At least in Finland, our schooling and the time spent to get the degree (students usually work part time in offices, while studying, for about 8 years) prepare us to build in a certain pragmatic and seemigly "wholesome" way. The idealistic notion of a nordic-modernism, more humane than the cold international style, is the goal we are striving to achieve guided by our professors. Any real reflection is ruled outside the educational system. We are schooled for a vocation in a given society. Be happy that you have the time to read.

which is why nordic architecture is derivative and boring.

I don't think that sver fenn is boring (i'm not sure he is not from finland but he is definitely nordic...), it is defintely a pragmatic and sensitive architecture that is not so much about geometric excellence than about respecting human bodies.
But I also don't think that the school is a place where you should learn about the business of architecture. From my teaching experience, I see it more like the right place to reflect about the discipline itself, precisely because it is appart from economic questions. Economy can be a topic of reflexion in the discpline, but it shouldn't be a central part of the cursus. By the way, I thought that in the state you had the possiblity to pic elective courses that were from other fields, why didn't you attend to bussiness classes during your six years of study (I'm assuming that you talk from LA like many users of this forum)?

The most important thing the first degree taught me was how to read buildings and analyse architecture. Before studying my response to architecture was shallow and style based. Now I can look at a building extract loads of information and criticise it regardless of style. An ability cruicial to my own design process.
Sometimes I feel as if I have learned nothing but its not the case, the learning is just extremely hard to pin down and label. I studied in London (London met/UNL) we had no exams (lots of handins) and werent really required to memorize any information which makes the experienced learning appear less than it really is.

I have to say that I find nordic architecture much more compelling than the shit that seems to be coming from the states. It is interesting to think about the social orders underpinning the different cultures. As I understand it, there is an obsession with the individual, with being unique and better (in very general terms), within American society; consumption as an issue of status. Whereas, in say Sweden, where the Social Democrats were in power for a very long time (1932-1973), and you have notion of a welfare state, well, a completely different idea of your role in society exists. This obviously impacts architecture (especially in places like Sweden, where architecture became an important element within political developments - note Acceptera), and hence its practisioners.

To be plain, I find American architecture in generic terms deeply ego centric. What I like about Scandinavian architecture is its concern with the body's scale and tactile experience. Status is not a primary objective.

Okay, so that should really be expanded upon... but I don't have the time right now.

Sure, much of America's architecture and culture is driven by the desire to be unique, to be better, etc., etc., but that's also what keeps us strong. It's the land of dreams, where one person can persevere and be a star. That's what keeps it going and drives individuals to puruse architecture on their own terms.

If I was told, after I knew about design and architecture (say, after first year, undergrad), that I'd have to design in a 'style', then I would have left. It would have been boring and uninspiring. The desire to create something that is my own design is a passion that keeps me going.

Some of the work falls on it's face, but others build designs that will be respected in 100 years. That's pretty special.

mdler,

Welcome to the profession. You are correct in that you have learned nothing. You will now get a job in a firm and spend the next 5 years, maybe even obtaining your license during this time, learning all things you need to know to become an architect.

I hope that one of these days architecture schools spend less time trying to make themselves elite and prestigious and spend more time actually educating students to become practicing architects. Very few of us make any money designing the next building to grace the cover of the magazines. If you want to eat and own property, your clients are Walmart, medical offices and that really ugly box that you drive by every day and think "who the heck would design something that looks like that?"

Mum,yes indeed:"Who the heck would design something that looks like that?"

I personally don't care about looks. What's most important to me is how an architecture relates to the fabric of its environment, and also how it relates to the human body, movement, spatial relationship, etc. And from those points, the form takes its shape.

Which is why I quite agree with Alan's comment. I think society needs to be blame for bad frabrication of architecture in the States and it needs to be corrected sooner rather than later.

Style means nothing to me. Designing in 'style' doesn't mean you have to design in a particular era or to follow one's footsteps. Style to me comes from within, it's something that develops on its own through time. If a someone tells me that I have a particular style, so be it. I'm comfortable in that situation. However, if someone ask me to design in a particular 'style", my question to him would be, what is style?

There are so many things to look at. mdler, don't feel discourage that you didn't learn anything from 6 years of school. Architecture is not a 6 years course, it's a lifetime devotion to an art form that has existed for centuries. But most importantly, move! Move around in a space, feel, listen, observe, what's happening in an environment. Everything changes in less than a second, one blink of an eye and you might miss something that could change your life.

I concur with Zboy.

Mbr: at what stage in your education are you? You seem far to preoccupied with style; perhaps you should spend some time questioning things a little more. There is a significant difference between designing out from the situation at hand with a consideration somewhere along the line for aesthetics, and, as too many people do, simply developing their architecture from the formal rules of a particular style. As Kalle notes, it is possible to anaylse architecture in terms of its performance: what it does, rather than what it looks like.

It is possible, of course, it just depends on your priorities. 'Style' and aesthetics are a highly subjective issue. There are several sides to approach design from, and each equally valid (well, maybe not). I come from an education that highly emphasized contextual relationships, but also promoted formal investigations. I like to think there's a balance between creating something new and inspiring and respecting the history of the site.

I don't agree, though, that it has to be one way or another. Performance of a building is a given, to a certain degree, but the experiential quality of the space is not. Almost any architecture firm, with experience, can design a building that 'works', but only a few can build something that works and is inspiring. It's kind of like music - many can play an E and A adequately, but not many can create great music. That's how I feel about architecture.
I choose not to base my opinions on 'performance', as that is something that is subjective to those that use it (something most rarely can experience), and one can only assume that because it's built, it at least addressed the majority of the client's concerns. But the spatial experience can at least be somewhat captured (nothing as good as being there, but again, that's a luxury most won't have) and displayed via photos, diagrams, and renderings (and maybe models).
Note, though, that I am assume 'performance' as a given.

Architecture, to me, is about the experience of the space. I guess you could call this 'performance', but I wouldn't. Sure, I love formal explorations, but only in the sense that it provokes an experience. Not many, imho, can pull that off successfully.

Mum

I think that we are both on the same page in this one. My main point is that, although architecture schools should allow us to explore and think 'outside the box', they also have the obligation to prepare us for the real world.

We as architects are losing jobs to builders and developers becuase we as a profession dont know much about the business of building (not to mention the AIA, which discourages advertising, etc). The current state of American architecture, urbanism, sub-urbanism, is a direct reflection of the lack of involvement that architects now have in what used to be their profession.

PS- sorry about my poor spelling

There's no real world...
The fact that the profession is getting its mission in the building field thinner and thinner is not due to bad education, but to the fact that in a way, the "real world" doesn't need architecture anymore. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, but it's true: if the common sense considers that what matters only in a public building is security, cost reduction and above all conservation of what was there before, there's not much room left for architecture. That is the problem every arch graduate has to face once he leaves school: once you face what you call the "real world", you realize that your discipline, architecture, has failed to define it's meaning in society after the end of the cold war, like every other cultural production of our society. That is why it's really important to keep at least a place, or a moment, or both to think about what this meaning could be. That's the role of school imo.

Well, actually, there is a real world. It's what provides us with jobs. It is unfortunate that the need for space makes no room for "design" but that's the way it is. If mdler wants to make any money off of his degree, aside from selling it on ebay :), he's going to have become re-educated in practice.

I do blame the schools for this. They create the architects of the future. Try this theory: I think what has happened is that schools have become too idealistic. The ideals they teach are unattainable in the profession for a young architect. Most graduate students don't get to design. They have to learn how to do shop drawings, dimension a plan, field measure a space. Making the cover of Architecture is a pipe dream. By setting the bar so high, students don't even try to reach it. They don't have the necessary tools. It's impossible.

Back in the 50's, when my dad was in Architecture school, he came out knowing how to actually build something. His thesis consisted of a glass box with geotech reports, structural calcs and cost estimates. Architects of his generation came out with the tools to make their designs buildable. Schools in the 70's and 80's produced pure design and no practical experience. What did that generation produce? Deconstruction. Unbuildable art.

Great discussion guys and gals,
One of the questions that came to mind whilst reading these posts was : to directly ask MUM this question (or anyone else that wishes to address it) does the education that your father's generation make him an architect or a builder? Is it better than that of the education which generated, as you stated the Deconstructivists (or those that produced Deconstruction during that era (70's & 80's)?

One has to wonder, that many (inlcuding myself) blame the schools for not providing students with a clear picture of what the profession trully holds for them. But then again, what if they only focused on how to foster builders? Is what you are learning architecture?

I tend to look at it from the perspective that Kalle made earlier. That is that architecture is a large field, and as such very diverse (obviously with many givens) but nevertheless still huge. That being said, there is only soo much you might have the opportunity to learn whilst in school. Kalle mentioned that it had given 'em the skills to be able to "read" architecture. That's not necessarily a wasted skill. There has to be a base given to students of architecture, which I believe schools are doing. Now, one must understand that schooling is just the preface of the book on architecture, not the body. That comes during your working years. Correct me if I am wrong (or maybe this is my opinion/illusion) but wasn't it the practise before to educate a student on the basics, and then they were to become an apprentice of a "master" to learn the rest of the skills necessary to become a craftsman, and someday the Master himself/herself?

I may be placing this under the general statement categories, but I feel there are some valid questions/statements in that.

Does it become an issue of blame upon the schools because they are not given the appropriate amount of time to teach the young students all they need to know? Or maybe should it be seen as a condition where the possibility of individual "positions" are created? That questions is one based on wether or not (architecture being such a broad field) different degrees should be established and therefore different focii are available to the newer "architects" of the future?

I hope that question was clear. What I am eluding to is: should we have architectural school for designers? One for project managers? One for Managing partners (ie: the architect as businessman?)


disucss.....

and to respond to the original poster: mdler

I am sad to hear you feel you have learned nothing, or have convinced yourself you have learned nothing.

With relation to architecture, it has been said before, BUT you get out of it what you put into it. It is a cliche, but nevertheless a very good one. Therefore once must feel that because you have made that statement, you never truly put your best effort into it, and have just realised this after you have completed all of your education.

Sadly but humoursly like the chap that was/is trying to sell his degrees on ebay, the thought of becoming an architect or joining this profession was not given much thought on your end. And even if it hadn't (much like the ebay fellow) there must be some good one could extract from the years of effort and sleepless nights you encountered.

I say if you cannot see that......then I truly feel sad for you.

I agree that the education system in place now has more than a few questionable priorities. First, I would not trade anything for my education. I am doing graphic design, web design, animation, 3D, and architectural design - pretty much anything I can take the time to learn the technical aspects of. That is a great advantage that no other profession has.

That said, I think that in 7 years of education I could have at least learned more of the business side of architecture. While I love a good theoretical reading or discussion, it seems that there has been too much emphasis placed on chasing the 'theory God' of the moment, from Derrida to Delueze (and I have no idea who is the 'one' now). It's good to read and open your mind, but it's also dangerous to get caught up in it too much. No one, short of teaching, will pay you for that knowledge and I can't think of any firm that will pay you to use it. It's all part of the game, but I think the balance got a little skewed.

It is what you make of it. Architecture is a vast field with many ways of utilizing your skills. I believe it's increasingly necessary that those that aren't happy with the standard path search out new opportunities. They're out there, I can name several people that have successfully made headway in other fields while exercising their design talents (KD Lab, Juxtaposition, Tronic, and others).

I believe you can uphold at least some of your ideals and do well, be successful, and make a good living, it's just not the path that was spelled out before us as we entered school.

I agree with Mum.

It is imperative that an architect know how to realise his or her intentions concretely. If the actual construction of a work is not taken in to consideration, you move away from architecture as a practical art to architecture as physical diagram or sculpture.

And, if architects can't make dreams a reality, developers sure can. Cheaply.

As I understand it, Spanish schools teach their students well in construction, and the reality of the process of its making and its inhabited, useful life. And their design work in no way suffers from this, rather it is improved as they are aware of the realities of its potential construction.

What happened to tectonics?

i found Kalle's answer very similar to what i think. i learned how to read buildings and be able to take them apart both conceptually and phsically. recognize them for what they are from mundane to good design.
architecture is a life long friend who never let me down when i was unemployed,bitter and lost. i've never looked architecture to bring me prosperity and never made a living (just living) from any other trade except a brief stint as a construction laborer. hang in there learning in architecture continues after school more than any other profession. there is an apprenticeship period. in school there are so much to learn that you don't have enough time for real life situations (that you will learn in the field).
all in all, when you think you did not learn anything in school, just walk in the neighborhood and start looking at the buildings, you will realize how far you have advanced in the field of architecture. if this is not working get out while still young you will still have tons of knowledge in your system.

OA, Kalle
I agree too

I don't think either Decon or the 50's was better, just different. We reaped what the education process sowed.

It's an interesting point that Squirrelly makes about the student/apprentice/master relationship. You could say it is firmly in place, at least here in the US, but how many of us have felt our "masters" failed us? IDP is a joke and I would even venture to say the exam is not indicative of one's ability to practice responsibly. Most firms have very little interest in seeing their interns grow. You grow if you want to and/or have the opportunity.

I wish the education system would acknowledge that we, as a profession, want to see more of a balance in what they teach. I was appalled when my son was touring universities and we learned the architecture school (VA Tech) recommended a 4.0 GPA to even be considered for acceptance. Good grades in high school do not necessarily make a good architect. How many of us were star students in high school?

I did learn things during the past six years in architecure school; unfortionately I had to look outside of the architecture curriculum to find them. I learned construction by working for a contractor during the summers, I learned woodworking by taking wood shop classes offered through a different college at my university (University of Cincinnati).

My problem, however, resides in the fact that as architects we want to segregate ourselves from those who bring our ideas to a reality. The University of Cincinnati has both and architecture school and a school of construction management. At one time, I asked the head of the architecture program why the two programs did not have some type of collaborative relationship with each other. His response, in not so few words, was that we were better than the construction management students because we were intellectuals; we had a passion and an understanding towards what we were doing.

This is precisly why we as a profession are in the position that we are in. As soon as we realize that our primary responsibility to society is the creation of buildings, everyone will be better of. We as architects should know how to build. Economical buildings can be beautiful and thougtful.

mdler, the head of the arch program is a pompous ass if that is truly his attitude. A schools should find ways to collaborate with construction management programs, finance and business schools, real estate development programs, advertising and marketing programs, etc. at every opportunity. If we as architects cannot speak intelligently to our clients, contractors, lenders, real estate brokers/leasing agents, etc., we simply relegate ourselves to the role of that necessary evil, possessor of the stamp. We get paid accordingly: as little as possible to get that "set of plans" for as little as possible....which of course results in hacks who simply draft up the strip malls and big boxes designed in some corporate headquarters by marketing types. The "designers" of the big boxes are concerned with product placement to encourage maximum purchases and with least cost issues and the hacks/architects/possessors of the stamp are concerned with drafting it all up as quickly as possible with as few details as possible to maximize their profit. The contractors laugh at the ignorant detailing done by low paid interns with no understanding of construction techniques or processes or sequences, and inundate the architect with RFI's and change orders, causing most firms to barely break even during the construction observation phase of a job, and resulting in another owner frustrated because of the change order situation....and bad-mouthing the architectural profession as a whole. A-schools do the profession and students a disservice by perpetuating the image of the architect as intellectual giant, wrestling with noble issues of archispeak/babble, designing art museums for clients willing to believe the emporer has clothes. For 99% of architects, the majority of our clients will never read, nor want to read, Koolhaus or Eisenmann, nor give a rat's ass about the semantics most professors pass off as architecture. Ok, enough of my ranting.

Architectural design education has little to do with pragmatics. It has nothing to do with business, a bit with construction and has everything in the world to do with those subjects you studied besides architecture. Be happy, the rest of your career will be spent learning those things you did not directly learn in school.

then why does NCARB require us to get an acredited degree???

this is a fascinating discussion since i run into the mindset of mdler often. Many people in architecture are "taught" that they haven't learned anything useful. For some reason the profession feels it necessary to debase the education that supports it, yet most people do come out of school with an incredible base of knowledge and an ability to tackle and solve problems. It seems to be an assumption that the general populace can inherently understand building systems and space and concepts of "sustainable technology" yet typically those are difficult concepts to truly grasp and understand, let alone put to use.
That said the educational system does seem problematic in that it only rewards based on "design", even though there are so many other skills out there which are necessary within the profession, in some ways it is a vestige of the "lone genius" method of design which was useful in the 50s when the construction industry was still either simple manufactured systems or collaborations with specialized craftspeople, yet is quicly becoming obselete within the complexity of modern building systems, consultants, and construction methods. Knowledge of construction is something truly better left out of schools in many ways, although the understanding of concepts for it can be taught. Builidng and construction is something which can only be experienced and therefore is truly an aspect of the apprentice/master relationship which squirelly talked about.
as for soleproprietornow's comments, it's too bad you are so jaded...how are we to educate our clients of the validity of challenging traditional notions of space or engaging with a dialogue for society without believing in or valuing those concepts ourselves. without a sense of purpose there truly is no need for architects, we might as well just pass our mantle onto developers and contractors. we are in many ways the stewards of "society" in design rather than designers for society. without that we are purely style-mongers.

wreckingball, I agree that education in general needs to be broad and multifaceted: art, music, literature, etc, not just concrete and steel strength of materials courses, not just design labs.
futureboy, I also agree that learning to tackle and solve problems is no small accomplishment. I further agree with your statement that the educational system rewards only based on design while there are many other skills necessary to the profession. That is my main point: we marginalize ourselves as a profession when we do not learn the basics of finance, business, construction management, construction techniques and processes, real estate development, etc. When we cannot intelligently respond to some short sighted financier or developer with a rational alternative to their "standard" process, or form, or methodology, then we lose credibility and an opportunity to affect our community and our project all too often gets compromised and "watered down". I believe mdler's dept head who refused to collaborate with a construction management program in the same university is a classic example of Aschool elitism, and that a great opportunity to cross pollinate is lost. I for one would enjoy having a construction manager who had been exposed to some basics of design, and had some understanding and sympathy for design concepts and goals, just as I know most construction managers would enjoy working with an architect who understands their issues and goals. I don't want us as a profession to be reduced to the style monger role, merely applying some stylistic brush strokes as directed by the marketing dept and the finance dept of some developer.

many have made interesting comments.
undergrad schools help teach students how to think like an architect, how to throw away preconcieved notions of buildings and begin to actually design. Profs tend to hold your hand through this process which may seem like and oxymoron but it is not. You must build a vocab. before you can be a great writer.
It is the responsibility of schools of architecture to teach future thinkers and innovators, not cad operators......students pick up the techinical aspects of the field through work. For some reason students don't think getting internships during school is important. You have four summers during your undergraduate education. Four internships can teach you a lot.
I don't know what to say to anyone that thinks graduate schools should be technically driven. What is the point of a graduate degree then? You do not need to go to school to learn the technical aspects of architecture. Be happy the schools of architecture understand that.

Since this is a prominent aspect of this whole discussion (another great one to start this new site), I was wondering what you folks out there feel about the issue of the architect, essentially just trying to do and be too much! Is it necessary? Is it valuable in the long run/scheme of things? This is a question I've had for quite some time now, and I have my personal beliefs about it. Obviously there is some importance many of us place upon "knowing it all" or being a "jack of all trades". But how feasible is it really?

There are some direct correlations to all the issues being brought up on this thread, and I feel they are proportionately connected to these questions. Be it what we are being taught in schools, or what is being taught/learned at the workplace. I suppose it's a question as to how visible and manageable is/are the skills we all have. Will they ever all be put to use? One argument is that no one person can do it alone. We are not supermen (although some think they are....but I think that's just their egos talking) and therefore, we cannot do it all without the assistance of others. I do enjoy the fact that I know loads about a great many things, but don't know if I consider myself someone who knows all aspects of our profession, let alone the building trade, real estate, marketing, etc.

any thoughts?

oh and one last thing/question: is that the School's responsibility to teach us?

hmmm.........I don't know the answer to that!

yeah really great question.

but it is important to find what you are good at and embrase it, many people refuse to.
we work in teams for a reason. Everyone must bring something to the table. Graduate schools of architecture focus on different aspects of the profession.
It is is the responsiblity of the student to seek the program that fits them. this is by no means an answer to the above statement of course. just a thought.

squirrelly: good question. I happen to think that it would be helpful for schools to engage in some interdisciplinary programs with business schools, etc. to at least offer the possibility of learning some rudimentary elements. I do not believe that as architects we must know all aspects of other professions, but we need to know enough to have intelligent discussions. I have sat in too many meetings where an architect (sometimes my boss, sometimes a junior staff member) voiced an opinion or comment that revealed how little they really knew of the complexities of moving a project from paper to built form. Whether it involves legal aspects of negotiating with neighborhood groups, dealing with lenders, whatever, all too often I believe we portray ourselves in a poor light by our ignorance of the other forces that affect the development of any project. All I am arguing for is a bit of recognition that it takes more than an architects vision to result in a structure that will positively affect a community: it takes collaboration with many others, and the elitism / "design theory is all that matters" approach of many schools is not helpful. And of course, much will of necessity be learned once one graduates and enters the work force, simply from exposure if nothing else. Still, even if schools only encouraged students to take electives in business or finance or construction management, it would be helpful I believe.

wow,
great topic. i've become very interested in the concept of working through roles in design. using teams in school to tackle large issues but evolving it from an aspect of the overall project. that way you learn more about something in depth but also learn how to collaborate, has anyone tackled this in a studio or seen it tackled? as directors of the flow of information in projects we must master that skill above all. in some ways i think that being adept as directing flows of information is the key to moving beyond the current pitfalls of the profession.

My architecture studios were 99% each student had their individual project. It was obvious , as archit84 pointed out, that certain students had their individual strengths and weaknesses. It would have been interesting to develop a studio project which embraced this. Those with strong design skills could be responsible for the design, while those with the administartion skills could have administerd the project, etc.

In the end, not everyone wants to necessarily be a designer, and this type of approach to architecture studio would otherwise get discouraged by design.

we've all spoken to non-architects and designers. you all know the feeling of not wanting to explain why the term "architectural lookin" really makes no sense. or why we dont think that j.c. penney has nice furniture. or why for god's sake we do not like to be called engineers.

we learned sensitivity in arch school. scale. an optimism towards the otherwise abnormal. through heavy scrutiny from peers and critics alike we've learned that everything cannot be taken at face value and should have an interior beginning. a source.

you cant teach someone how to design. nor can you teach them a design process. all the technical information (construction, hvac, etc.) should definitely be addressed in more detail, as should professional development, but the aforementioned are book-related subjects- things you could study for and pass a test on. the reason why some of us fail to see what it is that they were after upon graduating architecture school is because some have never found that area on their own that taught them how to design on their own using scale, sensitivity, concept and all around common sense.

face it - its an educational process, so you had to have learned some things. so the question shouldn't be so much as "what did architecture school teach us?"

it should be "what did we teach ourselves in architecture school?"

then, if your answer is still "nothing", you are on the wrong website, wrong office, and ultimately in the wrong profession.

actually i disagree wtih kyll. you can teach someone to design...which is the state we're all in. we've been taught to design and consider design from a particular viewpoint (the guiding of our professors and media). and the problematic view of technical knowledge as separate from design skill is endemic within the way we were taught design. that it something you do if you have time, or if you have the budget for it. but it seems like if you could focus students on the tackling of real issues of a technical nature, the resolution of those problems in a thoughtful way is design. could someone design through a consideration of mechanical necessity or a structural concept, an urban concept, etc.? or does that lie outside what we consider as "design". is design purely the artful sculpting of exterior form?

kyll, i agree with your first paragraph...that was what i was trying to explain. but then you say you can't teach someone how to design.....i just don't agree, if that were true we would be wasting our time in design school.
you learn design in school, it is not something that you can be tested on, but the tools are there. The idea that you are either born with the ablitly to design or learn it by yourself is crazy.

you say it well "we learned sensitivity in arch school. scale. an optimism towards the otherwise abnormal. through heavy scrutiny from peers and critics alike we've learned that everything cannot be taken at face value and should have an interior beginning. a source."

that is taught, even the process is influenced, to say otherwise is untrue. We are not molded but guided and threw guidence we learn.

and Future boy you make a great point.
Architects are so naive many actually think that design applies only to exterior form.
Like only the vogue items are valid.
A professor of mine once told me architecture is fasion (he was kinda joking in a way), i didn't want to hear that at the time but it is mainly true.

the most important thing I learned was to think for myself and develop a DIY ethic.

Looking back to my 6 years in Lisboa's Architectural University I don't think I learned that much compared to the time I worked at Meyer and Van Schooten in Amsterdam.


And I'm not [just] talking about technical info.... There's a total vacuum regarding how's real life outside the university gates.

I'm talking about the day to day struggle with clients, municipality delays, competition deadlines, contracts, outsorcing, payments....

Instead everybod thinks they're going to be the new Koolhaas the minute they step out of the cradle....

i am now impervious to sleep deprivation, can change scalpel blades in under four seconds, run a paper cut along six digits out of ten and still shake the critic's hand with a smile, sleep anywhere, click faster, stare longer, drink more. can't you?

well futureb, arch84

once again- a scenario: that one student in your third year studio that after the first several pinups youre wondering while you look at his biomorphic undulating building illustrated with a cube "how the hell did you get to third year studio??" he totally sucked . your professor undyingly put his or her soul into teaching this student the ways of pure "design", yet every pinup, this same student trying or not just could not generate a concise clear idea as to how to address the program at hand. be it a three legged chair, or a city complex- they just could not do it.

this person could not be taught how to design.

improved as they may have from being particularly worse in first year, they still cannot and will never be able to design. nor will they ever be able to be taught this because the idea of design- the actual core</> of design comes from a point beyond reach in every architect, artist. although professors and peers in studio may assist the process, ultimately, that same benign process cannot be created by someone else (which is what i mentioned before) but can be assisted along- kinda like guide rails. dont get me wrong- i'm not understating the need for design assistance which is what professors do well- i am addressing the inkling within us that combines the scale and sensitivity it takes to create a beautiful object with respect to design, which ultimately generates a finished idea, albeit unpolished- yet clear and concise.

not everyone could do that. or will ever be able to.

thats why we have design teams. and model builders, cad drafters, etc.

you <b>are born with design ability. that does not mean that you automatically will be the best architect however. you still have to hone in on that particular design skill and correct any skills that are lacking. enter: architecture school, where youre "assisted" along the way to becoming an efficient designer, not just what youre raw ability would've brought you to, which more than likely would be called an artist.

you cannot teach creativity.

you cannot teach optimism.

you cannot teach common sense.

I must disagree. You can teach design. You can teach creativity. Just because a few people refuse to understand doesn't mean that majority of the people in arch school aren't learning how to design. Instead of this black and white way of looking at it, I propose there is a continuum - people who have god-given innate ability on one side and the guy you are talking about on the other. Most people fit somewhere more in the middle - they aren't born designers but they aren't completely dense either. These people in the middle benefit from architecture school. Also, I find that sometimes the more naturally gifted indviduals don't always push themselves as hard as people who don't get it the first time and therefore don't push the envelope either.

but see- thats also my point- most people in arch. school already know how to design. these are the ones in the middle-not born designers- you are right, but somewhere along the way they've generated this ability to plan- to design. most of them already have that creativity- in different forms- the idea of you being in arch school is to sharpen that ability- combine it with technical aspects of design. you have to actually CROSS someone who has a clear pallete and no want to open up and try to teach them these things- its not possible. what you're talking about is helping along those of us that already have that design ability- thats what you guys arent realizing. i'm talking about teaching to a person like i mentioned, where there is 0% ability to design. you cant make it 100%- you cant even make it .5%- creativity isn't something that you could study on- its not something that comes from the outside, like youre suggesting- it HAS to be from within. now- i'm not saying that it cant happen WHILE youre in school- it absolutely can, but it will not be TAUGHT- it will most definitely be something that generated from your own perception. you cannot teach a person how to "see". that happens on your own.

kyll, with all due respect, I believe that what you are trying to say is: there are students who mistakely or misguidingly enter architectural school, and aren't trully open to the idea of being "taught". Therefore, there is this condition of which you speak.

It has to do with those that are open and accepting to being taught and criticized and those that simply are not. I can relate myself to situations that occured whilst I was in undergrad, in which some of my mates were obviously against the idea/accepting of criticism and therefore were generating some very hapless/lifeless "design" if you wish to call it that. Therefore they would be clear candidates for what you consider non designers.

So to clarify, I believe that it's not necessarily about one's ability versus another, yet it has to do with psyche, and those that are willing to be taught versus, the ones that aren't. Unfortunately you will have/have had mates that were part of the ones unwilling to learn and just went through the motions. Obviously upon graduation, then enter the workforce and become those architects/designers/interns you all speak about...the ones without vision!

Mum, if architecture schools spent so much time teaching you how to be architects aka like those practicing what would we be doing for the future of architects. They bet thing about architecture is that it is all engaging - my perception of practicing architecture is very different from someone else and neither one of us is righ/wrong. The best thing architecture schools can do is to let their pupils think, be creative, dance and chirp, get high, build with there hands, be professional while wearing a flannel shirt and $600 pair of slacks, care without giving a damn. Off yer high horse les I kick yer off, raas!

But seriously, working now at level most reach when in their 40s (i'm only 27) I sometimes wonder if I really know more or more correctly if I'm a better architect per sae. I mean i wasn't an architect in school but I could design, prepare construction documents, probably suffer through the contract documents and business side, fly through the administration and now...I can breeze through the contract documents and admin...hmmm. Was my education so amazing that I was empowered so early on or what?

btw deconstruction is not unbuildable art - the best architects are those who've built them...have you seen la Fresnoy

Don't compare Finland to the US...the Finns hands down

The world is as real as you make it

Mum your dad was a builder...I noticed you didn't mention anything outside of the techtonic....I though we architects were more?

this has almost become a "nature VS nurture" of architecture.
i honestly beleive it is a little bit of both. natural predaliction towards design/artistry/composition/etc. is needed as to have a sense of "talent" and freedom with any design. it is intuition in that sense BUT if you are not taught the basic and most fundamental rules, everything you do becomes based on intuition and you become one of those hippy artists who just "felt out" how the design would turn out simply making it as meaningful as crap. as for the techinicalities of architecture(i don't mean to paint with such a broad brush-but trying not to get long-winded) you learn that as you go. those are the pragmatics, and they can be somewhat commonsense.

well,

i'll have to heed his comments. argumentatively, torture's comments seem to satisfy both ends. which i dont like.

cant win them all. (ah fuck it- yes i can)

as i stated before- being taught the basic fundamentals of design is not actually teaching design- its exactly that- the fundamentals of design. big difference. the core is still yet untapped- that area where intuition, scale and all the other above mentioned feed off of- which is simply the ability to create. un-teachable.

but in agreement, yes- without the technical aspects, youre headed towards just "art"

and for the life of me- how is it that one could "teach" creativity?

As I have previously said, DC, I think Mum's dad was an architect. The tectonic (notice the absence of a 'h' there) is to some what architecture is about - the tectonic is literally that junction between material and meaning, where the negotiation of built parts responds to the inner order of the situation at hand - being tackled by the architect. Have you, like, not read your Semper, man?

Also, I figure this guy wasn't just building out of a catalogue - he was instead thinking about how to built, which makes him an architect - as glass boxes have nothing to do with ease of construction nor economy, but rather with an idea of transparency and integration with the interior and exterior realms. Albeit in a slightly dull, literal way. Point is, if he were trained primarily as a builder, all his knowledge would be opposing that vision due to its impracticalities.