The Value of an Architect
When we analyze the work of Peter Eisenman, Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Libeskind, and Bernard Tschumi, we evaluate based on the work's functionality, public acceptance, and explanation among other standards. How well does the work achieve its intended purpose? Does the public interact with the work, or are they ashamed of its presence? Why did the architect make the choices involved in the design itself? We, as products of the post critical movement, appreciate functionality over form and explanation instead of artistic decisions.
The client's wishes are priority in our minds, even so much to the point
that when we disagree, we attempt to convince the client of our position for
their approval on the decision. Why did we choose architecture, if not to
design buildings in the way we, as architects, prefer? Why does the client
choose a specific architect, if not to have a building erected in the way that
specific architect deems correct? Where is the value in our degree if our
choices are questioned throughout the process?
With that being said, I am in favor of design for both purpose (function) and pleasure (being aesthetics or fun).
Great point, we don't tell doctors how to perform surgery or lawyers how to win a case, so why is it acceptable for architects and designers to be seen as less qualified in their field? I partially blame the normilization of our profession on TV because it allows people to see the "pretty" side of things and not see the aspects that are degree is truly in.
ReplyDeleteKat,
ReplyDeleteI liked the last sentence you stated saying that we prefer functionality and understanding over artistic opinions and formal decisions. Many times in our designs we think that people will understand and appreciate all of the "deep, abstract" ideas that went into making it but really people just want to be able to use the space and to feel comfortable in it.