architecture is not my undeniable #1 passion in life like my professors warn me it needs to be? Does that mean I am doomed because I have to compete against all you people who will work 14 hour days for 35k because you are fulfilling a passion?
success = 1 part passion + 1 part skill + 1 part motivation
For the most part, aesthetics are pretty much learned. So, as long as you have passion and motivation... you'll eventually succeed.
The issue thought is that passion is an emotional (pathos/pathologically) pursuit... and that resonates more with people as emotional responses don't necessarily register as competition. If someone is threatened by your skill or motivation, they'll retaliate to asset dominance in order to gain control.
That being said is that passion is often more praised than genius, motivation or intellect. Motivation is a close second to passion though.
I can count on one hand the number of professors I had that ever were even just minimally successful in practicing architecture. I would guess that maybe 1 in 10 of them actually has a good built building to their credit. That whole professor talk of "you better have passion to be an architect" has a grain of truth, but is b.s. coming from them. If they really have the passion, why are they teaching and not designing things that are going to get built? Its a catch 22 question. From my point of view, its the people who design real projects that matter, not the people who think up conceptual ones. That gets lost a lot in school, because so few of the professors have sticks and bricks to their credit.
If you like architecture, keep doing it. You need a little desire to stick with it, but it doesn't have to be the only thing in your life.
success = 1 part passion + 1 part knowledge + 1 part hard work + 1 part luck
Luck, while one could argue a small part, it is essential nonetheless. Without it, no one can truly succeed (at anything).
I'd add "talent" to the list, but plenty examples of successful people that don't have much talent (or the "eye"). That is something that cannot be taught. It can be nurtured and brought from a seed to a full blooming flower, but you can't "learn" talent - some have it, some don't.
druf - I hear whatcha saying, but keep in mind that many of those 'real' projects are influenced, greatly, by the conceptual work out there. So, in reality, many of those 'conceptual' projects (think all the stararchitects works before they made it big) and how many students studied them, got inspired by them and brought that into the professional world. I think you could argue that they, at least some, have an even larger impact on the world.
hingywood - so yeah, what everyone is saying is true, you are doomed from the start.
Also depends on your school. The first U I went to (for Architecture also) I could have gone out 4 days a week and graduated with As (hint: it sucked), but when I got to UF I pretty much dedicated 90% of my time to the studio and watched fellow classmates fall left and right, get booted left and right, etc.
You can be an "architect" and have an easy schooling, but it won't be a good education - you get out what you put in is also true, even at a soso U.
@trace: what does 'talent' exactly mean in profession of architecture? Being a 'talented' tennis player for instance, means you are able to win some games against established opponents. They stop calling you talented after you start losing (ie. stop being successful).
In art world talent was traditionally associated with technique and skillful execution. These days 'talented' artist is a subjective beast. The entire field is based on financial speculation and marketing potential. In other worlds, anything is potentially art, and everyone is potentially a talented artist.
I think this holds true for architecture as well. I think REX is the most talentless office in US today (every project incorporates NYC port authority bus terminal in its design). You may think they are pure genius. We can probably agree that they are really good at self promotion. Is that the 'talent' in their equation?
Perhaps you meant to say 'marketable taste' instead of talent....
I decided to continue with grad school, and not to accept the position. No, they are not specifically telling me I am not, it is just a notion that is passed around and generally accepted. Sorry if you think my questions are dumb, I am being sincere.
Sorry woody. I saw the ratio of entries to comments and wasn't impressed. If you don't take the time to respond to people who bothered to answer your question, then a discussion turns into a monologue. And that's no good.
To answer your original question: it's not necessary to be mindlessly passionate about architecture to make a good career out of it. You do have to like the idea of building design and genuinely enjoy working of various aspects of architectural process.
There are lots of firms that do great work yet know how to manage their time. They are seldom featured in magazines, because they frankly don't care. To be featured in a publication you have to aggressively send out press releases. This is reserved for certain types of practices.
Having multiple interests and hobbies is quite healthy for your professional being. Living only for architecture sounds kind of sad. Doesn't it?
I call BS on every self proclaimed 'passion of the Christitect' type out there. You do have to worry about this type though. You will meet them occasionally in your professional life. They will suck the joy out of anything that surrounds them, and will play victim at any opportunity given. If you have only one interest in life, it becomes that much harder to accept you're not good at anything.
i think it a matter of matching expectations for oneself to investment
as long as you have a sense of where your level of investment places you in the grand matrix of professional competitiveness and are comfortable with it, you should be fine
honestly, if for the next five years someone totals over 5000 hours of practice and learning time per year (100 hour weeks) and you total around 3000 hours per year (60 hour weeks)--- more than the minimum by a good deal but no where near what the other person is doing --- and at the end of your first five years in practice, the other person has 10000 more hours of experience than you, what do you expect their skill level is relative to yours?
@jmanganelli: 100 hours/week puts you in the category of brain jelly. Provided you give yourself a day off in a week, that works out to a 17 hour day. It's a voluntary lobotomy. That's 10k hours of unhappiness in a mere 5 year span.
I worked as a consultant for a number of years, and the only time I ever had a conflict with a design architect was when they were grossly overworked and stressed out. An intelligent person transforms into an incoherent monster in front of your eyes.
On the other hand, it's quite possible to 'work' a 100 hour week and still accomplish 30 hours worth of actual production. To each his own. I value efficiency and loathe unproductive architects who hide behind lengthy time-sheets.
"the other person has 10000 more hours of experience than you, what do you expect their skill level is relative to yours?"
Is it higher? Lower? Same? The suspense is killing me!
People put themselves under incredible duress and log tons of hours --- whether productive or not does not matter --- if productive, then they really have accumulated much more experience than their peers in the same amount of time and it bears consideration when comparing oneself; if unproductive or unpleasant or way too stressed out or has sacrificed everything else for this, they warrant equal consideration b/c their intensity or drive may be such that they make up with effort what they lack in perspective or efficiency --- and a person lacking in perspective can be volatile, which also warrants a cautious engagement
Plus that was an extreme example but even if such a person goes through periods of greater or lesser efficiency & more or less stress, or takes on such a role for only six months or a year, it still adds up to thousands of hours of extra practice time within a set period and when comparing oneself it bears consideration
I don't know why you would spend your life doing something for which you don't have passion or at least interest. Architecture isn't some precious higher plane or calling; you can have passion for anything and should try to figure out how to be able to do it every day. Life's too short to do otherwise.
I don't know why you would spend your life doing something for which you don't have passion or at least interest.
Cut woody a break here. Most people spend their entire working careers doing something they don't have passion for. Likewise, does anyone really have an interest in a lot of the shit Architect's have to do on a daily basis? No, we do it because it's part of the job and we need that paycheck.
I'm going to go out on a line here and say, do it even if you don't give a shit about Architecture. If the job is 100% about making a living you'll probably have a higher chance of success.
Almost all of the people I know do what they do for the paycheck. The only exception being stay at home parents. Even self employed friends do what they do for the money.
Architecture is the only career where I know people that will willingly "work for free" just to fulfill some personal bullshit vanity while using "passion" as some sort of excuse for letting an employer or client walk all over them. All that gets us is low pay and a severe lack of respect.
I think a good re-thinking of this as a JOB is long overdue in this profession.
I've been struggling with the same idea. The culture and the education of architects sets you up to expect a career that is all ideals and cutting edge design. I've beat my head against the wall of expecting creative satisfaction to come along with my paycheck and have recently realized how unreasonable that expectation is. Now I look at it as a bonus when the work I get paid to do is really creatively satisfying. Outside projects satisfy the side of me that is passionate about Architecture. In the end, designing less than stellar buildings is still more satisfying than assembling widgets. (Though your are done with the widgets at the end of the day...)
I don't "work for free", ever. I volunteer time at my kid's school and in my community for free because I'm passionate about those things AND because they are networking that leads to paying work. Architecture is my work, AND it's my hobby, and I've arranged my life so I can get paid to do what I love to do.
I can't fathom a world where I go to a job every day ONLY for the money any more than I can fathom robbing a bank for the money.
But to each his own. If it's not your passion, don't beat yourself up about it, just do it for the paycheck and don't neurote about why others do it. But if you hate waking up every morning because you despise what you do every day, you owe it to yourself to do something to change that.
And I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky about this. Though I am feeling pretty fucking snarky lately, since everything is going to hell in a handbasket around me, can I blame retrograde Mercury? ;-)
There's just a lot of whining about this. If architecture isn't your passion, fine. Don't do it, or find a niche within it that you DO enjoy. But don't blame other people for finding passion in something you don't. I hate sports, find pretty much nothing about sports interesting and most of it downright hateful. So would I look for a job in sports? Probably not.
Most jobs have little creative satisfaction in them. I'm sorry that schools tend to teach students that they'll turn into rock star designers and spend their days flinging off sketches while drinking martinis on private jets. But there's plenty - PLENTY - of access out here to information that the first few years out of school suck, that you'll be paying dues via drafting bathroom elevations for several years, and that if you want to succeed at anything you'll have to work your butt off and suffer for awhile. This isn't particular to the field of architecture (except the bathroom elevations part).
But why would anyone go to college for a minimum of five years doing something they don't like to do? It baffles me.
Donna, I think we are all splitting hairs on definition of 'passion'. We both can draw same level of enjoyment out of the profession yet describe the experience in vastly different terms. Term 'passion' tends to get thrown around a lot in the field, and it's only natural for some of us to question the definition.
There is nothing more frustrating than having your 'passion' be questioned in a project that's chronically mismanaged. 'passion' is often used as a catch-all defense mechanism by some. Architects who need 100 hours to accomplish 40 hours of work are the first ones to scream out 'passion!!!1!'. To each his own indeed. As long as you don't slap lipstick on your weaknesses and call them virtues.
I didn't mean to strike such a chord, but I do believe the "passion" crap gets used as an excuse all too often. Of course I entered into this profession because I had an interest in Architecture.
Back to woody's original comment about "competing with people who will work 14 hour days for $35k" is a valid point. There are countless posts on this forum of people who work long hours for low pay. The current economy has made that worse as well.
My point is, I'm calling bullshit on using "passion" as an excuse for long hours and low pay.
I enjoy working as an Architect (most days) and I also enjoy it as a hobby too, but the simple fact of the matter is, there is no passion in the drudgery and serfdom of what a lot of this profession has turned into. Same goes for other corporate drones in different careers. So, my advise is to not make excuses and remember that it's a JOB.
Aqua, I mostly agree with your assessment of "passion" as an excuse for slave labor, but this here:
"Almost all of the people I know do what they do for the paycheck. The only exception being stay at home parents. Even self employed friends do what they do for the money."
is kind of simplistic: of course everyone works for money, it's hard to get food, board, and a little entertainment otherwise; but what I notice from the people I know or notice throughout the day (mailmen, nurses, house painters, financial consultants, whatever) is that many of them really enjoy what they do: they do it well and take pride in working.
If you were to suddenly give everyone enough money to live on without needing to work, obviously many of them would just retire, and others would try doing something that they always fancied trying, maybe even several things, just for the hell of it; but I would bet that many, many people would just keep right on doing what they already know how to do best.
Emilio - I know that I'm being overly simplistic, but for most of my friends their career choices weren't some kind of burining passion. Lots of people graduate with generic degrees and get a job from whatever company is hiring. My own brother bounced around from insurance sales to corporate marketing and now to retail management with his business degree. Lots of other people bouce around careers looking for something that fits. Architecture is one of the few professions where someone will do whatever it takes to stay in the game. Meanwhile people like my brother get fed up with poor working environments and leave to do something different. That's not to say people that bounce around and fall into careers don't enjoy them. To a point what we do is what makes us who we are. The world would be a terrible place if nobody took pride in what they do. Still, far too many people elevate this work about what it is - work. Hence we have people going into $250k worth of debt for an Architecture degree, working for free just to put something on a resume, etc. I don't think it's healthy.
Burning passion is rare. It's very few people that will work at something or follow an obsession and ignore their health or security doing it, but they do exist. But the decision to ignore health and security to pursue something should ONLY come from the person and not be imposed by others as a myth and guilt mechanism to get people to work for nothing or work endless hours.
Taking pride in what you do and having a sense of identity from what you do is far more common, and I think we agree that it's a good thing.
"very few people that will work at something or follow an obsession and ignore their health or security doing it, but they do exist"
even if it is .001%, it is still somewhere on the order of 1500 to 2000 architects/architectural designers in this country. And even if only half of them are actually productive, that is still 750 to 1000. Beyond the fringe though, there are probably several thousand more who have or are willing to live this way for a short while and have benefited from it and moved on.
Getting architectural work is usually a competitive process which means that for those who do not put in a level of effort commensurate to that of those who are consistently successful, it is practical to adjust one's expectations for where this is all really going
I have worked for extremely low pay in a NYC, commuting from NJ every day. Looking back, I will more likely say that I worked for free. I consider myself passionate about architecture. I also know that it's all about the mighty dollar at the end of the day.
I didn't last there very long. It was a physically, mentally, and financially draining experience. I don't regret it because I would have never learned about that aspect of the profession. The experience made me question my passion, but I found that if you truly are passionate about architecture, art, design, or anything, you'll make it work, even if it's just a hobby.
It was at school where studio was fun. We spent countless hours working on buildings with little rules, trying to create the most radical designs. I think it was in those moments that we found our passion. If you have common sense, you'll take a job thats mentally and financially beneficial for you. And if you really want to make buildings, get legos.
We spend way too much time talking about [and lambasting] ourselves on this forum, and not enough time talking about our actual role in society.
This is boring and sad. I'm sure the OP doesn't care much about most of these responses, as I sure don't.
I care a lot more about how one generates client approval, whilst garnered developer profit, whilst also engendering public [those who use your building but didnt pay for it] enjoyment, whilst exploring one's interests [ideally, in architecture, those all should coalesce].
To answer the OP:
I don't think you're driving passion should be your profession, or your job, or your relationships, or your hobbies. All of those are ultimately fallible and will let you down. Focus your energies on something infallible, and the rest falls into place.
well said, ss! im a total grammer whore to! i hate it when people accidenltyley misspelle a bit of wording to such an extent that it totally prohibtis mie from reading the actual content! welle pleyed!
now, did you have something to contribute, or would you like to discuss diction and grammar conventions and errors more thoroughly?
I have no issues with minor spelling mistakes, although I think 'you're-your' cringer should be limited to teenager's cell phone texts. Maybe you posted from a cell phone. Maybe you're a teenager. Hell do I know...
You also used words infallible and fall in the same sentence. Oh, the sweet, sweet ironing.
I would gladly post my opinion on the original topic, but I'm afraid you won't care for my response. Again. Between the profession in the toilet and a career that promises a few more decades of self-loathing I can't take any more rejection :)
Clever response, SS! In return I'll be certain to spare you the injustice of going through old posts of yours to highlight silly billy errors!
Perhaps if you spent less time on the internet conversing with randoms and more time paying attention to... oh wait, shit, my apologies.
I guess it's more interesting to pay attention to archinect than a career of self loathing, but why should that discourage you from posting your[e] honest and well thought out opinions? We're much more interested in those than we are grammar. This is an architecture forum [btw] and everyone knows architects can't write. :)
Well, I did post 5 entries in this thread prior to your first comment, but that's neither here nor there. I don't really read any of the replies either. I just try to guess what was said and then try to come up with something knee-jerk worthy.
Your assertion that black people can't roller-skate is downright racist jplourde! See? Worked like a charm!
Sep 10, 10 8:39 pm ·
·
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.
What if...
architecture is not my undeniable #1 passion in life like my professors warn me it needs to be? Does that mean I am doomed because I have to compete against all you people who will work 14 hour days for 35k because you are fulfilling a passion?
No it just means you will most likely burn out and quit before finishing your degree.
Although there probably is a bit of truth to what you said as well.
success = 1 part passion + 1 part skill + 1 part motivation
For the most part, aesthetics are pretty much learned. So, as long as you have passion and motivation... you'll eventually succeed.
The issue thought is that passion is an emotional (pathos/pathologically) pursuit... and that resonates more with people as emotional responses don't necessarily register as competition. If someone is threatened by your skill or motivation, they'll retaliate to asset dominance in order to gain control.
That being said is that passion is often more praised than genius, motivation or intellect. Motivation is a close second to passion though.
I can count on one hand the number of professors I had that ever were even just minimally successful in practicing architecture. I would guess that maybe 1 in 10 of them actually has a good built building to their credit. That whole professor talk of "you better have passion to be an architect" has a grain of truth, but is b.s. coming from them. If they really have the passion, why are they teaching and not designing things that are going to get built? Its a catch 22 question. From my point of view, its the people who design real projects that matter, not the people who think up conceptual ones. That gets lost a lot in school, because so few of the professors have sticks and bricks to their credit.
If you like architecture, keep doing it. You need a little desire to stick with it, but it doesn't have to be the only thing in your life.
success = 1 part passion + 1 part knowledge + 1 part hard work + 1 part luck
Luck, while one could argue a small part, it is essential nonetheless. Without it, no one can truly succeed (at anything).
I'd add "talent" to the list, but plenty examples of successful people that don't have much talent (or the "eye"). That is something that cannot be taught. It can be nurtured and brought from a seed to a full blooming flower, but you can't "learn" talent - some have it, some don't.
druf - I hear whatcha saying, but keep in mind that many of those 'real' projects are influenced, greatly, by the conceptual work out there. So, in reality, many of those 'conceptual' projects (think all the stararchitects works before they made it big) and how many students studied them, got inspired by them and brought that into the professional world. I think you could argue that they, at least some, have an even larger impact on the world.
hingywood - so yeah, what everyone is saying is true, you are doomed from the start.
Also depends on your school. The first U I went to (for Architecture also) I could have gone out 4 days a week and graduated with As (hint: it sucked), but when I got to UF I pretty much dedicated 90% of my time to the studio and watched fellow classmates fall left and right, get booted left and right, etc.
You can be an "architect" and have an easy schooling, but it won't be a good education - you get out what you put in is also true, even at a soso U.
Yes, absolutely.
@trace: what does 'talent' exactly mean in profession of architecture? Being a 'talented' tennis player for instance, means you are able to win some games against established opponents. They stop calling you talented after you start losing (ie. stop being successful).
In art world talent was traditionally associated with technique and skillful execution. These days 'talented' artist is a subjective beast. The entire field is based on financial speculation and marketing potential. In other worlds, anything is potentially art, and everyone is potentially a talented artist.
I think this holds true for architecture as well. I think REX is the most talentless office in US today (every project incorporates NYC port authority bus terminal in its design). You may think they are pure genius. We can probably agree that they are really good at self promotion. Is that the 'talent' in their equation?
Perhaps you meant to say 'marketable taste' instead of talent....
Also. I call BS on original poster's question. Last time you checked in, you were taking a job with a developer and postponing your grad school.
Now you're back in grad school and your professors are already telling you (1 week in) that you're not 'passionate' enough.
Blah. I suggest becoming passionate about something else besides posting dumb questions on archinect.
I decided to continue with grad school, and not to accept the position. No, they are not specifically telling me I am not, it is just a notion that is passed around and generally accepted. Sorry if you think my questions are dumb, I am being sincere.
Sorry woody. I saw the ratio of entries to comments and wasn't impressed. If you don't take the time to respond to people who bothered to answer your question, then a discussion turns into a monologue. And that's no good.
To answer your original question: it's not necessary to be mindlessly passionate about architecture to make a good career out of it. You do have to like the idea of building design and genuinely enjoy working of various aspects of architectural process.
There are lots of firms that do great work yet know how to manage their time. They are seldom featured in magazines, because they frankly don't care. To be featured in a publication you have to aggressively send out press releases. This is reserved for certain types of practices.
Having multiple interests and hobbies is quite healthy for your professional being. Living only for architecture sounds kind of sad. Doesn't it?
I call BS on every self proclaimed 'passion of the Christitect' type out there. You do have to worry about this type though. You will meet them occasionally in your professional life. They will suck the joy out of anything that surrounds them, and will play victim at any opportunity given. If you have only one interest in life, it becomes that much harder to accept you're not good at anything.
i think it a matter of matching expectations for oneself to investment
as long as you have a sense of where your level of investment places you in the grand matrix of professional competitiveness and are comfortable with it, you should be fine
honestly, if for the next five years someone totals over 5000 hours of practice and learning time per year (100 hour weeks) and you total around 3000 hours per year (60 hour weeks)--- more than the minimum by a good deal but no where near what the other person is doing --- and at the end of your first five years in practice, the other person has 10000 more hours of experience than you, what do you expect their skill level is relative to yours?
@jmanganelli: 100 hours/week puts you in the category of brain jelly. Provided you give yourself a day off in a week, that works out to a 17 hour day. It's a voluntary lobotomy. That's 10k hours of unhappiness in a mere 5 year span.
I worked as a consultant for a number of years, and the only time I ever had a conflict with a design architect was when they were grossly overworked and stressed out. An intelligent person transforms into an incoherent monster in front of your eyes.
On the other hand, it's quite possible to 'work' a 100 hour week and still accomplish 30 hours worth of actual production. To each his own. I value efficiency and loathe unproductive architects who hide behind lengthy time-sheets.
"the other person has 10000 more hours of experience than you, what do you expect their skill level is relative to yours?"
Is it higher? Lower? Same? The suspense is killing me!
That's the point steelstuds (what you are saying)
People put themselves under incredible duress and log tons of hours --- whether productive or not does not matter --- if productive, then they really have accumulated much more experience than their peers in the same amount of time and it bears consideration when comparing oneself; if unproductive or unpleasant or way too stressed out or has sacrificed everything else for this, they warrant equal consideration b/c their intensity or drive may be such that they make up with effort what they lack in perspective or efficiency --- and a person lacking in perspective can be volatile, which also warrants a cautious engagement
Plus that was an extreme example but even if such a person goes through periods of greater or lesser efficiency & more or less stress, or takes on such a role for only six months or a year, it still adds up to thousands of hours of extra practice time within a set period and when comparing oneself it bears consideration
I don't know why you would spend your life doing something for which you don't have passion or at least interest. Architecture isn't some precious higher plane or calling; you can have passion for anything and should try to figure out how to be able to do it every day. Life's too short to do otherwise.
Cut woody a break here. Most people spend their entire working careers doing something they don't have passion for. Likewise, does anyone really have an interest in a lot of the shit Architect's have to do on a daily basis? No, we do it because it's part of the job and we need that paycheck.
I'm going to go out on a line here and say, do it even if you don't give a shit about Architecture. If the job is 100% about making a living you'll probably have a higher chance of success.
Almost all of the people I know do what they do for the paycheck. The only exception being stay at home parents. Even self employed friends do what they do for the money.
Architecture is the only career where I know people that will willingly "work for free" just to fulfill some personal bullshit vanity while using "passion" as some sort of excuse for letting an employer or client walk all over them. All that gets us is low pay and a severe lack of respect.
I think a good re-thinking of this as a JOB is long overdue in this profession.
Right on aqua!
I've been struggling with the same idea. The culture and the education of architects sets you up to expect a career that is all ideals and cutting edge design. I've beat my head against the wall of expecting creative satisfaction to come along with my paycheck and have recently realized how unreasonable that expectation is. Now I look at it as a bonus when the work I get paid to do is really creatively satisfying. Outside projects satisfy the side of me that is passionate about Architecture. In the end, designing less than stellar buildings is still more satisfying than assembling widgets. (Though your are done with the widgets at the end of the day...)
I don't "work for free", ever. I volunteer time at my kid's school and in my community for free because I'm passionate about those things AND because they are networking that leads to paying work. Architecture is my work, AND it's my hobby, and I've arranged my life so I can get paid to do what I love to do.
I can't fathom a world where I go to a job every day ONLY for the money any more than I can fathom robbing a bank for the money.
But to each his own. If it's not your passion, don't beat yourself up about it, just do it for the paycheck and don't neurote about why others do it. But if you hate waking up every morning because you despise what you do every day, you owe it to yourself to do something to change that.
And I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky about this. Though I am feeling pretty fucking snarky lately, since everything is going to hell in a handbasket around me, can I blame retrograde Mercury? ;-)
There's just a lot of whining about this. If architecture isn't your passion, fine. Don't do it, or find a niche within it that you DO enjoy. But don't blame other people for finding passion in something you don't. I hate sports, find pretty much nothing about sports interesting and most of it downright hateful. So would I look for a job in sports? Probably not.
Most jobs have little creative satisfaction in them. I'm sorry that schools tend to teach students that they'll turn into rock star designers and spend their days flinging off sketches while drinking martinis on private jets. But there's plenty - PLENTY - of access out here to information that the first few years out of school suck, that you'll be paying dues via drafting bathroom elevations for several years, and that if you want to succeed at anything you'll have to work your butt off and suffer for awhile. This isn't particular to the field of architecture (except the bathroom elevations part).
But why would anyone go to college for a minimum of five years doing something they don't like to do? It baffles me.
Donna, I think we are all splitting hairs on definition of 'passion'. We both can draw same level of enjoyment out of the profession yet describe the experience in vastly different terms. Term 'passion' tends to get thrown around a lot in the field, and it's only natural for some of us to question the definition.
There is nothing more frustrating than having your 'passion' be questioned in a project that's chronically mismanaged. 'passion' is often used as a catch-all defense mechanism by some. Architects who need 100 hours to accomplish 40 hours of work are the first ones to scream out 'passion!!!1!'. To each his own indeed. As long as you don't slap lipstick on your weaknesses and call them virtues.
I didn't mean to strike such a chord, but I do believe the "passion" crap gets used as an excuse all too often. Of course I entered into this profession because I had an interest in Architecture.
Back to woody's original comment about "competing with people who will work 14 hour days for $35k" is a valid point. There are countless posts on this forum of people who work long hours for low pay. The current economy has made that worse as well.
My point is, I'm calling bullshit on using "passion" as an excuse for long hours and low pay.
I enjoy working as an Architect (most days) and I also enjoy it as a hobby too, but the simple fact of the matter is, there is no passion in the drudgery and serfdom of what a lot of this profession has turned into. Same goes for other corporate drones in different careers. So, my advise is to not make excuses and remember that it's a JOB.
Aqua, I mostly agree with your assessment of "passion" as an excuse for slave labor, but this here:
"Almost all of the people I know do what they do for the paycheck. The only exception being stay at home parents. Even self employed friends do what they do for the money."
is kind of simplistic: of course everyone works for money, it's hard to get food, board, and a little entertainment otherwise; but what I notice from the people I know or notice throughout the day (mailmen, nurses, house painters, financial consultants, whatever) is that many of them really enjoy what they do: they do it well and take pride in working.
If you were to suddenly give everyone enough money to live on without needing to work, obviously many of them would just retire, and others would try doing something that they always fancied trying, maybe even several things, just for the hell of it; but I would bet that many, many people would just keep right on doing what they already know how to do best.
woody....i think I might know what your passion is...."Put it back in your Pants!"
Emilio - I know that I'm being overly simplistic, but for most of my friends their career choices weren't some kind of burining passion. Lots of people graduate with generic degrees and get a job from whatever company is hiring. My own brother bounced around from insurance sales to corporate marketing and now to retail management with his business degree. Lots of other people bouce around careers looking for something that fits. Architecture is one of the few professions where someone will do whatever it takes to stay in the game. Meanwhile people like my brother get fed up with poor working environments and leave to do something different. That's not to say people that bounce around and fall into careers don't enjoy them. To a point what we do is what makes us who we are. The world would be a terrible place if nobody took pride in what they do. Still, far too many people elevate this work about what it is - work. Hence we have people going into $250k worth of debt for an Architecture degree, working for free just to put something on a resume, etc. I don't think it's healthy.
That should read - people elevate this work above what it is - work
Burning passion is rare. It's very few people that will work at something or follow an obsession and ignore their health or security doing it, but they do exist. But the decision to ignore health and security to pursue something should ONLY come from the person and not be imposed by others as a myth and guilt mechanism to get people to work for nothing or work endless hours.
Taking pride in what you do and having a sense of identity from what you do is far more common, and I think we agree that it's a good thing.
"very few people that will work at something or follow an obsession and ignore their health or security doing it, but they do exist"
even if it is .001%, it is still somewhere on the order of 1500 to 2000 architects/architectural designers in this country. And even if only half of them are actually productive, that is still 750 to 1000. Beyond the fringe though, there are probably several thousand more who have or are willing to live this way for a short while and have benefited from it and moved on.
Getting architectural work is usually a competitive process which means that for those who do not put in a level of effort commensurate to that of those who are consistently successful, it is practical to adjust one's expectations for where this is all really going
I have worked for extremely low pay in a NYC, commuting from NJ every day. Looking back, I will more likely say that I worked for free. I consider myself passionate about architecture. I also know that it's all about the mighty dollar at the end of the day.
I didn't last there very long. It was a physically, mentally, and financially draining experience. I don't regret it because I would have never learned about that aspect of the profession. The experience made me question my passion, but I found that if you truly are passionate about architecture, art, design, or anything, you'll make it work, even if it's just a hobby.
It was at school where studio was fun. We spent countless hours working on buildings with little rules, trying to create the most radical designs. I think it was in those moments that we found our passion. If you have common sense, you'll take a job thats mentally and financially beneficial for you. And if you really want to make buildings, get legos.
We spend way too much time talking about [and lambasting] ourselves on this forum, and not enough time talking about our actual role in society.
This is boring and sad. I'm sure the OP doesn't care much about most of these responses, as I sure don't.
I care a lot more about how one generates client approval, whilst garnered developer profit, whilst also engendering public [those who use your building but didnt pay for it] enjoyment, whilst exploring one's interests [ideally, in architecture, those all should coalesce].
To answer the OP:
I don't think you're driving passion should be your profession, or your job, or your relationships, or your hobbies. All of those are ultimately fallible and will let you down. Focus your energies on something infallible, and the rest falls into place.
jplourde, before slamming everyone's contributions to this thread, I strongly recommend checking "you're" grammar :)
well said, ss! im a total grammer whore to! i hate it when people accidenltyley misspelle a bit of wording to such an extent that it totally prohibtis mie from reading the actual content! welle pleyed!
now, did you have something to contribute, or would you like to discuss diction and grammar conventions and errors more thoroughly?
smile, though! :)
I have no issues with minor spelling mistakes, although I think 'you're-your' cringer should be limited to teenager's cell phone texts. Maybe you posted from a cell phone. Maybe you're a teenager. Hell do I know...
You also used words infallible and fall in the same sentence. Oh, the sweet, sweet ironing.
I would gladly post my opinion on the original topic, but I'm afraid you won't care for my response. Again. Between the profession in the toilet and a career that promises a few more decades of self-loathing I can't take any more rejection :)
Clever response, SS! In return I'll be certain to spare you the injustice of going through old posts of yours to highlight silly billy errors!
Perhaps if you spent less time on the internet conversing with randoms and more time paying attention to... oh wait, shit, my apologies.
I guess it's more interesting to pay attention to archinect than a career of self loathing, but why should that discourage you from posting your[e] honest and well thought out opinions? We're much more interested in those than we are grammar. This is an architecture forum [btw] and everyone knows architects can't write. :)
Well, I did post 5 entries in this thread prior to your first comment, but that's neither here nor there. I don't really read any of the replies either. I just try to guess what was said and then try to come up with something knee-jerk worthy.
Your assertion that black people can't roller-skate is downright racist jplourde! See? Worked like a charm!
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.