How to really focus on the 'why?'
What I found to be an interesting point made in "Architecture's Public" is the idea that the ambiguous nature of architecture as a profession is leading to the confusion between 'why' and 'how.' Among other quotes related to ambiguity, De Carlo states,
"On the one hand there is Business, obtuse, repetitive and uncritical; on the other the Academy is regrouping its forces, presumptuous, pompous, and full of phoney ambitions. There are opinions circulating in favour of architecture as pure technology or pure fantasy; of the architect as an industrious functionary of the land registry office or as an inspired creator of monuments."
I found this interesting because the academy can play such a different role depending on what school you attend and classes you take as an architecture student. While some programs focus highly on the creative side framing architecture as more of an art, others focus solely on the technical side, neither of which really support the 'why' in my opinion but rather two different approaches to the 'how.' Are there ways in which participatory design strategies, solely focused on the 'why' can be better included in the university setting? What about in the professional setting where similar design strategies for similar projects become deployed over and over again to the point where a drawing set can basically be compiled using a few parts from several previous projects?
"On the one hand there is Business, obtuse, repetitive and uncritical; on the other the Academy is regrouping its forces, presumptuous, pompous, and full of phoney ambitions. There are opinions circulating in favour of architecture as pure technology or pure fantasy; of the architect as an industrious functionary of the land registry office or as an inspired creator of monuments."
I found this interesting because the academy can play such a different role depending on what school you attend and classes you take as an architecture student. While some programs focus highly on the creative side framing architecture as more of an art, others focus solely on the technical side, neither of which really support the 'why' in my opinion but rather two different approaches to the 'how.' Are there ways in which participatory design strategies, solely focused on the 'why' can be better included in the university setting? What about in the professional setting where similar design strategies for similar projects become deployed over and over again to the point where a drawing set can basically be compiled using a few parts from several previous projects?
Comments
Post a Comment