A layman, a professional, and a client walk into a bar…
The lines between who is the layman and who is the
professional in our field has becoming increasingly blurred. We would all like
to think that achieving the necessary steps to licensure equates to the high
power of thinking and knowledge in our field. However, often times these steps
just lead to an inflated sense of self while completing missing the essence of
what it takes to be a designer. I’m sure
we all have encounter the so-called professional who understands the nuts and
bolts (pun intended) of Architecture while completing missing the bigger
picture of the intention of design. Then on the other hand, we have probably all
encountered the opposite, the enlightened layman who, though they are not
professional trained, are able to grasp the deeper understanding of the Architecture. Architecture as a field is something that
most possess both, the ability to create space with experiential intentions but
also the ability to technically articulate a design. Can anyone really call
themselves a professional without a grasp of both dualities?
‘Client’ vs ‘Public’
Then we have the client, a person who is most likely a layman
when it comes to architectural understanding but has the emotional and
financial investment and interest of a professional. But who are we designing
for? The client or the public? Are they mutually exclusive? We must satisfy the client on a certain level
in order to build our design because they are essentially our patron, funding
our life’s work, but our architecture will surely outlive them, so I argue that
we must design for the public. Do we
know who the client for Villa Rotonda was? Do we even care? If they for some
reason didn’t like Andrea Palladio’s design (and perhaps they didn’t) does that
somehow change how it is seen as an architectural masterpiece? The simplest answer is to say that to be ‘successful’
in our field we step into the shoes of the layman, the professional, the
client, and the public to build a design that’s ‘good’, but we all know that we
can’t please everyone so who really matters?
Spot on. Every work of architecture should be looked at primarily as a philanthropic venture to better the lives of the user while secondarily meaning the needs of the client.
ReplyDeleteI can see how professional experience and education can easily cloud our ability to distinguish the why from the how. Learned behaviors can build up unnoticed if we don't question them enough. It is perhaps best to cultivate a sense of naivety in our practice as we approach projects - to help us stay in touch with our base instincts and emotions that the layman has easy access to.
ReplyDeleteI agree largely with your post that architects are needing to see the big picture of the design and connect to the common layman individual and see their needs. You pose good questions because the client pays the architectural invoice bills but we always are thinking about how the users will be using the building in the future - you must have both.
ReplyDeleteThe client for the Villa Rotunda was an Italian cardinal within the Roman Catholic church in the Vicenzia area who wanted to be a future pope and hired Palladio to build a home for him. The College of Cardinals who decides the next pope thought that the excessive funds that the cardinal spent on this architectural masterpiece was not within the values of the church and his architectural commission seemingly blocked him from his intended rise of power to the papal throne. Was it successful in achieving his goals? No, but that doesn't mean it isn't a great architectural masterpiece.
I agree, architects take an oath to put the public's interests over the client's interests especially in terms of life safety but I feel this should be broader in the sense that your architecture is doing good by the larger public and as you said, see the larger picture.
ReplyDelete