I was thinking that one of the possible reasons why architecture is suffering is due the idea that Architecture is the marriage between science, and art. Perhaps if we could attempt to get rid of the "art" we would see more people making money. Jobs that make money = Function. Sure some people will make money in art, but it's few and far between. The fact is that art is so subjective, and so placing value on it is tenuous at best. This is compounded with the fact that there are now tons of subsidiary bussinesses such as interior design/decorators etc. that can make things "look nice" .
Design in and of itsself could save people tons of money, and hold the same significance in society that engineering/healthcare hold, but not with all the artsy bullshit.
Also, artists/hipsters by nature can't flip a dollar and they are the ones entering architecture. It's weird because older architects I've meant is like some bad ass, pompous go getter, young ones are just hipsterish.
Arch is suffering because people aren't building things right now.
Also, there's a culture of 'suffering for your art' in architecture that is maybe unnecessary.
I think that, to some degree, the divide between 'art' and 'science' is a bit overmade - usually, one winds up improving the other. Architects are in a much better position than specialists to look at problems laterally and find unexpected solutions, and are in a much better position than aesthetically-focused people to actually make those solutions work properly.
The trick is figuring out how to point this out to your client, since this perspective is really very crucial to the proper success of most of their projects.
The reason we are struggling right now is primarily due to global meltdown. Nothing you can do about that. As far as art in architecture goes, I wish the profession was more artsy if anything. And this comes from a technical paper-shuffler. I swear half the projects I ever worked on were designed on an accounting software.
And what's with the hipster hate? Only a hipster knows what a hipster even is.
Damn it Rusty. You might have got me again on speling. Only a hipster knows what a hipster is? That's not true, but now that we are generalizing, I just want to say that people who are "in it for the art" generally do not have the combination of business sense and financial ambition to make a lot of money. This, of course is not always true. I don't hate hipsterism. I suppose I am somewhat envious of people who get to be involved with art but don't have to pay the price which seems to be the case for some "Hipsterish" people I know. On the other hand, I do believe function should come before aesthetics. It's jus the way I am mentally wired. I do think they are both important.
gehry, hadid, foster, rogers, piano, holl.. These are among the wealthiest architects, and they are all on the 'art' side of that debate. Sure, you 'suffer' for your art, and architecture makes you suffer more because its' not really 'art'. But You have the option to keep going with a corporate firm, make money & manage projects.
The world would be a cold, dull place without artists and architects that believe in the power of aesthetic experience.
They are also on the technical side of the debate, to a degree. Gehry adapted CATIA to make his crazy things actually stand up, for example. There are advancements that aren't just aesthetic.
While the end result is sometimes just 'form for form's sake', it doesn't necessarily have to be.
Architecture - Art = Engineering. It sounds like you need a career change, Jordan. And people make art to make art, not to make money. I think same applies to most architects.
just want to say that people who are "in it for the art" generally do not have the combination of business sense and financial ambition to make a lot of money.
I think this particular problem has more to do with individuals who take themselves too seriously. you can be artsy and make money.
I never said that architecture should be devoid of art. I am also not certain that when the primary concern is function that architecture is engineering. Can't art come from this? I mean the fact is that a few people with good marketing skills, and sufficient capital will turn something that many people deem as art into a lucrative project. People call certain architecture boring...to some people Zaha hadid's work is obnoxious, while simple patterns/rhythem are comfortable.
have you seen a gehry building go up mixmaster? I'd beg to differ and think think his is a 'form for form' sake approach. CATIA may have really helped on the skin and its fabrication, but lets not trick ourselves into thinking that there is really anything innovative beyond the surface.
I wouldn't disagree that it's basically form for form's sake. However, appropriating crazy aircraft engineering software was a technical advancement that wasn't just aesthetic.
Actually, one could make the argument that demographically most hipsters are generally the children of upper-middle-class professionals and business owners. And because they're exposed to a level of "insider knowledge" from a very early age, they're likely to probably have more general business knowledge, including what high stress does to families, than the general public.
Blaming hipsters for the downfall of an entire profession is like blaming hipsters because they've made New York "less real" even though hipsters on paper have made New York a better place to live.
As someone who deals with a lot of employees-turned-business-owners, I can confidently say that owning your own business has very little benefits when it comes to money. The only real benefit is freedom but not keeping hours, not doing jobs to the customers satisfaction and not getting all of your necessary paper work done means that your customers stop coming back. The same rules that were applied to you as an employee of another company are still relatively there.
I would actually go so far to say that I only know of two business owners who've actually made more personal income from becoming independent than they made when they worked for someone else. And that's only happening because they've had the opportunities to hire people and expand their business.
Decent point ^. If you read closely I said the combination of finanicial ambition and business sense. There are certain artists out there (actually the majority) who are introverted and have difficult time selling an idea an idea to people who have money. There are hipsters who are usually aware socially, but don't have a drive to earn money in part because they don't need to. School is paid off, ad help is there when needed, but also because part of being alternative is not needing to work a slave job in order to command a high salary.
All these -what's wrong with architecture- conversations are boring! Five years ago if someone said architecture is failing on this forum, that person would be declared a traitor.
How can New York be a better place to live, when a working hipster can't even rent one bedroom apartment to raise a family of three?
Isn't re-appropriating technology for new uses a kind of advancement? Now I am confused.
Not all advancements are necessarily "good" advancements in everyone's eyes, or are used properly. They may clash with whatever ideological brick you cling to for flotation in the raging seas of change. But they are still different than what is done in the past.
Architects can be well-positioned to make these kind of connections between the details of making things happen and the artistic sensibility to see what kind of things should happen. Monetizing that is important.
All these -what's wrong with architecture- conversations are boring!
some of us are actually sophisticated algorithms pre-programmed with stock topics (i.e. which architecture school should I go to - plz review my portfolio - civil engineers will rule the world) in order to bait the other web-bots into mining wikipedia for responses. there are very few real humans left on archinect.
how can we get off our asses and create a mass demand for architecture?
Stop adding frills to multi-unit buildings no one uses, are underutilized or their expense outweighs benefits. I know why real estate developers add them. It's a laundry list of check offs that allows them to dramatically raise rents while adding little value.
What I am talking about are buildings that have 4 treadmills and stair climber and call it a gym, pools where you can literally touch both sides of the pool at the same time, libraries that are two shelves and a box of musty "Us"magazines from three years ago and lobbies that don't have any actual "lobbying."
I believe Koolhaus referred to that idea as "junkspace."
No architect does science in the truest sense of the discipline - that's why we practice art. Art is science stripped of necessity and bureaucracy.
The closest I have seen a science based approach in recent architecture is by Gianni Botsford in his Light House (2005) and the work of Phillippe Rahm. Read this
If you strip architecture of art, you don't have science - you have a mixture of water-divining and consumerism.
Stripping architecture of the "art" component is going to make you more money?
Seriously? So it's not that the economy is bad. It's not that America and Europe are going down the toilet. It's not that aesthetics have changed over the years. It's not that laypeople don't understand architecture. It's not that transport and material costs have gone up.
No, all that is secondary, or even irrelevant, next to the fact that "art" is attached to architecture. Take it away and all your problems will vanish. I have five letters for you:
LMFAO
Incidentally, what's with generalizing all artists? You may not even be conscious of it, but I think your middle-class-to-the-boots mentality has implanted this at the back of your head:
"Poverty = immorality, in some roundabout way, because that's what my unimaginative middle class peers believe too".
A person who doesn't make much money, because she does what she loves, strikes you as somewhat lesser yes? Well, perhaps you might want to consider an update. Something a bit more relevant to, you know, the 21st century.
"Art" and "science" are academic divisions that aren't suited to a whole host of disciplines, from branches of Geology right down to Linguistics. It's practical when designing a college syllabus, but that's pretty much it.
Can you imagine where we'd be if people like Da Vinci decided "Oh, I can't paint and stuff, it's art, and I'm a science guy"?
Or if Steve Jobs decided "Hell, why bother with aesthetics, just go on and have all the wires and crap sticking out. IT is a science, forget the artsy crap".
Seriously. An architect needs both qualities, art and science. Seems to me the only reason one would whine about it is if he lacks one in particular. What's so hard about the art part? If you can't be creative about it, go imitate something. Don't grouch that other people have good taste.
If you design boring ass buildings, people will say you suck. You will not get contracts. You will lose money. I will not pay you to draw me the equivalent of a rectangular prison cell, however much it functions. Get over it.
In the words of Clinton "It's the economy, stupid."
Aug 17, 11 3:15 am ·
·
jordan,
No... it is not the marriage of art and science. That would have been helpful.
The problem is the perception that architects are all artsy fartsy beatnik Frank Gehry wannabes that produced incomprehensible inhumane buildings.
Traditional Architecture was seen as an Art and Science married in a balanced manner.
It wasn't art centric but a balance of both. Nobody wants an ugly building. They want both beautiful buildings that are recognizable as buildings but they also want them to be practical, economical, functional and sound. They want more "form follows function" and in the middle. This is because most people are not on the extreme but more middle conservatives. They aren't interested in a bunch of social statements.
Aug 17, 11 4:28 am ·
·
Basically what I am saying is that we need both. Science without art is dull and unsexy while Art without science is all sexy but no logical soundness. Like Architecture that is a bimbo.
It be great if the "chick" is sexy and has brains ("scientific brilliance").
I do think Rusty makes a good point about architecture holding the same significance as engineering/healthcare(it should) and yet it clearly doesn't if you look at how it is valued by the marketplace, most americans, etc....
The fact is we are "very conservative" by nature once you strip away the fancy shades and the fashion statements and that is why we are insignificant as a profession. At the end of the day there are too many architects not realizing their full potential, the profession is what stands in the way
"The fact is we are "very conservative" by nature once you strip away the fancy shades and the fashion statements and that is why we are insignificant as a profession. At the end of the day there are too many architects not realizing their full potential, the profession is what stands in the way."
Not sure it would be possible for me to disagree with a statement more than I do with this one. Relevance is not about being conservative or not conservative. Relevance is about providing services and solutions that satisfy the needs of a customer and provide solid value.
To the extent we are not relevant -- and I don't necessarily agree we're not relevant -- then we have to step back and take a close and critical look as how we are educated, and how we approach our work, including our own attitudes about what we do.
We harp here consistently about how the marketplace doesn't "value" our skills and our work, as though the marketplace is somehow too stupid to realize how wonderful we are. IMHO, the marketplace is acting in a totally rational manner -- if there's a problem with how we're valued, then we need to look first at our own behavior and our own performance.
We harp here consistently about how the marketplace doesn't "value" our skills and our work, as though the marketplace is somehow too stupid to realize how wonderful we are. IMHO, the marketplace is acting in a totally rational manner -- if there's a problem with how we're valued, then we need to look first at our own behavior and our own performance.
many people actually do value architects - it's that the vast majority of the general public cannot afford our services (or any sort of work that isn't mostly about keeping things from falling apart for that matter), and the number of those who can (which includes both individuals and organizations) have dwindled. right now we've got a ton of wealth currently tied up in the hands of just a few people, and they generally aren't spending this money on the built environment. the more people who can afford to hire architects = more work. less people who can hire architects = less work. even if you have one person who owns a bunch of property they generally only work with one or two architects for all their projects. they spend their money far too efficiently - which isn't good for the rest of us.
and if we're talking about funding for building science research - where do you think most of that money comes from?
The idea that architecture is suffering because it's wrongly attempting to incorporate too much art into the mix is so misled it's frightening. There is a word for architecture that eases off on the 'artsy' component: it's "engineering."
When you start freebasing ideas about how architecture can be redefined in an afternoon to improve it's marketability you tinker with a field that is as meaningful, powerful and as valuable as anything man has invented.
Architecture is the full integration of beauty and function. You've been given half a brain for each. Use them both.
architecture is failing because architects are failing to understand their role as builders and not just designers.
the technology/digital era has lent many of us to waiver into many different forms of design and/or art, which is really wonderful, albeit time consuming and if obsessed over - can become a distraction. when its all said and done, the paintbrushes and ipads are put away and someone has to build something. pour concrete. set some block on rebar. and this is where we have been failing. because we (as a collective - there are MANY exceptions, but not enough to overthrow this fact) do not grasp what we are building..
"architecture is failing because architects are failing to understand their role as builders and not just designers"
++
Possibly because too much time is spent theorizing inane philosophies instead of learning the practical construction techniques developed over centuries. This is the failure of architectural education.
anarkyll: "pour concrete. set some block on rebar."
well that would solve the unemployment crisis in architecture. I can picture the plaque already "Only 12 architects died constructing this bus shelter".
jeffe jr.: "learning the practical construction techniques developed over centuries"
I find 'practical construction techniques' from as little as 30 years ago to be largely irrelevant now. Some changes (since then) were technical improvements, others were setbacks in the name of cost efficiency. I get your point, but it's not as simple as you make it sound.
Architecture is failing because of the economic meltdown, and the lack of overall leadership in the industry. It has nothing to do with the Architecture itself. As the quote goes "Architecture is the will of the epoch translated into space." There is no will, no money, and no public / political support. Maybe we need a union and some lobbyists!
1. Invest in "infrastructure" (we should be on the forefront of that debate defining the term infrastructure, because what they are really talking about is filling pot holes in roads.)
2. Fight to get local municipalities and communities to see the cost of shitty strip mall developments and propose better solutions that are profitable and more humane.
3. Lobby against big developers, big agriculture, and big energy!
I really think that this is our only hope for the 21st century. We need to get proactive!!!
Possible reason why arch is suffering?
I was thinking that one of the possible reasons why architecture is suffering is due the idea that Architecture is the marriage between science, and art. Perhaps if we could attempt to get rid of the "art" we would see more people making money. Jobs that make money = Function. Sure some people will make money in art, but it's few and far between. The fact is that art is so subjective, and so placing value on it is tenuous at best. This is compounded with the fact that there are now tons of subsidiary bussinesses such as interior design/decorators etc. that can make things "look nice" .
Design in and of itsself could save people tons of money, and hold the same significance in society that engineering/healthcare hold, but not with all the artsy bullshit.
Also, artists/hipsters by nature can't flip a dollar and they are the ones entering architecture. It's weird because older architects I've meant is like some bad ass, pompous go getter, young ones are just hipsterish.
thoughts?
Yeah spelling/grammar are poor, I am in a rush!
Don't be so hard on yourself. That's the best post I've ever seen a toddler write. Now rush off to your nappy time. You deserve it!
You have an excellent sense of humour.
Arch is suffering because people aren't building things right now.
Also, there's a culture of 'suffering for your art' in architecture that is maybe unnecessary.
I think that, to some degree, the divide between 'art' and 'science' is a bit overmade - usually, one winds up improving the other. Architects are in a much better position than specialists to look at problems laterally and find unexpected solutions, and are in a much better position than aesthetically-focused people to actually make those solutions work properly.
The trick is figuring out how to point this out to your client, since this perspective is really very crucial to the proper success of most of their projects.
humour eh?
The reason we are struggling right now is primarily due to global meltdown. Nothing you can do about that. As far as art in architecture goes, I wish the profession was more artsy if anything. And this comes from a technical paper-shuffler. I swear half the projects I ever worked on were designed on an accounting software.
And what's with the hipster hate? Only a hipster knows what a hipster even is.
i see some appeal in applying some scientific procedure to architecture. But its difficult to make architecture into a widespread hard science.
Damn it Rusty. You might have got me again on speling. Only a hipster knows what a hipster is? That's not true, but now that we are generalizing, I just want to say that people who are "in it for the art" generally do not have the combination of business sense and financial ambition to make a lot of money. This, of course is not always true. I don't hate hipsterism. I suppose I am somewhat envious of people who get to be involved with art but don't have to pay the price which seems to be the case for some "Hipsterish" people I know. On the other hand, I do believe function should come before aesthetics. It's jus the way I am mentally wired. I do think they are both important.
Supreme court ruled that 'form v. function' has little to do with project profitability.
But yeah. Next time a hipster steals your boyfriend, do fight back. :)
gehry, hadid, foster, rogers, piano, holl.. These are among the wealthiest architects, and they are all on the 'art' side of that debate. Sure, you 'suffer' for your art, and architecture makes you suffer more because its' not really 'art'. But You have the option to keep going with a corporate firm, make money & manage projects.
The world would be a cold, dull place without artists and architects that believe in the power of aesthetic experience.
They are also on the technical side of the debate, to a degree. Gehry adapted CATIA to make his crazy things actually stand up, for example. There are advancements that aren't just aesthetic.
While the end result is sometimes just 'form for form's sake', it doesn't necessarily have to be.
Architecture - Art = Engineering. It sounds like you need a career change, Jordan. And people make art to make art, not to make money. I think same applies to most architects.
just want to say that people who are "in it for the art" generally do not have the combination of business sense and financial ambition to make a lot of money.
I think this particular problem has more to do with individuals who take themselves too seriously. you can be artsy and make money.
I never said that architecture should be devoid of art. I am also not certain that when the primary concern is function that architecture is engineering. Can't art come from this? I mean the fact is that a few people with good marketing skills, and sufficient capital will turn something that many people deem as art into a lucrative project. People call certain architecture boring...to some people Zaha hadid's work is obnoxious, while simple patterns/rhythem are comfortable.
have you seen a gehry building go up mixmaster? I'd beg to differ and think think his is a 'form for form' sake approach. CATIA may have really helped on the skin and its fabrication, but lets not trick ourselves into thinking that there is really anything innovative beyond the surface.
I wouldn't disagree that it's basically form for form's sake. However, appropriating crazy aircraft engineering software was a technical advancement that wasn't just aesthetic.
Innovation is where you find it, I suppose.
Actually, one could make the argument that demographically most hipsters are generally the children of upper-middle-class professionals and business owners. And because they're exposed to a level of "insider knowledge" from a very early age, they're likely to probably have more general business knowledge, including what high stress does to families, than the general public.
Blaming hipsters for the downfall of an entire profession is like blaming hipsters because they've made New York "less real" even though hipsters on paper have made New York a better place to live.
As someone who deals with a lot of employees-turned-business-owners, I can confidently say that owning your own business has very little benefits when it comes to money. The only real benefit is freedom but not keeping hours, not doing jobs to the customers satisfaction and not getting all of your necessary paper work done means that your customers stop coming back. The same rules that were applied to you as an employee of another company are still relatively there.
I would actually go so far to say that I only know of two business owners who've actually made more personal income from becoming independent than they made when they worked for someone else. And that's only happening because they've had the opportunities to hire people and expand their business.
Decent point ^. If you read closely I said the combination of finanicial ambition and business sense. There are certain artists out there (actually the majority) who are introverted and have difficult time selling an idea an idea to people who have money. There are hipsters who are usually aware socially, but don't have a drive to earn money in part because they don't need to. School is paid off, ad help is there when needed, but also because part of being alternative is not needing to work a slave job in order to command a high salary.
@MixmasterFestus: Don't confuse technology with advancement. In many cases it is exactly the opposite.
All these -what's wrong with architecture- conversations are boring! Five years ago if someone said architecture is failing on this forum, that person would be declared a traitor.
How can New York be a better place to live, when a working hipster can't even rent one bedroom apartment to raise a family of three?
Isn't re-appropriating technology for new uses a kind of advancement? Now I am confused.
Not all advancements are necessarily "good" advancements in everyone's eyes, or are used properly. They may clash with whatever ideological brick you cling to for flotation in the raging seas of change. But they are still different than what is done in the past.
Architects can be well-positioned to make these kind of connections between the details of making things happen and the artistic sensibility to see what kind of things should happen. Monetizing that is important.
science and technology will save us all.
technology = advancement
im done being skeptical
All these -what's wrong with architecture- conversations are boring!
some of us are actually sophisticated algorithms pre-programmed with stock topics (i.e. which architecture school should I go to - plz review my portfolio - civil engineers will rule the world) in order to bait the other web-bots into mining wikipedia for responses. there are very few real humans left on archinect.
so lets start the revolution as of now:
how can we get off our asses and create a mass demand for architecture?
anyway - to the OP - you might enjoy the recent issue of architecture boston.
it's all about building science.
a disjointed profession is largely of our own making.
i'll start co-operating by reading the article
how can we get off our asses and create a mass demand for architecture?
Stop adding frills to multi-unit buildings no one uses, are underutilized or their expense outweighs benefits. I know why real estate developers add them. It's a laundry list of check offs that allows them to dramatically raise rents while adding little value.
What I am talking about are buildings that have 4 treadmills and stair climber and call it a gym, pools where you can literally touch both sides of the pool at the same time, libraries that are two shelves and a box of musty "Us"magazines from three years ago and lobbies that don't have any actual "lobbying."
I believe Koolhaus referred to that idea as "junkspace."
when architects start trying to eliminate the art or experimentation out of architecture, I stop listening. Why? Because it is dumb.
Supreme court ruled that 'form v. function' has little to do with project profitability.
like !
Wow. That would be the fastest, most efficient way kill architecture once and for all.
Take away the "art" and you have "generic". We get that every day, everywhere, and it makes our built world look stagnant, banal and downright ugly.
Take away the "art" portion and you would, essentially, eliminate 99% of the pioneers in the in the built world. Yes, you would kill it immediately.
maybe not getting rid of art, but instead letting science take a lead
if you take the art out of architecture, you get chiecue
who wants to practice chiecue?
No architect does science in the truest sense of the discipline - that's why we practice art. Art is science stripped of necessity and bureaucracy.
The closest I have seen a science based approach in recent architecture is by Gianni Botsford in his Light House (2005) and the work of Phillippe Rahm. Read this
If you strip architecture of art, you don't have science - you have a mixture of water-divining and consumerism.
Architects don't want to take risk. If more Architects were developers...
I know I shouldn't have but I just did :-D
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Stripping architecture of the "art" component is going to make you more money?
Seriously? So it's not that the economy is bad. It's not that America and Europe are going down the toilet. It's not that aesthetics have changed over the years. It's not that laypeople don't understand architecture. It's not that transport and material costs have gone up.
No, all that is secondary, or even irrelevant, next to the fact that "art" is attached to architecture. Take it away and all your problems will vanish. I have five letters for you:
LMFAO
Incidentally, what's with generalizing all artists? You may not even be conscious of it, but I think your middle-class-to-the-boots mentality has implanted this at the back of your head:
"Poverty = immorality, in some roundabout way, because that's what my unimaginative middle class peers believe too".
A person who doesn't make much money, because she does what she loves, strikes you as somewhat lesser yes? Well, perhaps you might want to consider an update. Something a bit more relevant to, you know, the 21st century.
"Art" and "science" are academic divisions that aren't suited to a whole host of disciplines, from branches of Geology right down to Linguistics. It's practical when designing a college syllabus, but that's pretty much it.
Can you imagine where we'd be if people like Da Vinci decided "Oh, I can't paint and stuff, it's art, and I'm a science guy"?
Or if Steve Jobs decided "Hell, why bother with aesthetics, just go on and have all the wires and crap sticking out. IT is a science, forget the artsy crap".
Seriously. An architect needs both qualities, art and science. Seems to me the only reason one would whine about it is if he lacks one in particular. What's so hard about the art part? If you can't be creative about it, go imitate something. Don't grouch that other people have good taste.
If you design boring ass buildings, people will say you suck. You will not get contracts. You will lose money. I will not pay you to draw me the equivalent of a rectangular prison cell, however much it functions. Get over it.
In the words of Clinton "It's the economy, stupid."
jordan,
No... it is not the marriage of art and science. That would have been helpful.
The problem is the perception that architects are all artsy fartsy beatnik Frank Gehry wannabes that produced incomprehensible inhumane buildings.
Traditional Architecture was seen as an Art and Science married in a balanced manner.
It wasn't art centric but a balance of both. Nobody wants an ugly building. They want both beautiful buildings that are recognizable as buildings but they also want them to be practical, economical, functional and sound. They want more "form follows function" and in the middle. This is because most people are not on the extreme but more middle conservatives. They aren't interested in a bunch of social statements.
Basically what I am saying is that we need both. Science without art is dull and unsexy while Art without science is all sexy but no logical soundness. Like Architecture that is a bimbo.
It be great if the "chick" is sexy and has brains ("scientific brilliance").
Chick = Architecture
I do think Rusty makes a good point about architecture holding the same significance as engineering/healthcare(it should) and yet it clearly doesn't if you look at how it is valued by the marketplace, most americans, etc....
The fact is we are "very conservative" by nature once you strip away the fancy shades and the fashion statements and that is why we are insignificant as a profession. At the end of the day there are too many architects not realizing their full potential, the profession is what stands in the way
"The fact is we are "very conservative" by nature once you strip away the fancy shades and the fashion statements and that is why we are insignificant as a profession. At the end of the day there are too many architects not realizing their full potential, the profession is what stands in the way."
Not sure it would be possible for me to disagree with a statement more than I do with this one. Relevance is not about being conservative or not conservative. Relevance is about providing services and solutions that satisfy the needs of a customer and provide solid value.
To the extent we are not relevant -- and I don't necessarily agree we're not relevant -- then we have to step back and take a close and critical look as how we are educated, and how we approach our work, including our own attitudes about what we do.
We harp here consistently about how the marketplace doesn't "value" our skills and our work, as though the marketplace is somehow too stupid to realize how wonderful we are. IMHO, the marketplace is acting in a totally rational manner -- if there's a problem with how we're valued, then we need to look first at our own behavior and our own performance.
Strangely this article doesn't mention anything about art or technology
Architecture billings fall for 5th straight month
http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/news/2011/08/17/architecture-billings-fall-for-5th.html
We harp here consistently about how the marketplace doesn't "value" our skills and our work, as though the marketplace is somehow too stupid to realize how wonderful we are. IMHO, the marketplace is acting in a totally rational manner -- if there's a problem with how we're valued, then we need to look first at our own behavior and our own performance.
many people actually do value architects - it's that the vast majority of the general public cannot afford our services (or any sort of work that isn't mostly about keeping things from falling apart for that matter), and the number of those who can (which includes both individuals and organizations) have dwindled. right now we've got a ton of wealth currently tied up in the hands of just a few people, and they generally aren't spending this money on the built environment. the more people who can afford to hire architects = more work. less people who can hire architects = less work. even if you have one person who owns a bunch of property they generally only work with one or two architects for all their projects. they spend their money far too efficiently - which isn't good for the rest of us.
and if we're talking about funding for building science research - where do you think most of that money comes from?
The idea that architecture is suffering because it's wrongly attempting to incorporate too much art into the mix is so misled it's frightening. There is a word for architecture that eases off on the 'artsy' component: it's "engineering."
When you start freebasing ideas about how architecture can be redefined in an afternoon to improve it's marketability you tinker with a field that is as meaningful, powerful and as valuable as anything man has invented.
Architecture is the full integration of beauty and function. You've been given half a brain for each. Use them both.
Right on toast!
I always wondered if architecture is intrinsically communist. There's always a NEED for facilities. None of this market watching bank overlord bs.
architecture suffers from lack of sex
http://www.mississippilive.net
architecture is failing because architects are failing to understand their role as builders and not just designers.
the technology/digital era has lent many of us to waiver into many different forms of design and/or art, which is really wonderful, albeit time consuming and if obsessed over - can become a distraction. when its all said and done, the paintbrushes and ipads are put away and someone has to build something. pour concrete. set some block on rebar. and this is where we have been failing. because we (as a collective - there are MANY exceptions, but not enough to overthrow this fact) do not grasp what we are building..
"architecture is failing because architects are failing to understand their role as builders and not just designers"
++
Possibly because too much time is spent theorizing inane philosophies instead of learning the practical construction techniques developed over centuries. This is the failure of architectural education.
another ++ for toasteroven
anarkyll: "pour concrete. set some block on rebar."
well that would solve the unemployment crisis in architecture. I can picture the plaque already "Only 12 architects died constructing this bus shelter".
jeffe jr.: "learning the practical construction techniques developed over centuries"
I find 'practical construction techniques' from as little as 30 years ago to be largely irrelevant now. Some changes (since then) were technical improvements, others were setbacks in the name of cost efficiency. I get your point, but it's not as simple as you make it sound.
Architecture is failing because of the economic meltdown, and the lack of overall leadership in the industry. It has nothing to do with the Architecture itself. As the quote goes "Architecture is the will of the epoch translated into space." There is no will, no money, and no public / political support. Maybe we need a union and some lobbyists!
1. Invest in "infrastructure" (we should be on the forefront of that debate defining the term infrastructure, because what they are really talking about is filling pot holes in roads.)
2. Fight to get local municipalities and communities to see the cost of shitty strip mall developments and propose better solutions that are profitable and more humane.
3. Lobby against big developers, big agriculture, and big energy!
I really think that this is our only hope for the 21st century. We need to get proactive!!!
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.