Why don't they teach us to design "regular" buildings?
I sometimes question the practicality of architecture school
constantly pushing us to innovate and to come out with creative solutions (from
scratch) for chronic problems while overlooking real-world constraints. I can always
get an A for creativity by designing a building that would for certain be a
complete failure if it was to ever be developed. Sure, it is academia, and everything
goes, but what I mostly see is novelty rather than actual innovation and I
often find myself trying to re-invent the wheel rather than enhancing it. How am I supposed to innovate if I only know the surface layer of all
the things that I should be an expert on if I want to improve performance and
not just come up with a new shape? Architectural education should not rely on work
experience to teach us about professional practice because what we learn at school
and what we learn at work does not correlate with each other.
John Habraken does not question the importance of studio,
just how it is practically the only thing there is to prepare students to enter
the professional world. When I was in high school, I imagined architectural education
to be much more technical and facts based due to the complexities I saw in
buildings. Six years later, I am still rather ignorant of all those
complexities. We are always reminded that most of us will spend our careers working
on non-design tasks or designing buildings that we do not even consider architecture.
Why is it then that we do not put more emphasis on buildings like this while we
are in school? I think it would be beneficial to learn some more technicalities
and how to design with real-world constraints in order to make architecture out
of buildings like this. It will challenge our creativity even more and spare us
from been disappointed by professional practice.
Lots of love went into this. No love.
I wonder if architecture schools were to place more emphasis on the technical skills, would our creativity would be stifled? Although knowing these technical skills would be very beneficial when entering the profession, I hardly think all of that knowledge can be taught in four to seven years in addition to form, function, theory, design, spacial analysis, critical thinking, problem solving, professional practice, etc. That's the beauty of architecture, you're always learning from mentors and the people you work with. I think it's better that we understand experience and space than all the technical details. When designing, if we can hold on to the creativity and conceptual ideas we learned to develop in school, the technical details will work themselves out as we collaborate with the experts. It's in our nature to want to learn more about those intricate details that will strengthen the project. But I think the concept and space comes first, then the creativity of technical solutions that support the design come second. So yes, academia could be a bit better about the technical aspects of building but I'm also happy with collaborating with consultants for some of those systems.
ReplyDeleteI go back and forth on this all the time. But this is where I am now... The greatest part about our degree is it's NOT a technical degree. The purpose of our degree is to learn skills like critical thinking, how to collaborate with different people, how to distill and convey complex ideas, etc. We should learn some of these more technical things on the job and through self education - the knowledge is out there and able to learned. Where I would argue the things we are learning here are not accessible outside of an environment like this.
ReplyDeleteYour point about being disappointed when we enter the profession is interesting. It's a sad reality for a lot of people. I think we need to reframe our minds. We are not in trade school - we should have no expectation to be doing the exact things our last day of school that we will be doing our first day on the job. If bold, innovative ideas are not getting their due time in academia and research, where would they get it?
I do not disagree with you guys. But as a disclaimer, when I say technicalities I do not mean teachical skills, but the ability to design with knowledge of real world constraints so that when is time to do so, we can design something that is neither a fantasy nor a dull box. When I said facts-based, I am talking about being able to analyze and think critically about researched phenomena and not just the assumptions in our heads that honestly nobody cares about but us. What if whenever we said that architecture is a unique profession we are only unconciously reaffirming how disconnected we are from everybody else, and in the meantime, falling behind. But maybe we are right, not just arrogant, and architecture is a truly special profession even if the rest of world do not legitimize us, but if so, what good is that for us or them? I am just asking this to my self.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you're thinking Robert. Personally, I find that the more constraints that are imposed on the project by program, code, competition guidelines, etc. the more interesting the project becomes. I like to focus on these objective and rigid parameters, and find ways to interpose creative elements.
ReplyDeleteI've heard/ read several times that architect's are only involved in about 2% of all of construction industry. If that's the case, then what minuscule percentage of built form is represented by works like the first image you posted? The harsh reality is that the vast majority of architects are going to design projects that are not that appealing. That being said, I think that the curriculum should focus more on the technical aspects, while still requiring critical-thinking and creative processes; else the profession be marginalized in favor of engineers.
I agree with Ryan in the sense that the best projects are usually a resultant of constraints. I think back to a lecture last year by Snohetta architect, Elaine Molinar, who said "sometimes what can't be solved in plan, can be solved in section." In other words, a constraint or necessity can drive creativity.
ReplyDeleteI spoke about this topic in my own blog post and the frustration with architectural education today seeming only to strive to create more starchitects. But after giving this topic more thought I think our education is providing us with the basic knowledge and creativity that we don't necessarily receive in the profession. Then what truly makes a good architect is being able to carry this over and actually successfully implementing this knowledge in professional practice with the constraints we're given and still producing great design.
ReplyDelete