Every opinion matters (but not really) | iv. participation
This quote summarizes my response to the ideas discussed this week:
Here is my take on how architects may operate in a people-inclusive and efficient manner.
1. The Pledge:
Listen to a lot of people and filter all that you hear through your inner quality-detector. Be open to new ideas that may challenge and help strengthen your arguments, while slyly discarding the ones that don't really matter (usually coming from the loud, belligerent and shallow types). Have them participate and inspect your process. The audience now has faith in the system and trusts that the process is ordinary (but of course, it probably isn't).
2. The Turn:
Have everyone believe that their opinions actually matter and will be considered, even when you know that you may eventually come up with a better design response. Bend their arguments to feed your own rationale. This will only help build your reputation as a decision-maker, will help articulate a style, and draw the right clients to you. There is no need to dilute the character of your design (or self) by trying to please everyone. Take their ordinary expectations and turn it into something apparently extraordinary. Now the audience is looking for the secret, but they won't find it, because of course, they don't really want to know: they want to be fooled...
3. The Prestige:
...But they wouldn't clap yet, because making something extraordinary isn't enough: you have to connect with people at a more emotional level. Get people to tell you what you want them to tell you, and give complete credit to them for coming up with those 'brilliant' and 'original' ideas. Control the opinions: get others to play with the cards you deal - giving them the illusion of choice. And then tell them the story they never knew they so wanted to hear. Make them love you for it; for helping them see why your design answers every one of their ordinary concerns and more - ergo why your design might in fact be not quite extraordinary.
Bask in the applause (but don't get lost in it).
/s (/s)
/devil's advocate
https://ci.memecdn.com/5627478.gif
ReplyDeleteCool post, NuNu. But I think you're unintentionally pointing out the problem with architects when it comes to the role of the user. We all think we're good designers and that, because we're trained, many of our ideas are better than those of laymen. But in reality, "good design" is super subjective. There's nothing saying that whatever we have planned or are planning is better than what the user wants. It's just a belief. Not every architect is a reincarnation of Steve Jobs and can tell people what they want before they realize they want it. I would venture to say most aren't. So it's kinda pretentious to go into a situation where users are involved in the design process with the mindset that you will figure out what's best for them, as if they don't know what fits their lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteTrue. I was constructing this image of the architect as an intellectual exercise, taking our base desires and taking it to its logical end. However, I wouldn't complain if I could have the same vision as Steve Jobs did when it came to understanding his users.
DeleteI think you've found it Vishnu, the goal every architect seeks, but is never going to dare to verbalize. Does this mean that we need to look deeper into the motives of the socially-responsible architect? I mean, come on, "Walter's Way"...I don't think he's working very hard to hide it. The self-built homes, were required to follow his modular design. Ideologies tend to have a funny way of swing the pendulum from one end to the other with out one even knowing it. Is it really anarchy or is it totalitarianism?
ReplyDeleteSubtitle, "Architecture through the Machiavellian Lens"
ReplyDeleteIt is a thin line indeed that separates the good and necessary from the megalomaniac visions of a narcissist and it is good that for us to have a few examples that demonstrate the difference. At the end of the day I think the perceived good is a result of great and charismatic salespeople.
DeleteI wonder then if there is such a thing as an ideal image of an architect, akin to the hero of the Monomyth from A Hero with a Thousand Faces, or if there should be one?
The biggest difference between an architecture and an iPhone, I think, may be the production mode. iPhone is only a product of apple company. It can be manufactured in advance of its consumer's purchasing. And for the consumers, they have multiple choices to select the most fixed phone for them. But our building users don't have multiple choices. In most time, they only have one choice. That's also the reason why they will be more careful and willing to participate and understand the thinking of architects.
ReplyDelete