We get trained well in software. I for one know that Ive picked up many new software skills that make me marketable. Zaha's is an interesting practice precisely because of the software skills we learn

jeremiah, there is a clear contradiction in the facts that you are stating. DRL is a good program within the school, one that should be mantained. DRL produces good graduates ready to work for Zaha. but... does that mean that the AA shall be turned into an extension of Zaha's office? you cannot deny that the work produced by Zaha's office is very specific, and not precisely diverse. Can't you see the problem we face in the school, the undergraduate and I would dare to say the graduate school itself, is getting flatten out. no choice but DRL weather in diploma or graduate school.

And George's attempt to humiliate Jeremy by calling him the underdog was mean spirited. There is no need to humiliate other candidates for Brett. I thought we are here to discuss the school, not to act like bullies.

and jac22, are software skills the only thing we need to become good architects?

vkngzz, i was not citing DRL's marketability as a case for making the whole AA on the same DRL lines: that's not what the AA needs and it would kill the diversity the AA is renowned for, and that's why the topic of introducing some new unit staff at undergrad and grad level is critical so that equally strong but alternative visions can be nurtured in the next few years as well as the good grad ones already there (lu, housing etc). You lost some good practicising architects who used to run units in recent years: that balance needs to be replenished, but not at chair level because i agree with the argument about alvin/alan/
mohsen's distance being an advantage..

I will vote Farshid and KArri because they present vision. Brett and Jeremy look safe and say nothing. People say Farshid proposal is very radical, but aa has always become strong when new things arrive. Unit system was very radical. I dont know why we always talk about Zaha. If you compare new offices with new ideas and fresh, you cannot compare between an office that is pushing the boundary and office that repeat since 1980's.

Jeremiah, I think you need to open your horrizons a little more. I agree with dlb, look what Tschumi did at Columbia. He turned what was a pretty boring ivy league university to one of the best and the most experimental schools in the world. And the work certainly didnt look like his work nor his students from the aa in the 80's. The aa has always been about new models and not about being conservative. I think its wrong to simply say, we have always had unknown chairmen so that would be the only thing we can do. We have an oppurtunity to get an amazing person and team (who most schools would kill for) to represent us. It will be a pity if it becomes another missed oppurtunity for the school just because of a lack of courage. It is a falacy that famous people produce bad academics, Rem's student's work on China, Shopping and Lagos are all done in academia and he isnt an unknown.

This is an intriguing conversation as it seems to have gone from one send to the other quickly and back again ( a good discussion ). . . . I will not comment on the candidates in depth other than Brett. The reason why is that I believe they speak for themselves very well. But a few things, if you will, Jeremy Till is an apt administrator, but can he lead the school? His doubt about being nominated is very telling. He was attacked the other day, but my thoughts are that he was so attacked due to his lack of a thoughtful and clear proposal, he did not research the school one iota. Frashid has international fame and is a creative and amazingly strong and inspiring woman (though I was very disappointed with her presentation the other day which focused not on the students and their work, but hers and her own benefits should she become co-chair. Everyone that I spoke with afterwards was quite disappointed, the expectations were very high. Kari - a surprisingly funny man, the radio bonfi interview is absolutely funny – the Rowan Atkinson comment along with the Sky Captain comment make me think he is someone you would want around, but you would have to be sharp – he might catch you unawares - and Frashid would make a good team. But is that what the AA needs. Someone mentioned above that the AA has always had unknown academics from the 70’s onward. But, please be aware that is the point of the AA, it is all about the students and the great architectural experiment of a participatory democracy. Has the school ever had a figurehead, no – exactly – should it, no.

However, I side with Brett, who is about as connected an individual you can possibly imagine. Name an architect of importance right now in the world and Brett more than likely knows them. If you speak of connectedness in the traditional sense, that of outward awarenessess of how many people know him then maybe not. But right now Brett is on an upward trajectory and will eventually become quite well know and respected in or out of the head position at the AA. His approach is direct and hands on and driven by the performance of his students. Directing the DRL is no easy feat. . .it has at any one time 80 people. What he has accomplished with the DRL is astonishing. Yes it is limited in scope, but that is its mandate. It is not supposed to be everything to all people, even though it does allow for many adjustments within its purview. His touch is one of a very talented and inspiring person who has a very deep and specific background, it is however not affected, he is humble and extremely intelligent, in that he is a true leader. He is charming as many people keep saying, and that here is being panned as bad, but that makes him a true motivating force. He is plain speaking even in a profession caught up in jargon. . .though he can lead ANY discussion on the subject of architecture, art, design, theory et cetera, in that he is a true academic. He is purely and completely devoted to his students. He is very unselfish in this endeavour, in that he is a true educator. You might think he is not there, but he is. . . .his door is open and he is completely connected to his students, this I am sure will not change. He has been around the AA more, but that is logical, he is a candidate, otherwise he is working on developing and maintaining the DRL.

A few people here are justifying their vote on the basis of connections: architecture fashion victims willing to see the school full of celebrities? Not a good idea to compete with GSD, Columbia and the like… the AA should preserve its independence and set up its own agenda rather than follow trends.

people vote is their business. drl cannot blame other people for fashion victim, that is ridiculous and irony.

so what is the timeline for this? When will the new chair be installed? Ah, I see, final votes will be . . . The final result will be announced on Wednesday 1 June. What does this mean though? After the results are announced, will the new chair(s) go into effect this Fall, earlier?

tylerdurden: if you want guarantees, get out of architecture.

there is no guarantee that farshid will not have the AA as an extension of FOA. nor is there a guarantee that brett would open the school up beyond the DRL agenda.

i am not at all over-awed by farshid having been to harvard, OMA, etc. i am however impressed with the work that she and alejandro have achieved in a short period of time. i am impressed that both of them have kept direct contact with academia while maintaining a growing practice, and they contiue to define a particular practice through work, lecture, writings and exhibitions.

there is a valid precedent with bernard tschumi at columbia that a highly regarded, active architect can also lead a major school of architecture without turning it into a version of him/herself or his/her specific interests. if you think there is a process that can guarantee the right choice you will be waiting a long time.

the AA is less varied now than during period of boyarsky. but this is not to say that it was better back then. during the mid-'80s there were a lot of mediocre, mid-range tutors, who have disappeared into the background. nonetheless, it will be a primary role of the new directorship to generate a more refreshed body of staff. i am sure that all three candidates have options on how to achieve this. my point is that farshid is active across a wide range of venues (schools, conferences, academies) and as such i would feel certain that she has contacts to bring in a range of new trajectories. she might not. but you cannot deny her participation across the broad international architecture scene.

perhaps the same can be said for brett. he certainly has contacts, but the list of visitors, guests and critics to DRL are fairly closely within a particular outlook on architecture. interesting and valuable, no doubt. but limited.

the "success" of boyarsky, balfour and mostafavi are different in scale and nature, so i wouldn't use the all-consuming title of "academic" to valorize them. again, there is no evidence based on schools around the world that not having a practice leads to more commitment or better leadership. did moneo at harvard lack commitment and leadership? does stern at yale underachieve for the school? did bernard at columbia? these may be american examples, but they remain relevant to the AA.

you are right that alvin was not 'famous' when he took over the AA. and he made the school very important. the point is rather - does every new chair for the AA need to try to replicate alvin? at what point does the school achieve a break with an illustrious past? alvin is most remembered for the fact that he introduced this strange new device called the "unit system". if his value is in the pedagogic and operational effect he produced, then surely the AA needs to judge its future based who can provide a new model of operation and pedagogy. if you count farshid out precisely because she is offering something that the AA has never been before, then you might as well call in english heritage and get a blue plaque to cover the whole institution.

as for mean-spirits, i would suggest that having natasha (brett's wife) point to particular people in the audience to let them know it was now their pre-arranged turn to ask an opinionated question of the candidates (other than brett) is worth being concerned with. and george's attempts at denigrating jeremy were obvious in their bias to most people. [and indeed, i am sure karl rove would approve of these techniques.]

many staff at zaha's office are graduates from DRL. but i would suggest this has more to do with the link to patrik schumacher than anything else. with patrik no longer at the AA, it is interesting that the DRL is being promoted as Brett's invention. while it may well be true that the current title of "DRL" came during the tenure of mohsen, the fact is that the graduate design program was started under balfour, by jeff kipnis. pgs 17 and 20 of the orange book; "the AA's M.Arch graduate design programme which he helped found in 1996", "Our invention, management and promotion of the DRL..." are a less than accurate presentation of the actual history.

Let’s be clear about one thing: this thing about Farshid showing FOA is rubbish. Wasn’t Brett showing DRL going overtime? The difference is that Farshid and Kari have done lots of things by themselves while Brett has not done anything but schmoozing his way through the AA bureaucracy. He is a perfect Mohsen II: a very diplomatic academic with a good antenna to tag along things, but zero independence and zero originality. At least with Jeremy or Farshid you get the real thing to discuss with, not a dummy of Zaha or someone else. I heard that when he tried to run a diploma unit by himself, it was a disaster. At the DRL muddle he gets by. How is he going to produce diversity at school? They have had the chance to differentiate DRL through different working groups. Not only DRL has remained a one-liner but it is spreading dangerously across the school and homogenizing the culture of AA diversity .
What he actually deserves is no question at all tomorrow- nobody there. Because, what has he proposed? Nothing! He has been schmoozing all the tutors within the school: Mark Cousins, Michael and Achim, Tom Verebes, Carlos, Francesca, Shumon and Oliver, Natasha, Eva, George,…. They are all tagging along because they know they can manipulate him or they have done their deals already. How can Brett create any change or point at any new thing if he has this number of compromises already? Lets face it- Brett means Mohsen continuity without having even been the drive behind it. I don’t know what happens if Jeremy wins. But for sure they can all get ready for the whip if Farshid wins… She is not going to let them get away lightly if they don’t perform. To get his own wife to attack other candidates is not only distasteful, it is plain stupid.
What all these people deserve is a true students’ revolution against complacency and their bullish tactics of Brett’s mob that undermine democracy at school. Hasn’t this proved a conflict of interest: between Brett’s candidacy and the students’ interest?
We should vote for somebody who will change things from the flatness that Mohsen has created into something more poignant and more diverse- not more of the same.
Lets not bother to show up tomorrow for Brett’s presentation. We know what he is about and there is nothing to ask. It is sheer continuity and comformism. Lets challenge the bullying of the tutors and choose somebody that will get them straight.

please don't start other discussion topics for the same exact thing. If you do so, some people will be carrying on with one conversation in one place and other people will continue oblivious to the comments in the parallel one.

It is true that the school is beginning to flatten out. Its all done under this idea of collaboration. This word collaboration that Brett was selling is not very believable. Is it just a pretence for the lowest common denominatro, an excuse for homogenization. The school has never been about a school style.

The idea of clusters and collaboration are also direct translations from DRL. Brett made it clear that the DRL wouldnt be marching back to take over Bedford Square. Why are they so far removed in the first place. Why have they isolated themselves so far from the rest of the school? Is it so they dont get infected by the rest of us? He isnt sincere at all, He's just saying all the things he thinks the rest of us want to hear but its very clear what is happening. Theyre starting to goosestep.

DLB,

The more you write the clearer it seems you are over-awed by 'star' architects. FOA and Dip 5[under Aleajnadro & Farshid] has done great things and I believe FOA will continue to do good work. However we are talking about AA and education here.

What Farshid is proposing is not revolutionary. The Vertical Studios as a structure is already happening in AA. Emtech with Dip 4 is a good example, LU with Dip 12 and Housing & Urbanism with Dip 6. Her proposal of yearly 'themes' of investigation is a structure borrowed from Berlage.

We do not need to return to days of Alvin. But the last thing that the AA need now is following the trend of 'celebrity education' that is proliferating worldwide. The same few names teaching in the same 'top' few schools. The AA has always been a step ahead of the game by taking complete different directions. Mimicking other American Schools and Berlage is not the answer. Therefore Maneo's Harvard or Stren's Yale are models AA should not follow. I am whole heartedly with you on your example of Tshumi but I see Tshumi more as an academician [altough he has a practice] as his built work is not as celebrated as his theoretical work. It is his 'generosity' that produced the blobmeisters that defined the mid 90s.

Also, one has to be mindful that Farshid will only be part-time and Kari will be the one running the school. Do we know enough about Kari? If the school is unhappy about Kari and wants Kari to leave, does Farshid leave as well since they are standing both as joint candidacy?

I am not asking for certainty, merely to point out some issues we all can think about [you don't have to ask me to leave architecture for that].

School Meetings are open and democratic and anyone can raise any question he/she wishes to. I don't understand why you show much hatred towards Natasha and George.

As for Brett, he has yet to meet the different parts of the school, that is why I am not commenting on his candidacy in depth yet. I'll comment on it hopefully by end of Monday. At this point I have not made up my mind yet. I hope all students in AA like me will think through this more throughly.

Tyler, I do remember that farshid and kari's proposal of the vertical unit structure was highly criticised by the Brett camp at the presentations. It was accused of being too radical. If you say that its already happening in some way, whats the fuss all about? It seems to be workable and tapping into the potentials of the school.

Also, about Kari, atleast we've had a chance to meet him. Who is the shadowy figure of the academic head? Anyway, Kari seems like a nice enough guy, something that Brett people say is Brett's good quality. Even more, he has also proven himself as a good academic and administrator.

vkngzzz,

I think it will be more helpful if we talk about the 3 candidates proposals than about the various 'camps' that seems to exist and all their alleged wrong doings. This is gutter politics and it's not healthy.

tyler, I think if you read through the discussion so far, most of the discussion has centered around issues. As for the proposals, well, its hard to talk about proposals from all the candidates because none of them are too clearly defined. Everything is too general to have a real opinion about. Infact it seems quiet hard to see why the advanced units will be more damaging than the clusters. Infact the advanced units will be making full use of the potentisl of the school for synergy and diversity. Clusters is a very polite concept that doesnt theraten anything. However, that is the way the campaign is going, there isnt too much to discuss in relation to Jermey, Bretts and even Farshid and Kari's proposal. The only things that stand out are the nasty gutter politics which is sad but maybe better to be aware of rather than ignore it. It says a lot by itself.

vkngzzz,

You are right to point out that there is no clear issues or proposals to vote for. That's what I feel right now. For me, vertical units and clusters does not differ too much at the end of the day. If it is forced upon it will never work as AA is a democratic school; too loose in its implimentation on the other hand will only be cosmetic. Which leaves me so concerned about what criterias at the end of the day do we base our votes on? Do we throw away the future of the AA by delving into gutter politics?

Tyler, these forums are great, would be nice if we all meet for a drink in the bar when its all over. At the end of the day, you will probably vote for Brett and I will definately vote for Farshid and Kari. The fact that as students, we can vote is the really great thing about the school I just hope we will make a difference.

so, why is that there is a group of tutors who are so opposed to the idea Farshid and Kari are proposing? Why do they keep saying it does not work and forecasting chaos if verticality is implemented? The tendency towards verticality is already there and the merit of Farshid and Kari's proposal is to have identified this tendency as a possibility to exploit synergies across the school. The tendency towards verticality is what will ensure diversity instead of generating homogeneity, which is what DRL and the horizontal structure enforces. Moreover -and that is where having a practicing architect at the helm is an advantage- verticality and fields of knowledge identify synergies between the knowledge produced at school and what is needed outside. Neither Brett, Michael, Mark, Carlos nor any of their kind have the slight idea of what is going on out there because they do not practice. They maybe good as tutors but not at drawing strategies to position the school in the wide world. And their mob is only concerned with keeping their position. Brett may now propose something similar in reaction to Farshid and Kari, but it will not be original, like everything they will ever do. Like Mohsen, Brett is only able to tag along things other people have said.
As far as I am concerned there is no point going to see Brett tomorrow and I do not see why anyone may want to go. Let his DRL mob and their band of tutors go there and applaud him, and let's vote somewhere else.

Hi doll31, it seems that youre also getting used to these chats too. I have just started today as well. Anyway, I thought I would be a good chat community member and post your lost text, dont worry Javier Arbona Ive sorted this one out.

This was your lost message doll31

gutter politics have been practiced by one camp out of three: Brett's and his mob of associated tutors. Everybody knows that at school. That alone should leave him out of the race. In fact, the Search Committee should have identified that there was a conflict of interest of one tutor running for the school and playing internal politics to sideline external candidates proposing genuine new ideas. It is not true that there is no difference between a vertical structure and one of clusters. The first is intensifying something positive happening already and naming it as a positive development. Clusters are trying to keep things as they were under Mohsen pretending there will be some change. What is this of an unknown Academic Head being proposed afterwards? Isn't Brett Academic enough? Maybe he will need a "Practicing Head" to compete with the other proposals. And who is going to pay for it? Does it come out of the Chair's salary?

thanks vkngzzz! I owe you a drink at the bar once this mess is over,...i think i won't screw up any more.

Thanks.

I can't help but think that if I agree with Brett's proposal I am a crony. This is the most distasteful aspect of the political conversation here on the board. It so turns out that I know him personally and see how he operates and can turn a project around with just 10 minutes time talking and learning about the project. That being said, my opinion of his is one that is respectful of his approach to education in general. So I will now shut up on the matter of Brett and his personality - it deserves no further discussion.

On to the issues:

Frashid and Kari are proposing something that already exists at the AA in a loosely presented format. There are tutors who do teach other courses and have parallel schemes. . .but this is hard to integrate into a school formally that will respect the differences of the individual elements. It sounds much like an American model, one that is tantamount to auditing courses and taking a minor. You have so many credits here and so many credit there. . .so long as the majority of the credits are within the given field. I have that type of education in my undergraduate degree, I do not want it for my graduate degree - and that is exactly what they are proposing, it would mean quite literally changing the internal schedule of all the proprammes to fall roughly within the same framework so any student willing to 'investigate' a unit can then jump over at term breaks (I would imagine). This will not work well for graduate programmes which are 1 year in total, all but the DRL.
Quite honestly I would think this proposal would work better for the intermediate and diploma school solely (which in the US is all undergraduate). The result for the graduate school would be difficult o reconcile. If you can explain to me how it can, I would be very interested in hearing it.

Brett's proposal is less disruptive on all fronts, but might lead to later adjustments to the overall framework of the school, while not interrupting the present functioning of the programmes. Although the idea of clusters is nebulous, it might be an evolutionary change that can then foster new ways of developing the school as a whole. It is an emergent ideal which can have greater repercussions because it would follow the natural flow of the particular work. I can only explain it how I see it, that is if people are focusing on a given area of interest, they can develop it in conjunction with other people, this might allow for the creation of dynamic nodes of activity which are less formalized but still fully supported by the school with extra funding. Where a unit is too financially week to put something together - I remember hearing (never taking to anyone personally) that much of the effort for the end of year exhibit in EMTEC was focused on one person's work and this harboured ill will in some people. (This I will reiterate is hearsay - but I thought might lead to a clarification or further insight by someone else). This can then become a vertical method (something similar to Frashid's and Kari's proposal) of integrating the school, while not homogenizing the actual programme structures. THIS IS THE KEY: It is a restructuring, not an overhaul. The inclusion of an academic head is also an important feature. . .from within the school (VERY IMPORTANT) someone who knows the school well, the daily activities will be managed. This idea is more important than anything else, b/c it in effect allows for a very critical and particular change to take place, that the school establishes a consistency which rotates every 15 years (5 for the chair/dir and 3 for the admin head.) The fear of who the head is very odd. Why fear the appointment of an academic head who will manage the daily operations of the school, they are not responsible for the vision nor the interaction of the student body. They would handle getting Pascal, Marcelus and everyone else the necessities they need for their work and life. (On a personal note I met with Moshen when I first arrived in his office the conversation was cut short due to an employee business meeting concerning someone's pension. . .is this what you want a chair/dir to be doing? Not meeting with the students). All I can say is that the choices are more alike than you think, but also more different than you think. Take a deeper more thorough look at what is being proposed.

Has everyone forgotten that this is a school for STUDENTS? All the discussion is based on formal credentials, whose name can we sell best, etc. Did anyone really research these candidates at all? Read the orange book? Go to the presentations? The student meetings?

Do we want Moshen back? If yes, pick Farshid, she sounds just a spitting image. Domineering, irresolute, refuses to be questioned. Aaah, ... you say - but she's famous. Well, she's already told us that she won't be there and clearly one can tell from listening to them talk that Kari is not the one in charge, reasonable though he seems.

What about Brett? Practiced, rehearsed, has a nice smile. Do we really want the school to become DRL? Grad school is nice, but shouldn't undergrad really be the primary focus of the school? That is where we develop new thinkers. What would he change? Yes, he would protect the tutors that he agrees with by giving them more power and longer contracts. Again, is this what we want? What about a re-evaluation? What about rethinking?

Only Jeremy has dared to say that he would listan to the students. No plan? Nonsense! Only he has not predetermined our future as have the others. His is not a prescriptive plan. I say, our future needs to come from within. We need to find a mentor who will guide us and listen to us and help us to determine the direction that the school needs to go in. This mentor does NOT need to have a plan of what initiatives he or she wants to make. I wouldn't want my tutor to find solutions for my problem, but rather lead me to find them myself. I would ask the same from the dirsctor of my school.

Yes, Brett is a safe pick. He would maintain the status quo with maybe a better publication, more publicity, a stronger institution of strong willed and prescriptionist tutors, he'd add clusters (which sound like a good idea to me). Yes, Farshid would still be famous and her name would bring in a few more applications every year. We could all queue to be smiled at by her in the bar when she comes in to meet students once a month. But Jeremy would change things. He would open up for discussion, criticism, or re-evaluations all the little bits of the AA have have not been examined for so long and then he would work with us to reform or restructure as is necessary. Why are we afraid of being part of the process? Why are we afraid of a process? The Bartlet and Sheffield have come a long way with Jeremy and the AA can do the same. If you want a clear agenda and a famous director, go to Cornell.

Where are our priorities?

are you thinking what we're thinking?

You must be kidding McClellan. An Academic Head for the next 15 years, chosen from within the School now? That amounts to a rock solid consolidation of the current Status Quo for the next 15 years. Exactly what Brett supporters are looking for. To consolidate their position for the next 15 years. What the AA needs after Mohsen is change, not consolidation. What you are saying about the bureaucracy of American Schools is not true. Anybody, like myself, who has gone through a Continental education knows that European Schools are precisely about teaching established areas of knowledge, step by step. Very much like DRL now: everybody is the same, the knowledge to teach is pre-defined. The AA has been an oasis within Europe all these years and now these people want to make it dissappear. American schools are actually much more focused on research and project specific performance than in levels of education. Funny that Brett's mob is constantly attacking vertical studios on the ground of accreditation, implementation etc...
The subject of an internally appointed Academic Head for 15 years, not announced in advanced is a blind consolidation of the Status Quo. If we want to stop these people from stitching themselves to their chairs and spreading DRL schoolwide, vote for somebody else!

Chino, what are we thinking?

actually Kevin is kidding. The academic head, as Brett presented, is not a 15 year appointment but 3 and a director is for 5.
or
perhaps Kevin meant 1.5 years but that doesn't match mathematical rigour: the ratio would be 0.6

make sure to vote, and on correct figures

Kevin you should revisit your high school maths classes

Who is the famous director at Cornell?

Hey Simon. Hope all's well. Sorry not kidding, though . . . .

To quote myself:

"This idea is more important than anything else, b/c it in effect allows for a very critical and particular change to take place, that the school establishes a consistency which rotates every 15 years (5 for the chair/dir and 3 for the admin head.)"

So that means, a chair/dir for 5 and an academic head for 3 = every 15 years there would be a concurrent vote/appointment. Ok guys, please read the posts. Now, if Brett is appointed, and 15 years from now whoever is elected chair/dir there will be a concurrent appointment, so in theory there's always a consistent transition between to two positions for that period of time (that means in plain language - overlay). It will not maintain the status quo, it will open up the possibility for greater continuity for the school. . . .and keep the staff involved within the management of the school, which they know.

Hey Simon, How are you doing at Zaha's?

see- Brett's proposal is about consolidation of the Status Quo and preventing from change as much as possible. In short, a conservative proposal. So what about us students who pay so much to come to a school that is supposed to be radical? continuity over 15 years doesn't quite ring that bell. As for people knowing the school, surely Farshid knows the school well. Did you see how she handled the mob? And the staff showed that they don't necessarily know better. Look at Natasha and George.

Kevin, you sound just like Brett. What is it with this consistency and stability? The staleness reigning around us has to stop, and with that we need substantial change, with a well founded proposal, like Farshid, and a strong willing individual. Brett is already making compromises with all the teachers and staff. We dont need that. Do we really want the likes of Mike, Mark, Natasha and so on to attain even more power? It is about the proposals but what is coming across clearly is that the political intricacy of Bretts establishment becomes a great issue.

well said j.randzio

I think they were refering to Mohsen with the cornell comment, given he is the chair there; so he is the famous one?

so, what's it going to be?

brett too soft and evasive?

farshid too tough and demanding?

and jeremy, just somewhere in between?

36 hours to decide.

I was in the student meeting today, brett was completely redundant and evasive, I was falling asleep. Every question was detoured with negative comments towards other proposals. His clustering were just seen in a shallow and uncompromising manner. He responded all question with general thought out comments, and subverisively compared them to negatively portrayed examples of other candidates proposals. His idea of diversifying the teachers was exemplified by him with the introduction of Yusuke Obuchi as the 'diferent' member of the team. I am just wondering if that is what he thinks of as 'different'? About the rest, he just responded without responding and dropping adjectives such as clever interesting within it. And of course, everything is going to be democratic and decided by ALL. So if he is a candidate, are we going to have 30 meetings a year to vote on every issue?

i told you that you shouldn't go,...

mmm, doll31 and dlb,

You are so mean-spirited. I was thinking of voting for Farshid, but you made me change my mind -- I will vote for Jeremy Till.

I am not worried about the candidates right now but the tutors. I hear tutors (diploma?) have asked for a meeting tomorrow to complain about the list. We all know Carlos and Michael were on the long list. They certainly seem very bitter not to have got there and are trying to ride on the back of Brett. A friend of mine from DRL told me that she is worried about the situation because her tutor has threatened to resign if Brett doesn't get it. I think she was referring to Michael. It seems they are really putting pressure on students.

This whole notion of the student having to oppose a supposedly convened ‘tutor vote’ could not be more childish… like one of those teenagers in puberty feeling the need to insult their parents to reaffirm their insipiently emerging personality.

Whatever the School Community votes, I hope it streams from a mature reasoning and analysis on the progress and stability of the school, rather than the superstition, the conspiracy theory, the anti-tutor paranoia, the call for radicalism, the celebrity crave, the flavor-of-the-month and the rest of comments made by ‘mmm’, “doll31”, “dlb” and the like.

arnold 1, mmm, dlb, doll 31,

GROW UP!

blue,blue,blue, that will be a waste of a vote. we all know the only candidate that may be able to challenge brett's well organised mob of tutors and derail their strategy of perpetuating the status quo after mohsen is farshid. jeremy is a nice guy but does not have the character nor the proposal to challenge them. if you are against meanness and conservatism your only choice is farshid and kari. plus, it would be really cool to get the first female chair in the history of the school. all girls should vote for her. that is the kind of role model we should promote in a progressive school.

doll31, mmm,

As I said I am still undecided between Brett and Farshid but I am now being repelled away from Farshid based on your mean-spirited campaign here. Your reasons so far for voting Farshid:

1. Gender!!??? And cheering the girls to vote for her?
2. Get in Farshid to give the Tutors a good whip? Is this necessary?
3. Conspiracy theories: Carlos and Michael riding on Brett because of their unsuccesful application? Their work speaks for themselves without playing infantile-piggy backs.
4. Brett Mob: are you sure there is such a thing? Or is it because large portion of the school is genuinely concerned about a proposal that will be detrimental to th school and are al raising their concerns in unison?
5. Radicalism? It is often difficult today to tell the difference between the radical, the ideal and the plain silly.
6. She is famous, the other 2 is not: I'm leaving the AA if it becomes a 'celebrity school' for rich kids with identity crisis.

Hopefully today's meeting might draw me closer to Frashid, for now your campaign here is doing the opposite.

sorry if my 'campaign' was drawing you anywhere, I was merely stating my points of view, as I beleive anyone here does. According to your points previously stated, I don't recall mentioning any of them in my interventions in such a way. My only concern is the further development of the school, regardless of anything else. I hope everyone votes, and thinks twice about why and its implications, that is all.

tylerdurden,

I don't know about mean-spirited but if you get that impression, I'm
sorry, but here we do have a sort of important thing to decide so we
shouild talk about it. Since you asked me, here's what I think about
your questions.

1. Given your sovereign dismissal, isn't is funny that I actually do believe it would be an advantage to the school to have a female chair?
It is not my fault if in this race we have sadly exactly one such
candidate to choose from. While I dont think there is female
architecture, there definitely is a difference in how women act in
leading positions - or do you know otherwise?

2. You don't have to take the whip to anyone but see, Brett's proposal
is based on not challenging anyone. This is not necessarily good for
the school even though it is comfortable for the tutors. People get
better if challenged.

3. I didn't suggest these names so I will leave it to others to check
if there is anything in there. I don't know.

4. rule #1 of the brett club: never talk about the brett club. (See,
tyler durden is Brad Pitt's name in the Fight Club - cute)

Don't you think it is curious that both Farshid/Kari and Jeremy got
very nasty questions and Brett got none after his presentation? Don't
you think that there is a danger in allowing these people to
consolidate themselves as the status Quo without even letting a polite
conversation by the outsiders? Tell me, if Farshid's program is so
dangerous then why do the Brett people say at once that it is
essentially the same as his cluster model and then threaten to leave
the school if she is chosen? Why would they leave and by the way,
where would they go?

5. It depends on what you mean by radical and silly. To take an
extreme example, I am sure everything we do here is silly to someone like George W. See what the school has been before and what has made it good every now and then, and you will see what is radical and not silly. It is not hard for me to distinguish between a genuine and corargeous proposal versus no idea at all and a conservative set of continuities

6. Is it a problem to you if someone has become famous for her work?
Is someone undistinguished necessarily better? Brett is a nice guy but if you really want a nice person to lead the school, my mother is even
nicer. Of course, she is not known internationally in architecture,
and so by your argument she must be perfect.

We all have different opinions and we should be allowed to campaign
for them, don't you think?

How could I have missed it, tylerdurden is from the Fight Club. It sounded vaguely familiar but I guess I had my head punched one too many times. Somebody should analyse the names in the chat. I am sure you can get a lot of info that way.
I think it's a great comparison between the Fight Club and the AA, you know: Brett/Tyler vs Farshid/Ed Norton, they turn out to be more or less the same - or is Jeremy Ed? And Tlyer says in the movie: "Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. Goddammit, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables, slaves with white collars. We've all been raised to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."