Re: Do You Know What an Architect REALLY Does?

>I'm afraid I was being catty about the "whiz-pow" remark. But we have noticed
>that the punchiest presentations get the better reviews---even if the design
>itself is severely flawed. Also, technical issues are not typically discussed
>(for us till now) in reviews. The emphasis has been on esthetics and philosophy
>to a disproportionate amount.
>

Personally, as an instructor, I don't feel the Review is the time to
discuss technical issues. The arc for our studio problems is to begin with
a discussions of the issues--including the users, context, aesthetics, and
yes, economics. During the "middle" of the problem duration, we focus on
technical issues. At the end, we return to the ideas upon which the
students based their designs. If a particular technical issue is relevant
to the student's concept, it should be part of the final discussion, but I
get very impatient with Reviewers who critique fire code compliance at the
expense of the users, the community, and the larger meaning of the
student's ideas and design.



Jory Johnson
University of Illinois
Partial thread listing: