Time for Change
“Where we come from is very different from what we do now. The way
we see ourselves is a product of the past and is increasingly counterproductive”.
This quote from the end of the abstract sums up my view exactly.
Architecture school seems to focus so much on the same people, the same
architects, but what’s happening now? Who are the new trailblazers for the profession?
Perhaps there can be some good that comes out of studying the elders, but at
some point, their ways become so instilled in architectural education, that we
are limiting students and impeding their creativity. The architects that design
schools worship as gods are becoming hurdles that slow down the growth of the
profession.
The technology and tools with which previous generations were equipped are severely
outdated. And if we think we can continue to teach to their standards, while
neglecting that pace at which society is advancing, then we are shooting
ourselves in the foot. However, I believe this issue will resolve itself in time. The
current generation of teachers will soon ‘move on’ and our generation will be
in the position to acknowledge the need for change. It will then be our job to
make sure that students have the means to drop the baggage of the past and be
able to be at the forefront of our community’s future.
I completely agree with you. I feel like we are constantly hearing about the same architects over and over in school, but we are not learning about what is being done right now. How can architectural schools stay on top of what is most current? I am sure it is a question that our professors and faculty are constantly asking themselves.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I agree completely. I think that an understanding of the current designers and theorists is critical to understanding architecture's ways of addressing an increasingly globalized world, which is why we take courses like this History/Theory class focusing on fairly current designers, philosophers, and theorists. But beyond that, to understand where we might be heading, or even how we got to where we are, we need an understanding of the past.
ReplyDeleteTechnology and tools of the past are obsolete in some ways as far as production speed, but if we are discussing the overall effectiveness of them as design tools, are buildings really better constructed or better designed for use of things like Revit or Rhino? Technology is going to continuously evolve. Ten years from now, the programs we use today will likely be obsolete and substituted for something faster, easier, or somehow more cost effective. Any technical skills we learn will likely be rendered "out of touch" in a few years, and we will have to learn new tools. Learning to think and to design, to reason through a concept (which often requires a certain knowledge of history/theory and what has been done before) is something that is harder to learn later on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel it all depends on one's interests. School has to give basics, start the dialogue. Clemson school of arch has its own mission* and I feel it is a responsibility of every one of us to take a step and share the knowledge. I have my own heroes and think they are relevant today. For me Keller Easterling an important figure. She is talking about infrastructure that shape places. Another one is Lev Manovich (media spaces), Scott McQuire, Kulper, Snopek, etc.... Anyone wants to share, talk..? I personally believe, the change is happening every morning... we just need to learn how to participate in it.
ReplyDelete