That is a concern I have for this field. While I don't care for certain celeb's work, I respect them and their achievements, esp. as businessmen. Same goes for HOK or other comparable firms that are driven by numbers. Too many 'hate' this or that (I admit there are certain ones out there, like Lynn, that I simply do not get why people like his work, although I do love his ideas and he's a great juror).

Anyway, I try not to be the sore loser anymore, as I think I was once much more prone to do. It's about speed, imo - the faster you accept things, the quicker you learn, and better you'll be next time around. I guess that's my lessons in life - roll with the punches and come back stronger.

I find that studying the best, or those that you admire, and trying to understand 'why' you like their work, can only help. Diving into competitions not only puts you against others that are very good, but gives you a 1-1 comparison.
Anyway, I like them, obviously.

"A narrow elite of author-architects stands opposite an overpowering ninety percent majority of 'simulation architecture', an architecture essentially without 'appelation controlee', as it is called in the world of wines. There is hardly anything left in between, only a few young people desperately seeking salvation in the few remaining niches and the largely hopeless prospects of design competitions"

(From the H&deM Pritzker prize acceptance speach)

ours is a critical profession--if we're not constantly questioning why *some architect* made a certain decision or why the general public seems to adore or despise a piece of architecture, then we're not pressing ourselves or our profession. i don't buy into the "hatin' the haters" mentality. i think critique--even towards one's peers--is healthy.

i agree st. the stuff i am taking about is without the critque >> oh, that sucks. oh they suck, and never patting anyone on the back or complimenting those who have done good. this was the thing that i was seeing at a couple of ID firms. press on.

think there is something like this in "its not how good you are,its how good you want to be." - phaidon publishing

I think this commandment from bruce was probably about this as well- I expect he was talking about achievement awards not design compitetions which most architects use as a tool for further exploration and testing of theories and ideas which they would never have the oppertunity or the free reign too explore in regular practice.

why not? why wouldn't we be able to explore outside the competition arena? are people suggesting that "we" don't have the self-motivation to develope our own ideas unless we are presented with a program written by someone else?

Hi

Competitions are allway's by the rule of those who put it up, but you can still use it in it's original aproach --- the open contests was thought as a positive possibility to let new things show, new things that allway's had a hard time as arts circles within very few years seem to tiht together and allow very little new , artists become professors and the sceen revolve the new are now the old the new still struggle it is the same 1905 or 1932 .
So came the idea with open contests and truely the new things did come from outside the circles bad though that very often those to judge are the old . To compensate that aan artist get the credit by having the option to display his work have it in an exebition , show it to the world. Now you can also use a contest as I did documenting that in say year 2000 I participated in an architect contest proving 3D-H . Nice to be able to protect your intelectural rights or would you say no ?

Hi

Please see it like this that I can say "HA HA HA year 2000 when I proven my 3D-H in an open contest NOX proberly didn't exist, and if it did look at their concepts being as far from anything in real as possible" --- Realy I like open contests even I allway's known I never had a chance for a prize.

what!?

betadinesutures open contests allway's been used to show new things, new things allway's had a hard time being a tread to the established arts circles, I know very few se open contests this way and that most just want a first price, but if you allready know the arts world in a small contry from inside, know lots of truely skilled artists that never get a chance as art is made into a social game , then open conteste even they are rare is an option to prove somthing new , a new aproach a new building method that othervise will not have a chance as then someone are more clever than the ones at pover in the arts world.
True I am glad to be able to say " Ha year 2000 I participated in a contest, one that prove that 3D-H was there proberly even before NOX existed".
Now open contests is not only about the first price, originaly it was to let new things new trends show.

beta, i think that one should push ideas on clients that may be beyond the bounds of what they might accept. this is our job isn't it?