Wish I could hear one or all, but they are not being broadcast, which I totally support. Our online debate here is often lively and illuminating, and it's the direct engagement, rather than just listening to others talk, that makes it so.*
We *could* debate these things here ourselves if anyone is up for it! The topics are:
Quit Architecture Now which we cover pretty much weekly already. Sorry, students and interns, that the profession isn't as peachy as you'd like.
Consultation Con is also frequently derided here, as the "What style is my house?!" threads attest
Vanity Publishing Warts and all, I personally love when lauded buildings are revisited and their failures pointed out years later.
The Gender Agenda Oh heavens.
Toss Posh Tosh I don't know what this means, being a dumb Yank, but we likely have some variation of it in the US too?
*This is a subtle call for lurkers to please go ahead and post, the more the merrier!
What intrigues me most is their desire to keep the conversation non-highbrow (which doesn't mean lowbrow, IMO, it just means accessible). there was a post making the rounds on FB a couple weeks ago about the "100 Words Architects Way Overuse" or something like that. It contained some words that are laughably pretentious but also a WHOLE LOT of words that are just common in the discipline! We all know what someone means when they say "interrogate the notion" or fenestration.
If I try to discuss any of those topic above using common language, plus a few dick jokes, I'd be totally able to do so. We do need to be able to speak plainly.
Worth a listen. This guy has a good working theory re: the importance of architectural bullshit.
For those not wanting to spend around an hour and a half listening to talk about coding and various softwares and tools ... I'd recommend skipping to around 1:20:00 and listening to the end.
I've listened to the entire "Lightning Round" portion of it and love it. I'm always eager to hear architecture podcasts, but honestly the computational stuff is mostly (but not completely) wasted on me.
I never said it was a waste of time. I listened and found Andrew and the others very interesting, funny, and enjoyable. A lot of it is way over my head as I'm definitely not someone who is coding, programming, or using any of these tools. However, I can appreciate what they do. It makes me wonder how some of this could be applied to my workflow.
I just was trying to point out the pertinent portion of the podcast for what null pointer mentioned, "for those not wanting to spend around an hour and a half listening to talk about coding and various softwares and tools."
Exactly, E.I.. It isn't at all a waste of time, it's just wasted *on me* as I'm so clueless about computation. But I agree 100% with Andrew - who is clearly brilliant and hilarious - that "Learn to code" is pretty much a first directive in architecture, or most disciplines that rely on communication, these days.
sameold I think you've kinda missed the point comparing the series I mentioned in this post to the Stair Sessions post. The point of *this* series is explicitly to not be like the Stair Sessions. Personally I see value in both kinds of discourse, and in discussions happening both within the academy and not. That's my mantra around everything lately: why not both?
Nov 4, 15 10:33 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.
"Architectural Debates Are Rubbish"
Damn this series looks sooooo fun!
http://www.failedarchitecture.com/turncoats-phineas-harper-architectural-debates-are-rubbish/
Wish I could hear one or all, but they are not being broadcast, which I totally support. Our online debate here is often lively and illuminating, and it's the direct engagement, rather than just listening to others talk, that makes it so.*
We *could* debate these things here ourselves if anyone is up for it! The topics are:
Quit Architecture Now which we cover pretty much weekly already. Sorry, students and interns, that the profession isn't as peachy as you'd like.
Consultation Con is also frequently derided here, as the "What style is my house?!" threads attest
Vanity Publishing Warts and all, I personally love when lauded buildings are revisited and their failures pointed out years later.
The Gender Agenda Oh heavens.
Toss Posh Tosh I don't know what this means, being a dumb Yank, but we likely have some variation of it in the US too?
*This is a subtle call for lurkers to please go ahead and post, the more the merrier!
Wut?
I'm going to link to this: http://www.designalyze.com/blog/podcast/episode-018-andrew-heumann
Worth a listen. This guy has a good working theory re: the importance of architectural bullshit.
Who forgot to wipe their feet? This rug is ruined.
^ This was a thread about rubbish, not an invitation to post some.
What intrigues me most is their desire to keep the conversation non-highbrow (which doesn't mean lowbrow, IMO, it just means accessible). there was a post making the rounds on FB a couple weeks ago about the "100 Words Architects Way Overuse" or something like that. It contained some words that are laughably pretentious but also a WHOLE LOT of words that are just common in the discipline! We all know what someone means when they say "interrogate the notion" or fenestration.
If I try to discuss any of those topic above using common language, plus a few dick jokes, I'd be totally able to do so. We do need to be able to speak plainly.
http://www.archdaily.com/775615/150-weird-words-that-only-architects-use
I'm going to link to this: http://www.designalyze.com/blog/podcast/episode-018-andrew-heumann
Worth a listen. This guy has a good working theory re: the importance of architectural bullshit.
For those not wanting to spend around an hour and a half listening to talk about coding and various softwares and tools ... I'd recommend skipping to around 1:20:00 and listening to the end.
Hahahahaha Everyday Intern that was delightful. Thank you so much for the time stamp advice!
someone I know personally! Andrew is brilliant and I wouldn't say the first hour and a half is a waste of time...
I've listened to the entire "Lightning Round" portion of it and love it. I'm always eager to hear architecture podcasts, but honestly the computational stuff is mostly (but not completely) wasted on me.
I never said it was a waste of time. I listened and found Andrew and the others very interesting, funny, and enjoyable. A lot of it is way over my head as I'm definitely not someone who is coding, programming, or using any of these tools. However, I can appreciate what they do. It makes me wonder how some of this could be applied to my workflow.
I just was trying to point out the pertinent portion of the podcast for what null pointer mentioned, "for those not wanting to spend around an hour and a half listening to talk about coding and various softwares and tools."
Exactly, E.I.. It isn't at all a waste of time, it's just wasted *on me* as I'm so clueless about computation. But I agree 100% with Andrew - who is clearly brilliant and hilarious - that "Learn to code" is pretty much a first directive in architecture, or most disciplines that rely on communication, these days.
5 Reasons Architects Should Learn to Code
Whats the fucking point?
sameold I think you've kinda missed the point comparing the series I mentioned in this post to the Stair Sessions post. The point of *this* series is explicitly to not be like the Stair Sessions. Personally I see value in both kinds of discourse, and in discussions happening both within the academy and not. That's my mantra around everything lately: why not both?
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.