Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole (Stephanie)



Sep '09 - Dec '11

  • anchor

    Architecture - Feeling Good About Doing Nothing.

    By Stephanie
    Nov 4, '11 8:47 AM EST

    I found my architecture mentor.

    I was sitting here this morning, contemplating yet another application, poring over the exact phrasing of my carefully composed, customized cover letters. Words that no one will read or pay attention to.

    [**hint** In my interviews thus far, no one has shown a sign of having actually read my resume, cover letter, or portfolio.]

    To take a mental break, I went over to the archinect forums and updated myself on WHO'S WHO in the most favored schools for M.Arch II applicants... reviewed portfolios.... and generally wallowed in my unemployment.

    One of the posts on the forums caught my eye a few days ago, and stirred me sufficiently to respond. The post was:

    Hi there,

    I'm currently a high school senior in Canada and hoping to pursue a career in architecture. I was wondering if any of you know programs in or outside Canada (excluding the US) for a Bachelor's Degree, specifically one that is professional and well known.

    Thank you.

    Oh dear. Don't they teach high-schoolers to use the interweb these days?

    A .03 second search on google yielded links to the Canadian architecture accreditation board website stating the exact programs on offer for both B.Arch and M.Arch across Canada. A similar search yielded a full list of English-taught programs abroad.

    I helpfully posted the links, but then I stopped to think. What advice would I give myself if I could go back in time to pre-architecture school Stephanie, now that I'm finished my master's and am looking for work?

    Probably something like what I posted.

    You see, I'm not one of those 'I did my time, sonny, and back in my day it was both ways uphill, and now it's your turn to suffer through the same educational agony that I did so you can wind up in the same position I am in' kinda people.

    I'm more of a... 'time for a system overhaul!' kinda person.

    I got to thinking. Is there such a thing as an architecture program that actually teaches you what you need to know to be an architect? What exactly would that be?

    It's not very useful to ask what architects are good at, because all of those things can be accomplished magnificently outside of architecture school. The question is: what are we bad at?

    For your convenience, I've compiled a list of Architecture Student Weaknesses: Things Architecture Students Suck At That They Should Be Experts At:

    1. Making Money

    2. Paying attention to the USER, ENVIRONMENT and IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

    3. Administration and organization of time, money and resources.

    4. Consulting with disciplines and experts who know more than them (this would mean admitting that someone knows more than them)

    5. Generating and developing creative ideas in a methodical, process-oriented, replicable manner.

    6. Communicating / presenting their work, ideas and intentions to other people.

    7. Advertising, marketing and soliciting work

    8. Understanding, drawing and detailing projects as they could/should be carried out in reality

    9. Being a Professional


    I put 'making money' first, because it is what is most often railed against in architecture schools. There is a Culture of Poverty engendered by architects and architecture professors alike, and it is beaten into you from the get-go that architecture is THE HIGHEST profession in the universe and you do it, not for money, but out of blind, passionate, burning love for beauty and the world.

    Financial gain, alas, is not to be thought of when delivering your personal genius and craft to the world. Professionals we may be, but artists of form we are at heart, and there's no greater satisfaction than seeing your work brought forth like a giant, pointy, reinforced concrete baby with a mal-formed skull.

    What this does is create a ripe annual source of motivated, inspired, highly educated people who have been told not only that they must pay dearly for the torture of architecture school, and that they must endure that torture for 6 long years; but also that once they finish they are worth less than the average high-school dropout. And then watch as talented grads fight like starving pit bulls over the scantily paid scraps of 'practical experience' you throw their way. And then continue the process forever!

    That is what really gets to me about architects. They are so self-satisfied about their poorness and their sacrifices to be creative. "The world doesn't value creativity and design anymore!!' I've heard on hundreds of occasions when talking about low wages. Bullshit.



    I would like you to meet my new mentor: Architectural sociologist, Dr. Garry, from Australia.

    In response to a review on his most recent and final book, 'The Favored Circle', Dr. Garry responds:

    Prof Pressman had many other epithets for the book: ‘near comic', ‘stunningly naive’, ‘allegedly novel’, ‘puzzling and annoying’, ‘a dubious retrospective’, ‘thin veracity’, ‘awfully glib’. Not good, is it?

    My own reading of his review was that I have not given him and his occupation the unctuous adulation that he so clearly feels is his occupation's irrefragable due.

    I am always wary of ‘award-winning’ architectural teachers, as Andy is. Good on him for his educational skills and his enthusiasm! My own experience is that the great architectural educators—of which no doubt Prof Pressman is one—are also the most humourless prigs.

    Make a light jest of their ‘calling’, as they are fond of referring to it, and you might as well be making risque pork jokes about the Prophet to Osama bin Laden.

    My own attitude is that each and every profession is a pompous balloon well worth pricking. From what I saw of his review, Prof Andy Pressman was a devotee of the ancient Anglo-American school of the sociology of the professions, a body of work that he takes me to task for ignoring. True! I ignore it completely! I think there is little of worth in it, much of it being simply a justification of the professionals' view of themselves as superior human beings.

    Prof Pressman also attacked me for ignoring the notion of ‘[community] service’ that the highly paid professions use to justify their paychecks. Again, very true! I think that is self-serving crap. When the architect or the doctor or Prof Pressman holds himself or herself out as an altruistic benefactor of humanity, they do so only to justify their condescension to the construction worker or the medical aide who, they claim, only grubs for money.

    I think this is the beginning of a long and fruitful mentorship...


    • so cynical yet so young!

      your architectural mentor aside, the list you have made of things we suck at is maybe best modified to read "Things Architectural students and recent graduates Suck At That They Should Be Experts At".

      Actual architects are pretty good at much of the stuff on your list.  except the making money bit....maybe.  but students and recent grads??  totally on the button.

      Nov 4, 11 6:30 pm  · 

      what will said. get out there: you'll see it's both not as bad as you think, but worse for completely different reasons. 

      Nov 4, 11 7:17 pm  · 

      Actual architects are pretty good at much of the stuff on your list.  except the making money bit....maybe.  but students and recent grads??  totally on the button.

      You are absolutely right. I've changed my post to reflect this. Since I have limited experience in the 'real' world of architecture, I will refrain from including all architects as a profession in my list. 

      Doesn't it make you wonder, though, how easily and truthfully you can apply the entire list to *almost all* the architecture grads out there? Someone has to have been complicit in the mass production of these useless, debt-ridden graduates... And I don't feel like it is 'us' (the students/graduates themselves).

      It's funny, you made me think of all the times 'real architects' came to give critiques or do workshops or give lectures. Whenever someone brave ventured to ask 'Hey, so, I'd really like to work out the details of this project. As a practicing architect, can you give some advice about how this could work, structurally?' the critics--academics and architects alike--scoffed and chortled at the very crassness of the suggestion that we study something as pedestrian as details! 

      'You'll learn that on the job, don't you worry' the architect laughs heartily. 'Pretty soon you'll be wishing for this time of borderless creative freedom!'

      'Firms don't care if you can draw a wall section! They want to see your raw architectural process!' chimes in the academic.

      Ah well. I'm sure everyone meant well. We probably should have just taken what they said about structure with a grain of salt and secretly studied it on our own, just like we were supposed to absorb taste in aesthetics and graphics and comply with the school-wide use of exactly the same laser cut site models without anyone having 'told' us to do so. Yes, you really do learn a lot in architecture school.

      Really, I can't wait to get out there and have my suspicions proved wrong. What a relief to hear that incompetent educational processes can be completely abjured in the space of a few years in the 'real world'!!! 

      Nov 5, 11 12:54 pm  · 

      Hearing similar responses from critics during my education I wonder how much of this is due to the educators and not necessarily the profession. As students there were many times that we wanted to learn more about 'real life' structural concepts, construction techniques, material costs, budgets, etc. only to be told by the professors that we shouldn't worry about it and that we could learn that stuff during our internships. On the other hand, there were some professors that encouraged us to know these things because that is the type of stuff is valuable for an employee to know. However, there wasn't much of an attempt to help us learn it because they'd rather see our 'raw architectural process,' as Stephanie put it.

      So from my point of view, it seems that there is an understanding that the things that we as students wanted to learn about the profession (and many times from the professionals) is important and valuable, but there is no sense of responsibility or ownership from the academics and educators to actually teach us these things. Maybe the better way to say it is there was no sense of ownership for expecting us to learn these things; let's face it, in the end it wasn't about a building itself ... it was about a building that looked good pinned up on the wall.

      One professor, who I've discussed this with, would always joke that Louis Kahn's Kimball Art Museum would have been a 'C' project in studio.

      Nov 6, 11 2:55 pm  · 

      I've find Dr. Garry website just a few days ago..... What an impact!

      I think I will put the good doctor on my future mentor list, too!

      Feb 17, 14 9:07 pm  · 

      Block this user

      Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

    • Back to Entry List...
  • ×Search in:

Affiliated with:

Authored by:

  • Stephanie

Other blogs affiliated with The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts:

Recent Entries