Complacency is the enemy of progress and Architecture, as a whole, is built on progress. The progress of thought, progress of conversations and progress of objection. Architecture is not a search for truth, but instead, as a discipline, it is a collection of studies, inquiries, and expertise into an expanding field of knowledge. The discipline of Architecture is one that grows, progresses, and builds upon itself just as its buildings build upon eras of decades past. And yet, the voices of yesterday have been anxiously overcompensating for their diminishing relevance, fading into mere echoes by fearfully retreating to the false comfort of a broken record discipline—one where progress is stifled and treated as insolent. The suppression of progress has not gone unnoticed and as the imposed stagnancy solidifies, conversations turn against those imposing it, demanding a return to the discipline of Architecture.
Architecture's educational institutions were once the epitome of architectural thought, production, risk-taking, revolution, a safe place for questioning and paving one's own path. In fact, schools were founded on challenging the status quo, on questioning norms to discover new ways and means of pushing us forward.
Even the most historically progressive of places have found themselves scared of progress, basking in their moment in the sun, and unconsciously sliding into a caricature of their once-potent approach to the discourse. These institutions have become haunted by the energy that once vitalized their hallways and classrooms. Such is the problem with progress and success, one must continuously push and challenge, one must be aware of what is occurring—of the repercussions of the previous push and the new resulting challenges. The consequences of such stagnancy are quoted perfectly in The Dark Knight by then DA, Harvey Dent: "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
"You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain"
One does not need to look far for such examples in both our discipline and our culture today. Earlier this year, Harvard, the epitome of research, intellectual thought, and maker of educational epochs, found itself awarding a thesis prize to a potentially plagiarized project. On the other coast, SCI-Arc has been forced to award thesis prizes to projects whose visuals and stances could be seen as derivative of its earlier progressive framework, a framework where SCI-Arc was once paving the path instead of tracing its steps backward for safety. Moments like these are not limited to the coasts but are a symptom found in the discipline at large.
The result is not solely the hindrance of today's progress, but such actions dilute the totality of progress to date. These moments emit an aura of inauthentic progress, only embarked upon for the sake of media, marketing, and business, lacking the purity of progress and intellectual rigor. The minds who pushed the discipline forward and the voices who once challenged the status quo are at risk of becoming the status quo, their magnified insecurity expressed through the suppression of the next wave of questioning. Their endless lackluster pursuits for relevancy which haphazardly fill windy and floating cities should not become the security blankets of once great minds.
Their endless lackluster pursuits for relevancy which haphazardly fill windy and floating cities should not become the security blankets of once great minds.
The once insatiable questioners have misunderstood their success as disciplinary righteousness. They have proceeded forward with a pyrrhic victory, unaware that it was not merely their work, but instead, the framework that they existed in that fostered such questioning. They have betrayed the framework, which favored the discipline at large, for the sake of a personal agenda. This is not to say that the blame falls squarely on those who hide from objection in their towers, it falls equally on those in fear of voicing objection and causing friction. Today's emerging designers, architects, and thinkers must continue to question, fragment, and object to such disciplinary conditions to bring life back to the framework which fostered their predecessor's disciplinary freedom and progress.
Where are the frontiers of architectural education today? How do these frontiers allow for new educational frameworks to be formed and discovered? What changes must be made to our current structures to make them fertile for new ideas and objections to old ones?
Sound off and let us know your thoughts below.
UPDATE: Patrick Geske, designer of the first image in this article, has responded in a new article, RE: Educational Complacency & Serious Misunderstandings
Anthony Morey is a Los Angeles based designer, curator, educator, and lecturer of experimental methods of art, design and architectural biases. Morey concentrates in the formulation and fostering of new modes of disciplinary engagement, public dissemination, and cultural cultivation. Morey is the ...
1 Featured Comment
The idea of progress in my view is about knowing from where you depart, not necessarily knowing where you are going. If you already know where you're going you are there already, at least mentally, so it is not really progress in my opinion but merely revisiting the known.
All 7 Comments
Shouldn't the idea of "progress" presume that you know where you are going? A goal to progress toward?
The primary goal that I can discern among the architectural intelligentsia is to be as unique and novel as possible, so as to stand out from the pack. It's little wonder that we are seeing notable examples of plagiarism in the academies. There are only so many new formal approaches. If the worth of your work is to be evaluated primarily by how unique it is, by its novelty, then you will end up with increasingly bizarre and shallow output, promulgated by people who have notoriety as their central goal. We are hurtling toward the Wall of Terminal Weirdness.
"Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man". - C. S. Lewis
The idea of progress in my view is about knowing from where you depart, not necessarily knowing where you are going. If you already know where you're going you are there already, at least mentally, so it is not really progress in my opinion but merely revisiting the known.
So progress is just movement?
Not really, but when there's no movement there can be no progress either.
If I don't know have a good idea of where I'm going, then how can I tell the difference between progress and mere movement?
You'll either know when you get there or when you look back to where you came from I guess.
I always skim through these “education” pieces to see what schools are represented: Sci-arc, Harvard, Princeton of course
There are two distinct camps of architecture academy. One is concerned with the "highest" pursuit of some intellectual and dogmatic purity and is not at all concerned with the practice of architecture as a profession much less a trade or a career. The other camp is concerned with teaching skills and imparting knowledge (history) that might be helpful in in practicing architecture while having the ability to innovate and improve on existing practice and materials to the end goal of creating the best possible built building. There are schools and folks in between these two camps but this is the conflict in academia and the profession. The thinkers and philosophers and the people building things perpetuate this conflict.
I do think that design studio should only be taught by registered architects that have completed work for clients other than themselves, and in the last 2-3 years max from the date their semester of instruction starts and this needs to be a perquisite for NAAB accreditation. We need to regain the position we once had as a respected and valued profession that performs a needed and valued service to clients and the general public. In a balanced curriculum there is room for intellectual exploration and or explorations in thought but that should compliment the curriculum not drive it.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Quoting Batman films is not progressive. However, quoting the original Batman television show is post modern and hip.
KAPOW!
Ynot you sound annoyed and rightfully so, the fraternity culture of patting each other on the back for merely producing a project (original rigor or not) doesn't create friction. This friction, to some repulsive, is often a catalyst for "taking the next step." I think we must get to a point where it's ok to say "this is a bad project, or a copy" and not be offended. Shit happens, unintended similarities occur (usually by those ignoring or ignorant of history), and we need as a community to acknowledge when work being produced is status quo to us yet new to the individual creating it. Dropping references of past projects is always helpful. The student who copied your work and countless other examples need to both understand that we are all stepping into a flowing dialogue and ideas that seem new to new students are not always so. On the flip side who are we to shout plagiarism at individuals profiting off of previous work, hasn't that been what humanity has always done? Academics is currently too shallow without enough fiber in the conversation to bridge the "two camps" previously discussed. The profession is currently too scared of litigation to produce anything beyond what was designed in 1950. - I do feel your pain, I had a classmate who's thesis wasn't well received but a student won an award the next year by basically taking that work and rerendering it. It's all fashion in academics and all accounting in the profession.
The general indifference to a lack of cultivation of grit, at least in the US, is a somewhat divisive issue that doesn't need to be. Often the discussion digresses to, "Should professors spend some time transitioning students into the real world, build up their confidence to speak?" or,"Should they be shoved out of the nest from the start?"
It does not need to be an either, or situation. Educators and mentors for recent grads can practice the same managerial techniques used in other industries to give critical, constructive feedback to younger generations without pushing students (who have a different background than previous generations) in undesirable directions (playing it safe or imitating successful projects) by being unnecessarily derogatory. Build trust while creating a dialogue.
In short...
-approach this in the same way as a design challenge (instead of something to complain about and then continue the same routine with the same undesirable results)
-reinforce what is good (really, is it that hard to find at least one positive thing to say? And don't you want that to happen every time?)
-find concise/efficient ways of communicating what is not (keep the number/quantity of skills they are working on improving between meetings realistic and sustainable)
-Keep track. What is your negative to positive ratio? 1:4? 1:1?
-Talk about the project/work, not the person
You folks wear me out.
It's threatening rain outside, but my workspace is dry, the temperature and humidity are acceptable, the lighting is adequate, my Internet is (obviously) working. I'm in a hipped-up tilt-wall ex-industrial style building designed and drawn by some architect form the late 90's who may be dead by now and whose name I do not know, yet his (or her) building works just fine. Thank you, unrequited architect of yore.
I have some time on my hands due to a slight scheduling delay in my current project. My "new" chair is more comfortable than my "old" chair, but my back hurts a bit. It may be the design of the chair or just my age or just the fact that I am reading the thoughts of young designers (I won't say architects, you may not hold a license) who are as utterly full of shit as I was at their age. For those of you who are older than I imagine you to be, shame on you for being full of shit. By now you should know better.
Allow me to suggest that you Google "dolmen". These "structures" are thought to have been tombs, but I'll bet when golf-ball-sized hailstones were hurtling out of the sky some irreverent rascal ducked inside for cover. Most date from the early Neolithic (4000–3000 BC). Check these out and then let's discuss "progress" and "plagiarism". There is nothing new under the Sun. No one owns the act of being creative or merely iterative. Yes, we have copyright laws and patents, and lawsuits are filed every day - proof positive that imitation is the highest form of flattery.
In 1984 work was completed on 550 Madison Avenue, the 78-year old Philip Johnson's 37-story Chippendale chest-of-drawers, a total FU to the young (and old) Turks of his day. Even then Johnson had not yet become irrelevant. An irrelevant architect is an architect with no clients, or clients with no money.
I well recall the day my boss told me, "Phil, the client is always right, even when they're wrong." I thought, "What is this old fool talking about? I'm a highly talented designer." My only deficiency? No one was using my money to design or build anything, and Frank Lloyd Wright had forgotten to anoint me to be his successor. Get used to it.
Unless you're rich enough to construct that one-of-a-kind glorified wet dream from Architecture 401, be happy with beautiful, impractical, unbuildable Sketchup renderings of hollow sculpture which you should be thrilled if someone wants to "steal". Otherwise, drink plenty of fine wine and talk smack at cocktail parties and impress the impressible, but for God's sake PLEASE learn how to develop a window flashing detail that will keep out the friggin' weather. A beautiful, thoughtful, sensitive and highly progressive window flashing detail, of course.
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.