archetypes, typologies) seems to apply to
<their own professional idealism. The nostalgic attempt to
<'save' the architect's role based on a fixed archetype -
<whether the model is the architect of the 16th, 19th, or
<mid-20th century, is bound to fail.
<To the extent that they consider themselves a profession of
<quasi-scientists, architects would do well to consider
<mid-19th century biology, when the essentialist concept of the
<fixed species was discredited by Darwin's theory describing
<the mechanism underpinning the species' evolution.
<The mechanism underwriting the evolution of the architectural
<profession should be similarly reckoned with. As has dawned on
<the more thoughtful practitioner, this transformation is
<occuring on a level more foundational than that of aesthetic
or
<morphological novelty. Inexorably changing conditions of
<society and marketplace should be confronted with contemporary
<insight and courage (eg. the agile and adaptive tactics of the
<beetle or guerilla), not with escapism into the static
<categories of the past.
<Deborah Natsios
This seems to me good advice for architects and professionals
of all stripes.
John Young