By Andrew Wyne
What as architecture majors, are we supposed to learn in school? Most of the time we seem to be engaged in learning the process, how a building is supposed to fit together, what the pieces of these most complex structures are. In going to school and learning about all of the parts of a building, it has become clear to me that there are primarily two ways of thinking about architecture. That you can design a building that is functional and gets the job done for the pay check, or you can try to design something that will change the way the owner experiences the world.
In learning about all different types of architecture I have found out that there are very different ways to reason what and why to do something, and as an aspiring architect, it is my choice how I want to practice architecture. Whether you realize it or not, as we go through our schooling, we decide what is important and what is not, what is necessary for our practice in architecture and what is not. Very similar to how we grow up and mature as a person, we decide what is true and what is false, what our world view is. Whether there are many gods, or whether God even exists or not, what we believe is true. With architecture we have to decide what truth is and what truth is not. We need to decide what rules or guide lines we are going to design by, if any.
Which brings me to another thought--who is the one to dictate what real architecture is? Is it fellow peers? Is it our professors? The architect of the day who is making the most money at it? I was watching a ted talk of Daniel Libeskind
(http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/daniel_libeskind_s_17_words_of_architectural_inspiration.html), and he brought up some very interesting ideas about architecture and what he thought needed to change. The comments after the video were very interesting to read, some people thought Libeskind is brilliant in his presentation and some thought him to be an idiot. I think as architects, we have to decide and know for sure what our architectural moral code is, why we do what we do. One thing I do know from all this schooling, is that there are many different ways to design architecture. So if you have not thought already about what/how you will design in the future as a licensed architect, you might want to start considering that now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Great post. I think you've hit on one of the biggest misconceptions that a lot of young architects get sucked into. You can either design boring buildings and make a good living or you can sacrifice time and money to make something really good. This happens because architects lose their spark and forget that it's their duty to improve the built environment. They slip into designing the simplest, most functional building they can get the most profit from.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that you have to choose which path you take, it's that architects forget that it's their job to make the best solution the most beautiful one, the affordable one, and to convince your client WHY it's the right solution.
Nailing down a moral code for the profession of architecture is a task that will never happen. Just look at how difficult it is for religions to adapt their moral code to a rapidly changing world. I think the best we can do is to have our own Hippocratic Oath. We should practice architecture in a way that does no harm. We should be improving the lives of everyone who comes into contact with what we build. Just look @ Massive Change or Architecture for Humanity for inspiration. The best architects are the ones who can not only solve real problems but make the solutions beautiful.