sidenote: as the rest is not worth responding to (some
very insightful (education, interdisciplinary), some bad
(the below), and some ugly (teacher as spiritual guide).
On Wednesday, August 25, 2004, at 02:37 PM, Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
architectural ideas, still open to question, are fine and
have a critical function. architecture, beyond question,
beyond the realm of open questioning or requestioning,
where it becomes concretized regardless of what may
contradict its ideas (as a model of truth) -- this ideology,
yes, i oppose it and so has most of architectural history,
and the politics of that, of this, is also at the base of the
movements of architecture, which you say has no place
here. yet you know who the architects are before they do.
architecture, i love in many ways, it is a great treasure of
human life and knowledge and experience. architects
who think they have figured out architecture as a total
system, on the other hand, whether through theory or
a design philosophy or teaching/professing, often can
function to limit the ideas of architecture, constrain and
confine it-- which is fine-- as long as they are not also
doing this to the student population, where ideas are
not going upstream because the limits of hierarchies
which are based in existing political institutions yet
this political, economic, social aspect of architecture
and its institutions has become a natural monopoly
of professors who are practicioners who are theorists
who are grade-keepers (gate-keepers) who hand out
the awards (more grades) and give/get commissions
to people much like themselves, as is world-classism.
very oedipal, the father-son firm, and all that. there is
no substance to the _ideas of architecture, your post
about education is very informative, insightful, your
ideas about architecture are below average in their
addressing the complexity of the larger questions,
yet it is being limited by this interpretation as you are
the determiner of the truth of the matter, as: you know.
glad you've got the metaphysics bug, but that is a
"private" belief that is limiting to "public" ideas in
the realm of architecture, design, art, et cetera.
a world of 6 billion in this way gets limited by one
who has power in some structure which is based
on a larger class (of ideas) bounded by individual
ideas (finite) which can and often are ideological:
the infinite and unbounded aspects of architecture
thus serve the finite bounded defining by architects.
this is the master/apprentice model you mention so
often, except it is much more akin to master/slave.
that's not education, that's training, by and for dogs,
or gods, depending on the one-way mirrors in Oz.
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
very insightful (education, interdisciplinary), some bad
(the below), and some ugly (teacher as spiritual guide).
On Wednesday, August 25, 2004, at 02:37 PM, Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
as
> it threatens the utopian belief system of modernist ideology,
> which has thoroughly been dissected on list over a period
> of years and which surely does not need reminding of how
> basic an observation this is in the context of today's world.
Do you object to The Ecole Bueaux Arts approach to architecture?
Do you object to Bauhaus?
Organic architecture?
Architectural programming/systems analysis, operations research?
Post Modern?
Deconstructivism?
(These are just vehicles for learning---and fashionable one as that!)
Are you suggesting, as I sometimes do, just solve the problem---and
with firmness, commodity, and delight?
Has not the Modern Movement made some valuable contributions to
architecture?
Do you hate, for example, the architecture art work of Hertzog and de
Meuron?
architectural ideas, still open to question, are fine and
have a critical function. architecture, beyond question,
beyond the realm of open questioning or requestioning,
where it becomes concretized regardless of what may
contradict its ideas (as a model of truth) -- this ideology,
yes, i oppose it and so has most of architectural history,
and the politics of that, of this, is also at the base of the
movements of architecture, which you say has no place
here. yet you know who the architects are before they do.
architecture, i love in many ways, it is a great treasure of
human life and knowledge and experience. architects
who think they have figured out architecture as a total
system, on the other hand, whether through theory or
a design philosophy or teaching/professing, often can
function to limit the ideas of architecture, constrain and
confine it-- which is fine-- as long as they are not also
doing this to the student population, where ideas are
not going upstream because the limits of hierarchies
which are based in existing political institutions yet
this political, economic, social aspect of architecture
and its institutions has become a natural monopoly
of professors who are practicioners who are theorists
who are grade-keepers (gate-keepers) who hand out
the awards (more grades) and give/get commissions
to people much like themselves, as is world-classism.
very oedipal, the father-son firm, and all that. there is
no substance to the _ideas of architecture, your post
about education is very informative, insightful, your
ideas about architecture are below average in their
addressing the complexity of the larger questions,
yet it is being limited by this interpretation as you are
the determiner of the truth of the matter, as: you know.
glad you've got the metaphysics bug, but that is a
"private" belief that is limiting to "public" ideas in
the realm of architecture, design, art, et cetera.
a world of 6 billion in this way gets limited by one
who has power in some structure which is based
on a larger class (of ideas) bounded by individual
ideas (finite) which can and often are ideological:
the infinite and unbounded aspects of architecture
thus serve the finite bounded defining by architects.
this is the master/apprentice model you mention so
often, except it is much more akin to master/slave.
that's not education, that's training, by and for dogs,
or gods, depending on the one-way mirrors in Oz.
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html