Pragmatism is philosophy too.

If you have minimal common sense [which highly regarded schools usually expect you to have], pragmatics in never an issue.

read up on archi history... philosophy history.. you'll begin to see how philsophy and architecture are intimately tied together

and theory too .. oops

and theory too .. oops

to the things themselves

Daham's question is interesting, don't bother patronising him with things he clearly already knows...

I have to say that I believe that a certain pragmatice attitude is a must for would-be architects, some of my fellow students still live in fairy-tale lands where anything is possible. I think this is just lazy and/or pointless: what is the point in designing something that either could not stand up, would function poorly (while perhaps looking great) or is incredibly and criminally environmentally unsound?

Yet...I do see how great it is to become unconstrained by these concerns and create things which are more akin to works of art than viable building concepts...

I do think it's possible, and desirable, to have a balance however.

daham, I mostly agree with what you are getting at. I have found that design build classes are a great way to interface the pragmatics of construction/budget restraints and the freedom that the academy allows. Personally I feel it is the students repsonsibility to balance the two (if one wants to see the two as seperate issues) and to integrate them into their own work. In my own work, for example, I have tried to work around this issue by starting off with a concept about something as mundane as flashing and allow the architure to grow from both physical experimentations and meta-physical reflections.

jg-

i think your question is interesting, but i don't believe structures and tech concentrations are the answer. how many times has anyone out there had to draw a moment diagram at work?
professionally, i find that my most valuable skill is the ability to problem solve. and in doing so, i find myself using many of the same cognitive processes as i do when designing. i think the more responsible design schools teach you how to think as opposed to what to think. a sharp student can transfer those skills to a successful professional life.
or, take it from bufallo fill and richard rorty- pragmatism is a philosphy.

I think that teaching practical information in design schools is good, but should not be overly emphasized. A student's formative years should encourage creativity. If you're too focused on whether a design is monetarily or structurally feasible it becomes the central focus. So rather than designing, and then finding a way to make it work, you might risk designing it the other way around.

Essentially too much technical education might stifle creativity. Technicalities can always be learned later.

Actually the problem would be more to identify what is a pragmatic information (and not practical information, which I guess is a bit different). Unless you are facing a professional restricted competition, an actual constructive problem that is going to be built in a serie of constraints such as price or stifness or utility, and/or a real client there is not many things that can be synthetised in a class or a studio. Practical is easier to deal with: there are law classes, there even exist urban studios that try to simulate real life situation where you can get a lot of abstract put practical information explained.

I went to architecture school, not tech school. I learned about architecture and design, not how to be an architect. This is college.
I curse at the shortcomings of my education plenty when a client asks about the acoustics of the room and I wince and make up something that sounds good, but I am still grateful for my abstract education.
It sure makes things tough when you make the leap into the real world, but I agree with some posts above - like the student must provide the balance themselves, and if you have some common sense you'll use it and turn your education into a successful career.
I do fear however, that there are far too many talented designers that get wiped out of the profession because of the initial shock of practice. But I don't think practice oriented classes will do the trick. I designed plenty of buildings that didn't make much sense and got higher grades and more interesting jury critiques and feedback than the guy who designed the project with a keystone displaying the year over the front door or the guy who's "concept" was the 97 UBC and local zoning ordinances! Then there was the guy whose model was made with rotten pears... but that's another story.
We have a recent graduate that just started at our office and I am reminded of the difficult transition by watching this person. Although this person is doing a fine job and good thinker, they are SUPER critical of everything and it's SUPER annoying! They'll figure it out.

This is why mentoring is SO important and I feel the profession falls short here. Maybe architects are so pissed off at the schools lack of practical curriculum that they don't care to mentor graduates? This is where my greatest beef lies, not with my school.

Architects aren't made in a day. It's more like 3,758 days - give or take.

interesting topic. i wonder what is the relationship to a bunch of professors that write about arch rather than practice it is?

is it expected to say that a professor (esp full time) will never really have the expertise to teach the "professional" studios. it seems most profs are turned off to the real world so they go to teach. OR they can make it without the supplemental income.

i don't mean to sound so jaded...and in fact i am trying to teach here...but it would seem that the arch classes are more geared to teach theory...and if you want pragmatism...take classes in a construction technology college or engineering college. it is college...take classes outside of the ONE building on campus!!! make you own degree program...enjoy yourself.

Woudn't having knowledge of 'practical' things like acoustics allow you to create even better architecture? Or how about knowledge of things like temperature, wind, light, human psychology, materials, urban context. These are all practical things which, rather than stifiling creativity, can inspire it. Even cost can be looked upon as a constraint that can lead to inspired solutions.

Constraints are not the enemy of creativity...they inspire it.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to relate how a building sounds or feels in a portfolio...

"the guy who's "concept" was the 97 UBC and local zoning ordinances"...just because the concept was boring, doesn't mean the architecture had to be. Someone could come up with an amazing design solution using this as a framework. Sometimes an interesting 'concept' can just be a coverup for a so-so project.

I didn't learn a damn thing about acoustics.

I did learn plenty about temperature (we called it "thermal delight" though), wind, light, human psychology, materials and urban context.

The dude who did the code project had a boring one liner of a project. He did it for his portfolio so he was more hireable. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you want to do and what you want to get hired for.

I agree that constraints are not the enemy, but the inspiration. Good point.

...
"constraints" are not a concept! it is like saying that i designed a whole car around opening windows. it is a feature...(sometimes nec. sometimes not)... this is the same as people who believe sustainablitity is a concept. NO it is how we should be designing. now you can emphasize it...elevating its importance.

but a concept is not "it can be built"...do we have to have more CRAP dropping on our cities that not only are to the code, can be built, are ADA and even sustainable BUT without anydesign??

These are features ALL architecture SHOULD have.

I think the school's role in an architectural education is to facilitate theory more than pragmatism. If one is truly passionate about theory, they in time will learn how to bring their concepts to real world fruition.

Admittedly, there are times when I have felt pretty short-changed in terms of technical knowledge. That's why I have been spending my time during school and between undergrad/grad to get real world knowledge by working in engineering and acoustics firms.

Time spent at school is so valuable. Why waste it on technical details when that can be learned in time by being involved in projects. Never in one's life as a designer will they be surrounded by so many bright minds as in studio. My two cents.

Raj,

No one said constraints are a concept.

I would argue that maybe the reason that we have crap dropping into cities that are to code, can be built, are ADA accessible and sustainable but have no design is precisely because no one teaches how to create great design within those constraints. I'm not saying the constraints should be central to the design concept, just that they should be seen as part of a holisitic design process.

Define Pragmatic

From Webster

Main Entry: prag•mat•ic
Pronunciation: prag-'ma-tik
Variant(s): also prag•mat•i•cal /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin pragmaticus skilled in law or business, from Greek pragmatikos, from pragmat-, pragma deed, from prassein to do -- more at PRACTICAL
1 archaic a (1) : BUSY (2) : OFFICIOUS b : OPINIONATED
2 : relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic <pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal with... social morality -- K. B. Clark>
3 : relating to or being in accordance with philosophical

Main Entry: con•cept
Pronunciation: 'kän-"sept
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin conceptum, neuter of conceptus, past participle of concipere to conceive -- more at CONCEIVE
1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

Concept, conceptual - I remember standing there as a fifth year listening to all the first and second year's "concept" behind their projects. I realized, somewhere along the way we all dropped that word from our architectural dialogue. Anyone can make anything conceptual, anything can be conceptual. All right, now that I've wandered completely off track.

The whole education/profession is really an on going battle. The firms say that the schools aren't producing working architects. The Schools argue that - that's what internship is for; we're training students to design.

My solution, go to a pragmatic undergrad and a theory driven master's program. You can't appreciate one or the other, without having studied either…

I, too, curse the lack of pragmatic teachings in school. Out of 7 years of arch school (4+3), you think I'd know how to do everything! I can't stand having to make up those over the top answers to compensate for lack of detailed knowledge of the profession, from the actual building to the business end.
It would have been easy to teach, after all, most of the purely practical knowledge can be taught by anyone, or even reading a few books. So it depends on how you look at it.

My conclusion is always the same: anyone can learn the profession, but not anyone can design. To design well requires careful and skilled guidance, things you just can't get from putting a set of CDs together. My first year of undergrad was at a technical school and I hated it. I quite and reapplied and got into a great undergrad program that was focused on design. I have no regrets about the education, I'd rather be a good designer than a good draftsman any day, even if it's more difficult to get things built (although so far, that hasn't been a problem).

But I would say that anyone reading this still in school - take advantage of your flexibility in school, take the initiative and seek out that balance. After all, in the real world, it is all about balance.

ok - let's get more precise in our definitions up front:

theory is a body of thought that aspires to some level of holistic unity. it seeks to tie together disparate points of view.

concept - as noted above - tends to be more singular in it's focus than a theory.

a theory would typically tie together several concepts, but a string of concepts is not inherently a theory.

in school, we tend to use the terms thusly: a single project may employ 'concepts' more than it can embody any holistic 'theory'. as michael hays has noted, you can't practice theory but you can construct a theory of practice. that kind of theory tends to encompass a career trajectory, not one isolated incident. (although we can pick out a single project, in hindsight, as containing characteristics of a theory)

now, to come back to this seeming disjunction between theory and pragmatism: part of this supposed split has occurred because of the way that 'concept' and 'theory' have evolved in the discourse of american architecture over the past 30+ years. starting with eisenman, hejuk, the iaus, and basically new york in the late 70's, the notion of 'concept' as a critique of culture has steadily gained more momentum. we have thus placed more emphasis on 'concept' as something outside the culture of building itself - linguistics, whatever.

in europe, this isn't quite as true. 'concepts' tend to still be woven into the building itself, the architectural propositions a bit more self-contained. yes, there are practices that subscribe to 'concept' as defined above, but as a general rule this isn't the case.

thus, we, in america, have tended to slowly divorce the emphasis in our studios away from a focus on the building as a loci for architectural investigation and towards the development of a culturally relevant conceptual armature that guides how we might practice. and really, if you are a second year student, struggling with how to put a building together, wouldn't you feel more comfortable talking about theory or concepts to demonstrate your understanding? (and this also extends back to the professors as well).

but, it doesn't have to be this way. look at peter zumthors work, especially the topography of terror. it is full of very interesting ideas, nay even concepts, that are integrally woven to the building itself. how it gets built, it's expressions, etc. this is a position that just doesn't hold much fashion here in the motherland, but is still wonderful to see...

thanks, g-love. nice critique.

as a professor of mine, used to say (paraphrase): if you think that you're designing without a theoretical foundation - THAT's your theory. you can either accept it and give it further consideration, or you can ignore it and deny your work the potential for greater depth and relevance.

g-love,

great thoughts. to comment of a couple of points: i think you are quite correct that the european architectural culture tends to find more value (and theory) in the building arts (zumthor, herzon demueron, etc.), and by contrast the americans tend to impose cultural structures on architecture in seach of value. but this is slippery slope. eisenman and hedjuk are always the first to be mentioned in this light. but i wonder to what extent this is the case...both are formalist, and therefore find or embody value in form. form is implicitly architectural.

what has always rubbed me the wrong way is that in the art world (divorced from everyday architectural discourse), the formalists are decidedly not interested in cultural theory...or at least this is they way they are curated. so, this is the difference, for example, between a brancusi and robert rauschenberg's bed. i think it was arthur danto who first speculated that the art world culture can make an art object by accepting it into the culture of the art world. so, the bed is 'art' because rauschenberg calls it art...whereas the brancusi is 'art' because its' embodied formal qualities.

so...perhaps that was a confusing digression. but what i'm trying to say here is that a lot of these theory driven architects are operating within frameworks that are not 'not-architecture'.

g-love.

very good comments.
when i was in art school, I knew that europeans have a placed an accent on classical training. especially schools in france.
they demanded realism, and accurate representation of reality.
that was a sort of foundation on which abstraction can be built.

is that true in architectural sphere?

My motto, taught to me by a professor in Design 1, was "never do anything just because it looks good. But if it looks good, then there is a reason why." I love that.

I'm a little late to this and don't really have much to contribute, but I just wanted to ask:

Strawbeary, why is the recent grad's critical nature so annoying to you? Are you suggesting that professional work gradually pacifies the critical urges that are encouraged and nurtured in school, and that you have thus been pacified?

joed - Example: said person asks if we designed such and such a building (that happens to be ghastly) as we drive by it, and yes we did. We both have a good laugh over it. Said person's taste is entirely aesthetic and snobbish (as all designers), but doesn't know any budget, schedule, site, or client opinions to consider and is still in good design is synonymous with good taste school mode. Said person has great taste, but that doesn't mean the rest of us (including the architect that designed said ghastly structure) doesn't have good taste. Or something like that.

i think if you design ghastly buildings it is pretty safe to say that you have bad taste. people who design ghastly buildings should not be architects. sounds to me like the student is just a straight shooter calling out bad work. an architect who is not critical is like a cross-country runner without legs.

said architect has good taste though! Twas before my time, but I am sure it was a reality of the pressure of the project situation. my firm's done plenty of ghastly stuff. we've done some pretty cool stuff too.

haven't you ever designed something great, with great intentions, using your good taste, only to have the owner come in and over ride your good taste and have the whole building painted puke orange brown?

(sorry, different project from above mentioned, but i did a design for a simple concrete block bath house for a pool, it was supposed to be painted white with a sand colored wainscot at the bottom for keeping clean) The two color scheme was too much for the owner to handle and costs needed to be cut, so the whole thing, doors, door frames, gutters, fascia, everything got a nice coat of pumpkin paint. It is seriously horrendous. Not my fault.
It happens more often than I'd like to think it does.

Hi, just jumped in because I think this discussion is important and it looks like it's taking a sidetrack. Theory v. pragmatism will never be solved in terms of one over the other, and that's a great thing for architecture schools because it keeps the water from stagnation. I hope to attend a grad school with a healthy mix of students with heads in the clouds and feet on the ground.

Trace has hit an interesting note with the comment: "never do anything just because it looks good. But if it looks good, then there is a reason why." This is intuitive design, right? You make a big move but don't really know where it came from. It looks good, and you want to keep it, so you start figuring out how to make it work. Maybe it's a piece of crap and you scrap it, but maybe it actually works; in fact, it works beautifully. Is this the result of good theory or good pragmatism? Well, on the surface, neither. But I think it's actually both.

I'm not going to try and prove that last statement. But I'll second the comment above that a good architecture school teaches you how to think. When you know how to think, your intellect and creativity have no bounds. As such, your intuition is deep. Certainly everything you've read and everything you've seen factor into intuition. So does your innate problem solving ability. I haven't read much about intuition, this is just from my own experience.

Can an architecture school build your intuitive abilities? I think they can deepen the well you draw from, and they can teach you how to translate the concepts you bring out. Theory and pragmatism, right? But they can't give you intuitive abilities. There's a reason schools don't just make students copy FLW... you can't learn intuitive capabilities. You can only enrich them.

Grimhart - yes, it's intuitive design. All of the architect's I admire design intuitively (Hadid, Gehry, Calatrava, Israel, Eisenman, Mayne, Coop Himmelblau, even Meier). It's a talent that has been honed into a skill that simultaneously combines form with function.

I do believe a good school can teach you how to do this, or at least expand and help you tap that well you mention. God knows I sucked when I got to undergrad! But with the right professors I learned how to think, and how to 'feel', how to use intuitive moves to solve problems. I can recall some of my crits where I had some crazy form and later came up with pages of reasons why - all after the fact.
It's called post rationalization and they, we, all do it.

I really do admire those that don't make excuses for it, like Mayne, Hadid, Gehry. They simply do it because they are exploring space, exploring how a building will 'form' and make something 'feel'. People dismiss this as just formalism or sculpture, without looking at the space itself. Space, and it's relationships to people, creates experiences. That, to me, is what architecture is all about.

is it right to say architectural design has to give its lunch money to science (theory) or "real life" (pragmatism)? why can't architecture stand on its own two feet and say "this is me", diana ross style. architecture it seems is just a j lo then.

architecture is really unique, it has to create, materially, the whole canopy of the human world for now. nothing else does that. sure, nothing exists in a vacuum, but our design decisions aren't as simple as prgamatism or theory allow, and certainly not something for intuition alone.

dino, are you dissing j lo?

j lo, eh? At least she's very formally equipped ;-)

The trick is, using your j lo comparison, is that we have to 'sell' what we do to others, both the profs first, then the clients later on. J lo does this - she sells 'cause she's hot. Convince your client that his building will be a better business decision because its hot, and you will have success....and you will be hot!

a theory of honest architecture...