Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:35:45 GMT
From: Van Varga <Van_Varga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Common Ground
Architects, Craftsmen Seek Common Ground
by Ray Conlogue, Quebec Arts Correspondent Montreal
in The Globe & Mail March 25, 1997 page A13
". . . A symposium called Common Ground organized by the Institute for
Contemporary
Canadian Craft, with help from the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts and the
Canadian Centre for Architcture, brought together teachers and
practitioners
in the fields of architecture, craft and the decorative arts. Most
seemed to
agree that their fields had become excessively intellectual, with
architects
in particular having become divorced from the realities of building."
===============================================================================
================================
Excessively intellectual involvement is well placed in the academy. Its
focus is teaching/learning and research.
Practice is at many times devoid of any significant intellectual
involvement.
Academics and practitioners "speak" different languages. Sometimes they
use the same language. Sometimes academics
create new languages. I would agree that practice, involving actual and
physical building, is based on pragmatics and
syntatics. There is no way to remove one's thinking from it. Otherwise,
buildings would fail. However, the meaning of building
is quite another matter; and it involves semantics. That's where the
academy can be helpful---it is hoped.
BUT, I have a bone to pick with the academy! It is their excessive
control of the profession through education.
Before, it was possible for one to do an apprenticeship as a means to
becomming a practitioner of architecture.
Now, one needs a degree. Also, one could have practiced architecture as
an "architect" without a license. Now,
it is not possible. Too many credentials!!! The academy never made
anyone with talent, they only found people with
it. That is, the talent comes to academia. It is not made there. Why
is architecture in the academy?
Is it for prestige? There is more prestige in to be found in an
association with talent in practice than an association
with the academy.
AND, the profession limits practice on the basis of licensure, when the
world needs so much help in physical design.
A relatively small elite group of clients and architects mainly support
the privileged parts of society.
This is not helping human conditions in the world. It is only
maintaining the status quo. The profession is even
more narrowly defining the meaning oof an architectural education. It is
attempting to limit architectural studies
to those with such credentials. This is closed minded. It is based on a
belief. That belief is that those who have a license to
practice know more. They know more about "architecture" rather than
discovering what is architecture. It is a terrible club mentality!
There is a confusion about the purposes of the academy and the practice
of architecture. Part of the
problem resides in what I have stated above. This situation is caused
by both academics and practitioners.
I would welcome some discussion!
Howard
From: Van Varga <Van_Varga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Common Ground
Architects, Craftsmen Seek Common Ground
by Ray Conlogue, Quebec Arts Correspondent Montreal
in The Globe & Mail March 25, 1997 page A13
". . . A symposium called Common Ground organized by the Institute for
Contemporary
Canadian Craft, with help from the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts and the
Canadian Centre for Architcture, brought together teachers and
practitioners
in the fields of architecture, craft and the decorative arts. Most
seemed to
agree that their fields had become excessively intellectual, with
architects
in particular having become divorced from the realities of building."
===============================================================================
================================
Excessively intellectual involvement is well placed in the academy. Its
focus is teaching/learning and research.
Practice is at many times devoid of any significant intellectual
involvement.
Academics and practitioners "speak" different languages. Sometimes they
use the same language. Sometimes academics
create new languages. I would agree that practice, involving actual and
physical building, is based on pragmatics and
syntatics. There is no way to remove one's thinking from it. Otherwise,
buildings would fail. However, the meaning of building
is quite another matter; and it involves semantics. That's where the
academy can be helpful---it is hoped.
BUT, I have a bone to pick with the academy! It is their excessive
control of the profession through education.
Before, it was possible for one to do an apprenticeship as a means to
becomming a practitioner of architecture.
Now, one needs a degree. Also, one could have practiced architecture as
an "architect" without a license. Now,
it is not possible. Too many credentials!!! The academy never made
anyone with talent, they only found people with
it. That is, the talent comes to academia. It is not made there. Why
is architecture in the academy?
Is it for prestige? There is more prestige in to be found in an
association with talent in practice than an association
with the academy.
AND, the profession limits practice on the basis of licensure, when the
world needs so much help in physical design.
A relatively small elite group of clients and architects mainly support
the privileged parts of society.
This is not helping human conditions in the world. It is only
maintaining the status quo. The profession is even
more narrowly defining the meaning oof an architectural education. It is
attempting to limit architectural studies
to those with such credentials. This is closed minded. It is based on a
belief. That belief is that those who have a license to
practice know more. They know more about "architecture" rather than
discovering what is architecture. It is a terrible club mentality!
There is a confusion about the purposes of the academy and the practice
of architecture. Part of the
problem resides in what I have stated above. This situation is caused
by both academics and practitioners.
I would welcome some discussion!
Howard