At 05:58 AM 4/28/99 -0400, Wayde wrote:
>Don't forget, however, not all students who enter into architecture school
>intend to enter into the profession!
Of course! These folks should have a separate track within the degree
program, anyway. Curricula need to be more flexible in meeting the needs of
diverse groups who may only want certain benefits of an architecture school.
> Italy graduates thousands of architects
>every year, and very few of them go into the profession. You know, Lou Kahn
>couldn't draw, nor could Corbu, and Mies was just this side of ugly in his
>attempts at getting his ideas across in graphic form.
A lot of the famous ones weren't great at drawing, but they were able to
surround themselves with those who could get the job done. Wright was able
to copy Sullivan's ornamental patterns, but he (most likely) never went out
and sat under a tree and sketched trees. When he sketched a direction to his
apprentices, the drawing SUCKED! But he could do drafting with instruments.
I think that was pretty typical, as what did young apprentice architects do
at the turn of the century? The same thing they do every century, Pinky---CDs.
> I tell the 1st year
>students here that even if they feel the architecture profession isn't for
>them, an architectural education is a good *jumping-off* point for a variety
>of venues - multi-media, journalism, education, graphic design, photography,
>etc.
Oh, without a doubt, and you're so right to point this out to them. The
skills pay off anywhere you go. Again, they need a place to direct that
energy. I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all architecture program. But in
a traditional-practice track, they should learn at least a little of these
skills, be allowed to explore them in an integrated way, and not be
ostracized for choosing a less-fashionable route.
I'll turn my argument on its head now. A lot of people say, "I've never used
Autocad before---how will I learn it?" I've found that if you have been
exposed to ANY Cad at all, you can be at least somewhat productive with
almost any package in two or three days. Two or three months, and you're
buzzing along, and it only gets better as you pick up new techniques. You
don't NEED to be 100% CAD-proficient on graduation day. But some well-placed
exposure and a little practice go a long way toward making you pretty
valuable on day 1 at work.
>Don't forget, however, not all students who enter into architecture school
>intend to enter into the profession!
Of course! These folks should have a separate track within the degree
program, anyway. Curricula need to be more flexible in meeting the needs of
diverse groups who may only want certain benefits of an architecture school.
> Italy graduates thousands of architects
>every year, and very few of them go into the profession. You know, Lou Kahn
>couldn't draw, nor could Corbu, and Mies was just this side of ugly in his
>attempts at getting his ideas across in graphic form.
A lot of the famous ones weren't great at drawing, but they were able to
surround themselves with those who could get the job done. Wright was able
to copy Sullivan's ornamental patterns, but he (most likely) never went out
and sat under a tree and sketched trees. When he sketched a direction to his
apprentices, the drawing SUCKED! But he could do drafting with instruments.
I think that was pretty typical, as what did young apprentice architects do
at the turn of the century? The same thing they do every century, Pinky---CDs.
> I tell the 1st year
>students here that even if they feel the architecture profession isn't for
>them, an architectural education is a good *jumping-off* point for a variety
>of venues - multi-media, journalism, education, graphic design, photography,
>etc.
Oh, without a doubt, and you're so right to point this out to them. The
skills pay off anywhere you go. Again, they need a place to direct that
energy. I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all architecture program. But in
a traditional-practice track, they should learn at least a little of these
skills, be allowed to explore them in an integrated way, and not be
ostracized for choosing a less-fashionable route.
I'll turn my argument on its head now. A lot of people say, "I've never used
Autocad before---how will I learn it?" I've found that if you have been
exposed to ANY Cad at all, you can be at least somewhat productive with
almost any package in two or three days. Two or three months, and you're
buzzing along, and it only gets better as you pick up new techniques. You
don't NEED to be 100% CAD-proficient on graduation day. But some well-placed
exposure and a little practice go a long way toward making you pretty
valuable on day 1 at work.