i've recently been excepted to sci-arc's undergraduate program. i wanted to know if sci-arc lives up to the hype that ive been hearing about? is it worth moving across country to attend? is it worth me retaking 2 studios due to my placement? im the type of person who needs to breath, eat, sleep architecture and i need to be surrounded by students who feel the same. is this the right choice?
It passed my mind once to see if I should transfer to sci-arc from usc. Here's some of the questions/thoughts I came up with.
Am I willing to sacrifice my university setting (exposure to people in other majors, football games, etc.) at an undergraduate level to go to sci-arc?
Is the work at sci-arc what I want to be studying at an undergraduate level, couldn't it wait for grad school (sci-arc, columbia, ucla, etc.)?
Sci-arc's reputation, from what i heard, flutters. Depending on what period you attended, it can benefit you or not. I've only heard the grad school mentioned, no one really talks about the undergrad.
Some firms, if I'm not certain that an experimental/paper architecture is what i want, look down on sci-arc (also what i heard)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I found, is that the work that i want to do, I've been able to do at my university (USC is considered out-of-date. They teach very modern style architecture and are conservative.) There are a few professors, and i'm sure in your school as well, that tolerate/encourage questioning/broadening/expanding your beliefs on what architecture is, or what architecture can do.
Another possibility would be to take the m+m at sci-arc or even the intro to architecture at columbia over the summer (maybe you could afford to take both and save money rather than paying for 2 additional studios). Both programs, from what i understand (i've only taken the one at columbia), teach you to "rethink" what you already know. This is translated into rethinking your process, drawing ability, model making, analytical thinking, material choice, etc. (what was interesting about the columbia program was that I came into the school and was collaging some things together for a presentation. They told me to not be so style driven, and to work on analytical drawings rather than representational drawings. However in the end, the entire studio's work shared very similar qualities. Is this not just another style? Are the buildings, although done through analysis, not representations of that anaylsis? What I didn't like was the belief that anything is acceptable as an idea. Maybe it was for the sake of the excersize, however, when you allow everything to be accepted, then aren't you just putting no value on everything? Therefore, everything becomes equal, which can be translated as meaningless.)
For me it's easy to stay at my university. Right now i'm interested in sci-arc in terms of their drawing/physical and digital modeling/lectures rather than actually taking a studio there. I can just drive over to their campus and take a quick gander when i want. If you are on the east coast, there are some schools that you may be close to that are more innovative than yours, and you can constantly visit them and watch final critiques. That way you can test the water before you dive in.
What I've seen so far from sci-arc (and remember this is a very "glazing the surface" critique) is that they are good at making beautiful things. This may not be so applicable to today's construction. 90 percent of what the students produce there looks the same. It's wierd to think, in their strive for formal individuality/innovative-ness, the result is that everything begins to look the same. Maybe this is because they are all taught to think differently, but the way in which they think differently is the same. This makes me wonder, whose's really driving their projects?
Another thing I've noticed, and I hope no sci-arc kids kill me for this because I may actually attend their someday, is that it is extremely trendy. I sometimes wonder whether it's innovation or theoretical experiments that they are striving for or if they just want to make something sexy. Because if analysis of something is in hopes to achieve a beautiful form, then the analysis isn't really substantial. It is weak logic that is hopefully supporting the primary objective, beauty. In that case, it may be better to try sculpting since it is more coherent and controlled by the artist or picking some natural phenomenon to mimic (since it is tangible and historically beautiful) to achieve such beauty.
Anyway, i think i went off on a tangent. Hopefully some of it helped.
hopefully some sci-arc kids set me straight, cause these are all questions/assumptions i've had about the school, and am wondering if i'm completely missing the point, or if there's much more to their school philosophy.
"In that case, it may be better to try sculpting since it is more coherent and controlled by the artist or picking some natural phenomenon to mimic (since it is tangible and historically beautiful) to achieve such beauty."
maybe the effort is to achieve timelessness beauty? But what happens when the formal speculation approaches reality (gravity,location,time)?
May 31, 05 1:54 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
is sci-arc the right program?
i've recently been excepted to sci-arc's undergraduate program. i wanted to know if sci-arc lives up to the hype that ive been hearing about? is it worth moving across country to attend? is it worth me retaking 2 studios due to my placement? im the type of person who needs to breath, eat, sleep architecture and i need to be surrounded by students who feel the same. is this the right choice?
It passed my mind once to see if I should transfer to sci-arc from usc. Here's some of the questions/thoughts I came up with.
Am I willing to sacrifice my university setting (exposure to people in other majors, football games, etc.) at an undergraduate level to go to sci-arc?
Is the work at sci-arc what I want to be studying at an undergraduate level, couldn't it wait for grad school (sci-arc, columbia, ucla, etc.)?
Sci-arc's reputation, from what i heard, flutters. Depending on what period you attended, it can benefit you or not. I've only heard the grad school mentioned, no one really talks about the undergrad.
Some firms, if I'm not certain that an experimental/paper architecture is what i want, look down on sci-arc (also what i heard)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I found, is that the work that i want to do, I've been able to do at my university (USC is considered out-of-date. They teach very modern style architecture and are conservative.) There are a few professors, and i'm sure in your school as well, that tolerate/encourage questioning/broadening/expanding your beliefs on what architecture is, or what architecture can do.
Another possibility would be to take the m+m at sci-arc or even the intro to architecture at columbia over the summer (maybe you could afford to take both and save money rather than paying for 2 additional studios). Both programs, from what i understand (i've only taken the one at columbia), teach you to "rethink" what you already know. This is translated into rethinking your process, drawing ability, model making, analytical thinking, material choice, etc. (what was interesting about the columbia program was that I came into the school and was collaging some things together for a presentation. They told me to not be so style driven, and to work on analytical drawings rather than representational drawings. However in the end, the entire studio's work shared very similar qualities. Is this not just another style? Are the buildings, although done through analysis, not representations of that anaylsis? What I didn't like was the belief that anything is acceptable as an idea. Maybe it was for the sake of the excersize, however, when you allow everything to be accepted, then aren't you just putting no value on everything? Therefore, everything becomes equal, which can be translated as meaningless.)
For me it's easy to stay at my university. Right now i'm interested in sci-arc in terms of their drawing/physical and digital modeling/lectures rather than actually taking a studio there. I can just drive over to their campus and take a quick gander when i want. If you are on the east coast, there are some schools that you may be close to that are more innovative than yours, and you can constantly visit them and watch final critiques. That way you can test the water before you dive in.
What I've seen so far from sci-arc (and remember this is a very "glazing the surface" critique) is that they are good at making beautiful things. This may not be so applicable to today's construction. 90 percent of what the students produce there looks the same. It's wierd to think, in their strive for formal individuality/innovative-ness, the result is that everything begins to look the same. Maybe this is because they are all taught to think differently, but the way in which they think differently is the same. This makes me wonder, whose's really driving their projects?
Another thing I've noticed, and I hope no sci-arc kids kill me for this because I may actually attend their someday, is that it is extremely trendy. I sometimes wonder whether it's innovation or theoretical experiments that they are striving for or if they just want to make something sexy. Because if analysis of something is in hopes to achieve a beautiful form, then the analysis isn't really substantial. It is weak logic that is hopefully supporting the primary objective, beauty. In that case, it may be better to try sculpting since it is more coherent and controlled by the artist or picking some natural phenomenon to mimic (since it is tangible and historically beautiful) to achieve such beauty.
Anyway, i think i went off on a tangent. Hopefully some of it helped.
hopefully some sci-arc kids set me straight, cause these are all questions/assumptions i've had about the school, and am wondering if i'm completely missing the point, or if there's much more to their school philosophy.
"In that case, it may be better to try sculpting since it is more coherent and controlled by the artist or picking some natural phenomenon to mimic (since it is tangible and historically beautiful) to achieve such beauty."
maybe the effort is to achieve timelessness beauty? But what happens when the formal speculation approaches reality (gravity,location,time)?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.