MANWEILER KENNETH JASON writes:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Jeremy Brown wrote:
>
> > Ask not how it is, but how it can be changed and how you can be a part of
> > that change. Generally, activists are peopIe that want change but do not
> > seriously want it enough. I believe there must be a niche/service/image that
....
> > -Only the humble thoughts of the concerned --- architectural evolution
through
> > revolution.
> > JB
> >
> Foey on self preservation. This topic keeps coming up and I am quite
> bored with it all. I am $$20,000 in debt and I don't even have
> a B. Envd. No one is more concerned about earning $$$ than I. But I
....
> need to undergo a metamorphosis. It is also sad to think you are
> defined by your career. How sickening it is to me that I will never be
> seen as more than just an architect.
>
With all due respect:
Goodness!!! How could Lindsay and Manweiler miss the point of my article
so completely!?!
To clarify:
The profession must evolve because times change. This is an argument about
allowing the profession to grow and reach new possibilities. Idle
dreaming, I think not. This is about allowing world-wide instantaneous
communication/ bold new building technology / new paths of learning and
discovery (planning/engineering/fine arts/philosophy/sociology) to
redefine the profession. This is about taking the profession off of the
site, out of the office, away from the contractor and into the future.
This about redefining the prerogatives and responsibilities of the
architect to the point where it is incomparable to the notion of architect
of today or yesterday. The relation to pay? With increased
responsibilities/skills/'worldliness' the architects' value (financial
and intrinsic) will undoubtably increase. We will be a more marketable
commodity without reduction in romanticism(<-if this
important)/idealism/vision.
MANWEILER: Just an architect? In whose eyes?
Never be satisfied with where you are...it (the lack of change) will only
disappoint you in retrospect.
JB
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Jeremy Brown wrote:
>
> > Ask not how it is, but how it can be changed and how you can be a part of
> > that change. Generally, activists are peopIe that want change but do not
> > seriously want it enough. I believe there must be a niche/service/image that
....
> > -Only the humble thoughts of the concerned --- architectural evolution
through
> > revolution.
> > JB
> >
> Foey on self preservation. This topic keeps coming up and I am quite
> bored with it all. I am $$20,000 in debt and I don't even have
> a B. Envd. No one is more concerned about earning $$$ than I. But I
....
> need to undergo a metamorphosis. It is also sad to think you are
> defined by your career. How sickening it is to me that I will never be
> seen as more than just an architect.
>
With all due respect:
Goodness!!! How could Lindsay and Manweiler miss the point of my article
so completely!?!
To clarify:
The profession must evolve because times change. This is an argument about
allowing the profession to grow and reach new possibilities. Idle
dreaming, I think not. This is about allowing world-wide instantaneous
communication/ bold new building technology / new paths of learning and
discovery (planning/engineering/fine arts/philosophy/sociology) to
redefine the profession. This is about taking the profession off of the
site, out of the office, away from the contractor and into the future.
This about redefining the prerogatives and responsibilities of the
architect to the point where it is incomparable to the notion of architect
of today or yesterday. The relation to pay? With increased
responsibilities/skills/'worldliness' the architects' value (financial
and intrinsic) will undoubtably increase. We will be a more marketable
commodity without reduction in romanticism(<-if this
important)/idealism/vision.
MANWEILER: Just an architect? In whose eyes?
Never be satisfied with where you are...it (the lack of change) will only
disappoint you in retrospect.
JB