The Blind Spot of Architecture
Academia has failed us… Architects have a blind spot… In a profession that impacts and is so heavily impacted by non-architectural communities, we do not know how to operate within the everyday. We are taught from the very beginning of our education how to speak about design. We essentially learn a new language to communicate with the architectural community. We take pride in this new language that separates us from others.
We are taught how to work with designers. We must defend design decisions and validate the gestures at all costs, or the credibility of the design will diminish. We are shown precedents that have shaped the direction of the profession and that have been designated as standards for the practice. Most works deemed architecturally significant are those that have been created by architects.
When students move into practice a critical component is missing, THE PEOPLE. How do we work with people? How do we talk about architecture with people? What does it look like when the community is part of the design process as much as the architect?
Architects are incomplete until this aspect of the profession is studied in academia. Architecture for architects is pointless. An architect that can design is nothing without knowing how to work and communicate with people.
It's so funny how, like you stated, we are taught from the beginning that you must "speak like an architect" and learn a new way of communicating when it comes to presenting projects or talking about them. We spend semesters learning new terminology and being hounded by reviewers about using the correct language. Then as we move through school and begin to work internships, we really start to learn what architecture is really for....people. We then have to take steps back and change our mindset to create understandable presentations for the actual clients we are working with. Go figure.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThat's a valid point, Michael. I see where you're coming from in regards to feeling a missing element behind the design process. I've always assumed professors pick topics to study heavily like 'design' in general to create a stronger foundation in specific topics. Believing that learning strong design skills comes less naturally in the long run than learning people skills and other client specific communication skills.
In a lot of ways, grad school feels like a ticking time clock. How much work can you cram in 2-3 years? Only so much work can be achieved so I assume they teach the "most important" subjects.
While I agree that having a real client behind the design process sounds much more fun and interesting, they may also act as a double edge sword and limit the design. I think a "professor is the client" type class were you pick the personality of the professor and he/she plays the client role sounds fun.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI think that the topic of academia is so important but can be so polarizing. Last semester I looked into some of the major points of view when it came to Architecture education and the human connection was not something that came up very often. It seemed to me that some of the big starchitects like Patrik Schumacher made a point that while they wanted their underlings to contribute to design, they were not going to be the representative face of the company with the big clients. People like Schumacher were interested in getting more technological aspects integrated into student education so they could get worker bees.
On the other hand, smaller firms wanted new people to know a little bit of everything and be willing to incorporate themselves at all levels of the firm, even with the clients.