Two sections from the reading Questions that Will Not Go Away: 'Creativity' and 'Reality and Ideology' were really interesting to me. Habraken's message concerning the responsibilities of the architect with regard to these two subjects reminded me of the question that is often asked: does the architect know better than the user?
The chair Wright tells you to use.
There seems to be a stigma attached to the notion of responding affirmatively to the question. But isn't that selling the profession short in refusing to do so? Why should anyone subject themselves to 4-7+ years of education, and several years of on-the-job experience, in order to earn the right to call themselves an architect - if they aren't afforded any additional authority? This is not to say that the users shouldn't have input in the design process; on the contrary, the architect's education is largely structured around responding to feedback, and rightly so (I should emphasize this point now because the remainder of this train of thought can be interpreted otherwise). But this education also trains the architect to respond to site conditions and site-, local-, and region-specific factors extrinsic to the users' motivations. The users' intrinsic motivations might outweigh concerns for any such factors, but the architect, on an ethical basis alone, should think beyond the wants of the user. Yes, the architect is providing a service to the user, but that should not equate to subservience. Ultimately, it is critical that the architect practices first as a steward for the greater good (A very broad idea, but to put it succinctly, as WG Clark states: 'it is not necessary that it buildings be beautiful, but it is necessary that they be necessary.') The obligations to the client, users, public, and themselves, is secondary.
Quick digression -
In contrast, the doctor, whose education arc shares several parallels with the architect, speaks and practices with authority. The doctor, whose service is rendered to the public, has the autonomy to determine the best course of action for a given condition. Their education and experience in their profession sets them apart from the average person - therefore, their opinions are taken in high regard. I am suggesting that architects should be granted the same platform.
All of that is to say that the architect is worthy of autonomy. Not to be confused with autonomous architecture, to be clear. If the architect's input is overruled in favor of the collectives', then the valuable attributes of the trained architect - the very same traits described in 'Creativity' and 'Reality and Ideology' - and the respective years of experience, are potentially squandered.
I agree with your comments, especially when comparing the rigor of the studies in the two fields. It’s interesting to think that architects, doctors, and lawyers spend relatively the same amount of time preparing for their careers and yet the latter are typically held at a higher regard and respect. I think it all comes back down to the public’s educational and understanding of the respective careers. I don’t believe the general public is aware and properly informed about the profession and its impact on society. I wonder if this also has to do with the antiquated perception of the architect which hasn’t been updated to today’s reality in the common environment.
ReplyDeleteI like your comparison of an architect to a doctor. Thinking of the doctor, they are nothing without their patients. They take the problems and issues of their patients and turn them into solutions for their individual health as well as following rules promoting the greater health of the community.
ReplyDelete