Certainly this question depends on the context, but this field feels narcissistic, sometimes disregarding the public just to create something different yet ugly for the sake of innovation, especially considering that uniqueness seems to be praised more than beauty in school. Yes, beauty is often subjective, but there are certain design choices that have been done for years that the mind registers as more satisfying than others, and beauty itself is a function…
Priority 1: Create for the client that is paying for it meeting the client's needs and desires the client is paying for. Remember, client PAYS for it. Priority 2: Serve the Architect's ego. Architect the ARTISTE. Priority 3: Get Paid for accomplishing Priority 1 & 2. Very close to 1 & 2. Priority 4: Who gives a shit at this point. Priority 5: Who gives a shit about the assholes making noise but not paying a fucking penny into the project so maybe that's PRIORITY ASS... right next to the FART HOLE.
2024 (Public Domain) PERSON WHO DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK!
Architecture is the thoughtful creation of space. In my opinion, that is more than 2% of what's being built. Notice I didn't say it was all good spaces being created.
Good is subjective. In addition the criteria of what is good is not consistent. Everyone has their own criteria so how is determining good "objective" which implies a "scientific-type" approach? It can't be because the metric isn't universally accepted by the whole profession.
Thoughtful is a fair perspective. It involves thought. Building Design would involve a thoughtful process for most design PROFESSIONALS. If you are a design professional and truly are "professional", what you do is done in a thoughtful manner.
May 6, 24 1:46 pm ·
·
JLC-1
could be, but just coming back from a 2 week trip in Italy, I'd say Architecture with A is very scarce these days.
Architecture with an A is thoughtful creation of space. So is architecture in lowercase. If you only consider big A to be architecture then your 2% is 10x too high depending on who you ask.
In my opinion you're not talking about big A architecture. You're talking about monumental architecture that hasn't been build in the last 250 years.
May 6, 24 4:46 pm ·
·
JLC-1
In a way Yes, but also about "thoughtfully created spaces" that make you feel/think/react, like Barragan f.i. - I think Foster, Piano, Gehry, etc. all do excellent livable objects, but still lack something to relate at the individual scale.
End users and public, but also with my clients in mind. Luckily, most of my clients share the same sentiments on placing importance on resident comfort, experience, and how everything fits within the city.
I used to care about awards, but after seeing who they'll give fellowship and awards to (such as someone who actively abused power to shut me up and another who treated me like garbage), I couldn't care less about the awards that AIA gives out.
I don't know, I do it. Every project has a different tint, people, site, scope, codes and requirements, different design interests, you name it... If needed, remember to remind the clients why they hired you in the first place. Do your job well for the public, yourself, other architects, whatever... Enjoy your work. And, as an architect, don't overestimate yourself, there are always some architects better than you and that's a good thing..!
When architects make architecture, is it created for the public, yourself, or other architects?
Certainly this question depends on the context, but this field feels narcissistic, sometimes disregarding the public just to create something different yet ugly for the sake of innovation, especially considering that uniqueness seems to be praised more than beauty in school. Yes, beauty is often subjective, but there are certain design choices that have been done for years that the mind registers as more satisfying than others, and beauty itself is a function…
it’s created for the client who pays the bills. Everything else is negotiable.
Yep.
Priority 1: Create for the client that is paying for it meeting the client's needs and desires the client is paying for. Remember, client PAYS for it.
Priority 2: Serve the Architect's ego. Architect the ARTISTE.
Priority 3: Get Paid for accomplishing Priority 1 & 2. Very close to 1 & 2.
Priority 4: Who gives a shit at this point.
Priority 5: Who gives a shit about the assholes making noise but not paying a fucking penny into the project so maybe that's PRIORITY ASS... right next to the FART HOLE.
2024 (Public Domain) PERSON WHO DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK!
That's the snarky reply.
Always for the public and the future.
Other architects are not important except to themselves.
Clients are generally uneducated myopic and money obsessed. They exist only to fund the project and shut their stupid mouths.
Unsurprisingly I am unemployed.
90% of what's built is to make money, 8% is for egotistic individuals wanting to show their wealth, about 2% is Architecture.
Architecture is the thoughtful creation of space. In my opinion, that is more than 2% of what's being built. Notice I didn't say it was all good spaces being created.
Good is subjective. In addition the criteria of what is good is not consistent. Everyone has their own criteria so how is determining good "objective" which implies a "scientific-type" approach? It can't be because the metric isn't universally accepted by the whole profession.
Thoughtful is a fair perspective. It involves thought. Building Design would involve a thoughtful process for most design PROFESSIONALS. If you are a design professional and truly are "professional", what you do is done in a thoughtful manner.
could be, but just coming back from a 2 week trip in Italy, I'd say Architecture with A is very scarce these days.
Architecture with an A is thoughtful creation of space. So is architecture in lowercase. If you only consider big A to be architecture then your 2% is 10x too high depending on who you ask.
you are right
In my opinion you're not talking about big A architecture. You're talking about monumental architecture that hasn't been build in the last 250 years.
In a way Yes, but also about "thoughtfully created spaces" that make you feel/think/react, like Barragan f.i. - I think Foster, Piano, Gehry, etc. all do excellent livable objects, but still lack something to relate at the individual scale.
Yes. Part of this is open to interpretation though.
Whoa there Chad, what about the Bass Pro / Ducks Unlimited pyramid?
Now that there is a true masterpiece of monumental architecture!
My order is usually: Owners, users, public, self, others (other architects).
I can agree with this
FOLLOW THE MONEY
Fuck the money.
Watch out for papercuts.
End users and public, but also with my clients in mind. Luckily, most of my clients share the same sentiments on placing importance on resident comfort, experience, and how everything fits within the city.
I used to care about awards, but after seeing who they'll give fellowship and awards to (such as someone who actively abused power to shut me up and another who treated me like garbage), I couldn't care less about the awards that AIA gives out.
Its created for the client, with responsibility to health/safety of the public. The result and design solution is created for yourself.
I don't know, I do it. Every project has a different tint, people, site, scope, codes and requirements, different design interests, you name it... If needed, remember to remind the clients why they hired you in the first place. Do your job well for the public, yourself, other architects, whatever... Enjoy your work. And, as an architect, don't overestimate yourself, there are always some architects better than you and that's a good thing..!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.