The Fine Line
Architecture sits on this very fine line between the artistic and the technical and yet we call ourselves a profession - specially qualified to serve the public. To become an Architect (in America), we go through years of schooling, interning, and exams, and then must follow this notion that we serve a greater societal good. This leads to ambiguity all around, but we tend to take on all the roles we possibly can. We are artist, we are engineer, we are ultimate servant to the public. But in a way, these things are in opposition.
The engineer is the "how" and the artist is the "why." The engineer wants to provide a solution and let it be the most efficient possible. Forget the users, you know best. The artist wants to contemplate, examine, turn the problem on it's head and drown it until (s)he can find a way to communicate the most vague notion in an understandable way. So how do we manage these two sides? How do we remain efficient yet discerning in the face of the highest bidder?
I fully support the idea of participatory architecture since I think this can focus our attention on a lot of matters we tend to lose in the design process. Coming back to the users (with a discerning eye, of course) can get us out of our own heads and away from our egos to do the work we'd like to claim we do.
The engineer is the "how" and the artist is the "why." The engineer wants to provide a solution and let it be the most efficient possible. Forget the users, you know best. The artist wants to contemplate, examine, turn the problem on it's head and drown it until (s)he can find a way to communicate the most vague notion in an understandable way. So how do we manage these two sides? How do we remain efficient yet discerning in the face of the highest bidder?
I fully support the idea of participatory architecture since I think this can focus our attention on a lot of matters we tend to lose in the design process. Coming back to the users (with a discerning eye, of course) can get us out of our own heads and away from our egos to do the work we'd like to claim we do.
I really like how you point out how the profession of architecture basically has these two sides of each other that are in constant pull back and forth. The technical side, that is grounding you, and the artistic side that is wanting to disregard all logic at times. Finding a way to balance these two sides and create something amazing is what our profession is about and is why I have set up my career the way I have with obtaining both and engineering and an architecture degree. The idea is to be able to efficiently sit in that middle space.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that it is totally possible to unite all of these different roles into one title - Architect. But I think you are right that participatory design is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to a discussion of Artists vs. Architects, I don't really see architects as artists that use engineering to create their art. To me, Artists take reality and abstractify it to the point of art. Architects work in the opposite direction, they take abstract ideas, politics, and social issues and turn it into something real and functional.
ReplyDeleteVery good point in the first paragraph about how us architects want to consider ourselves an expert in all the necessary roles to build a building. Or at least adequate. The example of engineers and efficiency vs. architects and art relates very well with me and my civil engineer roommate, who will look at my projects and say something like "you know cinder blocks are much cheaper and do the same thing." I do, however, think that architects should know as much about engineering and efficiency to get the job done in the best possible way.
ReplyDelete