In last week’s article, “Has Educational Complacency Diminished Today's Discourse?,” an uncredited image of my thesis project was completely taken out of context and written about in a way that severely mischaracterizes the nature of my thesis.
I don’t deny there is a visual similarity between these two images. I happened to be aware of this very early on and, in fact, designed the project with that in mind.
It's when I hear things like "derivative of its earlier progressive framework," that I want to start talking about the difference between "a plagiarized copy" and "a reference," or the difference between "tracing steps backward" and "drawing inspiration from" in a way that might be either be perceived as splitting hairs, or drawing lines in the sand.
The similarity between them exists only on the surface, however, as the projects are representative of completely contradictory ideas. In speaking of the "stance" and "framework" of the two projects, any comparison between them must account for their differentiating ideologies.
I want to start talking about the difference between "a plagiarized copy" and "a reference," or the difference between "tracing steps backward" and "drawing inspiration from"
To get specific, the image taken from my thesis is the "form candy" part of the project meant to appeal to an intuitional sense of formalism. It's no coincidence that this object has no program, and essentially no interior. It's a hollowed out shell, filled with a circular ramp, leading up to a "public viewing area." And of course, convention centers (the program of my thesis) don't need viewing areas. It is, perhaps cynically, a commentary on the Digital Turn in architecture whereby projects could simply be autonomous design exercises, and "buildings" aren't meant to actually be buildings. The only way to actually make sense of this kind of building in the "real world" is to make it sculpture and empty it of program.
To get specific, the image taken from my thesis is the "form candy" part of the project meant to appeal to an intuitional sense of formalism.
Such is the subtext of this particular object, which was picked out of a thesis that is explicitly about calibrated sets of relationships between many objects. For background, the main idea of my thesis has to do with understanding buildings through a typology of their spaces, as required by program. So for instance, a convention center needs: 1. a hall, or large open floor; 2. circulation, to access the hall; 3. programmatic objects—i.e. a hotel, cafes, meeting rooms, bathrooms— in support of the hall. Typically, these would all fit within the same architecture and building envelope. But I chose to understand these spaces separately, which, through carefully composed intersections and adjacencies, operate loosely as a singular building.
To come back to the image comparison, beyond the general outline of this particular object, my thesis is interested in a very different idea of progress— one that has to do with playing out some effects of the Digital Turn, using "real world" constraints like those you'd find in an actual building. That idea of progress is obviously not as sexy or provocative as endlessly producing novel form. But, then again, nowhere does it say that the definition of progress remains constant from year to year. Yet, only one idea of progress is mentioned in reference to these images, which seems to assume a futuristic precognition of what’s to come.
That idea of progress is obviously not as sexy or provocative as endlessly producing novel form. But, then again, nowhere does it say that the definition of progress remains constant from year to year.
Presented here together in a simplistically crude argument, the 2 projects simply come from different ideologies and micro-eras within the last 10 years. If the older project belongs to a paradigm of virtuosity within an educational framework, where the emphasis is placed on the originality and skills of the student to design complex and exciting form, my thesis would belong to another paradigm, one that might be closer to curating. Using a combination of found objects and designed form, its ideology is one rooted in the relation between whole forms, rather than an individual architecture.
Patrick is a Los Angeles-based designer, writer, and educator. He has practiced architecture in Los Angeles and at Sea Ranch, and has taught design studios at SCI-Arc. He currently teaches at the Woodbury University School of Architecture. As a contributor to Archinect, he has written Under ...
9 Comments
Thanks for posting your quick thesis breakdown
Stating the critique was a misunderstanding in the title was quite kind of you.
The critique came across disingenuous with a big splat on integrity.
Poor form to post student work publicly and dissect one image for not being progressive without acknowledging that there is much more to a thesis (assuming a year of thought and work).
The obvious has to be stated because it has not been acknowledged. A thesis is supposed to be an argument. It is not a project. It is about learning to build your own argument (hopefully a current one) through architecture, drawing, history, criticism, imagery, text, etc. - but it is an argument and you should not have to limit your tools of thought to align with progress rules all (or whatever type of undefined progress prescription the critic was pushing).
The truth of the problem is there are a lot of architecture professors (who probably use the term progress in their mind a bunch) that push their progressive ideas in to their students studio projects. Student work comes out aesthetically and tonally similar per professors progressive ideas.
We could go down that discussion worm hole but really not not sure how crabbing one image from a thesis and passing it off as derivative design without context is the most ethical way to critique architectures lack of progress.
I do love the idea that "SCI-Arc has been forced" to pick this thesis. Sounds intense
So the hollow sculptural form from 2016 is basically a critique of the shape making for shape making's sake as represented in the 2013 thesis? You gave SCI-Arc a taste of their own medicine and used their own methods, tools, jargon and representation style and techniques in an ironic subversive manner, nice!
this is better written and argued then the article from the director of a museum
the two sci arc thesis images aren't even remotely similar, unless by similar we mean "there's an envelope and some floor plates". i guess they are both blobs? maybe one done in zbrush, the other in maya? aside from the petite demimonde that makes up architectural intelligentsia, does anyone really give a shit?
I can see why people are so intent on separating architecture from mere building. Neither one of these projects are buildable in any conventional sense, therefore they must be true architecture. Yet 99.9% of what sci-arc students will be asked to do will have nothing to do with these projects. Just the idea of "Formalism" shows how messed up education is today, as if the form of a building is just a part of architecture.
Almost the other way for you (for the post above) - seems like you are trying to separate the traditional notions of building from intellectualism in architecture school. For some reason you seem to think that both do not happen in places like SCIArc - which is incorrect.
To me expanding ideas and communicating are the most important things you can do to establish yourself in any architecture setting. I cannot figure out why students exploring complex abstract ideas/concepts/arguments using architecture is so frustrating to some. That's what we do as architectures - abstract representations of buildings - thought, sketches, models, renderings, plans, sections, 3D, perspectives, talk, up to construction documents to communicate an intent of a building. You look at a few images and speculate that students aren't learning these things because they didn't figure out a parapet cap in their thesis projects?
Just wondering if the condescending comments like 'learn how to flash a window first' or 'this is not real' are worth repeating over and over. Or in this case - "Neither one of these projects are buildable in any conventional sense..." So what - a student thesis is an argument about architectural ideas (that's why this post was interesting to read). Why is buildabilty the only avenue of thought deemed appropriate? Though it is nice to speculate on how many buildings were deemed unbuilable by traditionalists before someone figured out how to build them (like in the history of time and time and time).
Then again if you can be content with defending convention then more power to you. Probably simplifies a lot of things in a brutally tough profession.
"Neither one of these projects are buildable in any conventional sense..." Why is buildabilty the only avenue of thought deemed appropriate?
If what you do at architecture school is perfectly buildable right then and there with only existing knowledge, what's the f-ing point? We're no contractors. Saves you a ton of student debt but that's about it. Architecture (school) is about exploring, testing, failing, learning. Tell those gothic master builders that what they wanted to achieve was unbuildable or even FLW. We would still be dwelling in caves if we weren't allowed to venture into the unknown as architects.
If both aspects of architecture happen at sci-arc, great, it just seems way tilted towards theory. And I don't consider window flashing details the other side of theory, I am thinking about intelligent planning in concert with tectonics, aesthetics and symbolism, a delicate balance thats defined architecture historically and still does in the world most graduates will find themselves. There's definitely a place for the more abstract sculptural explorations, but it's about balance. Think about how many of those theoretical programs most architects will ever have compared to the reality of most working architects.
And buildability is certainly not the only avenue of thought deemed appropriate, far from it, but to be architecture it must be buildable. As for thinking about how historically extreme programs like the Duomo where accomplished, again, it's about balance. How many of those are there historically? I love architecture and have a healthy library I read and write from all the time. I love the conceptual and intellectual side, it's just that it tends to contribute to the everyday buildings that make the places people love rather than a theoretical exercise the above project looks like.
I know I'm whistling in the wind with my protest, but look at what a crapscape we've built compared to the pre-WW2 cities that people seem to love. Regardless of style, its something everyone can see with their own eyes. I've known so many disgruntled architects bitter that their schooling ill-prepared them to work, and when they do, they are stuck doing flashing details when the poetry of coordinating structure with program and aesthetics, the art of architecture is absent in so much of contemporary architecture. So yes, it's fine to slough it off as mere building by hacks, but it makes up an ever greater part of our shared environment, and it's ugly, depressing, and unsustainable. To quote a 19th century critic, a building’s design should be “a courtesy due, from everyone who builds, to humanity, on whose ground and in whose sight he builds.” I don't think that's too much to ask.
I'd suggest the earlier complaint is about visual unintentional/intentional plagiarism, its relevance in the way many people consume projects today, via quick snapshot images and judgements. That is the argument of originality in visual images verses originality of thought. Visual vs Verbal with Structural and History sitting on the sidelines watching the argument sharing a bottle of wine.
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.