relevant question ... not sure you're going to find many terribly relevant conclusions

start by considering some macro-economic aspects ... the auto industry is highly centralized and vertically integrated ... the managers of the relatively few firms in that industry have lots of centralized power over how the industry pursues its markets and products

the construction industry is highly decentralized, highly fragmented and, for the most part, there is no vertical integration ... all the bits and parts are handled by lots and lots of different parties, each of whom has its own economic and professionals interests and biases ...

i've been watching the design debates on this forum and others for a while ... lots and lots of criticism deploring the state of architectural design in the world today

my own view -- if i remember my architectural history correctly, i'm reasonably convinced that design has a more widely appreciative audience today than it has ever had in the history of man ... think back to the middle ages and the renaissance ... sure there were a few good public buildings and a few good private buildings ... but then, as now, 95% of the stuff being built was pretty much crap

as architects, we tend to deplore the fact that every building constructed is not a great building ... over the history of man, I suspect that < 1% of all buildings ever constructed have been great buildings (by any standard) ... my own view is that we're doing considerably better than that today

however, that's not to say we still can't strive for more ... but, i'm pretty sure we're not going to get there by following the model of general motors ... or bmw

maybe it has to do with the fact that architcture is considered by society as artform, weither it is a right or wrong asuption. I think that arts have pretty much followed the same pace as architecture since the modern period. It is somehow complex do compare it to industries that use creativity and esthetics as a factor in their production, but have never been considered as artforms per say (such as car design).They may have been used as artform by Dada for example, but only they have become artform through their use in a "detournement", in a non appropriate situation for what they where.
My two cents

The only chance, and I believe it was what kieran + timberlake were talking about, at least in part, is prefabrication. Looking at the other industries, they've managed to standardize a manufacturing process while increasing quality. This will never happen with typical construction, as it never 'learns' or becomes more effecient.

With prefab, you can control every variable, for the most part. It's still barely off the grounds for real designed architecture, but there it's happening. Also, there is no reason it can't evolve into something beyond 18'x55' (or whatever) modules. It's already more flexible than most think.

But this will also eliminate the need for 50% of the architect's services. For example, the prefab project I am working on will not need construction drawings. That's fine with me, but for regular firms that's a lot of cash not coming in.
I would like to think that this will place greater importance on design, and not just someone that can draw up semi-generic cad files. Well see, but it's going to be fun to work with and see how far it can be pushed.

So, you could say that the differences between the Automotive industry [as an example] and architecture is about scale and structure?

Scale [based on units and systems of manufacturing or mass duplication] meets a structure [managing systems and fostering growth].

If we transfer the example from a car manufacturer to say a large residential developer [okay, the scale is'nt comparable, but its close enough], building thousands of units a year - why doesnt innovation take place in their product?

Inadvertantly, I think this discussion and its analysis will foster my own ideas on architect lead development.

Are you talking about architecture or construction industry? I don't think it's not a valid question, but at this point, I'm still confused about what question you're asking exactly. I don't mean to proove that architecture is an artform, I just think that as long as society considers it that way, as a discipline, it is a shortcut to talk about a residential developer as an example of architecture just because is it built and advertised as such. It's too easy to consider anything that's built as architecture. I think it's one classic topic of discussion on archinect for instance, and to just answer " yes it's architecutre and that's that" and consider it's true with nothing to proove the point won't get the discussion further.

trace you made me think about how there are multiple pursuits in architecture...some architects are in pursuit of mass production, prefabrication and, modulization...some are in pursuit of customization...there's obviously different paths an architect could explore, which may or may not lead to advancement...so I think it's difficult to make a general statement whether architecture, as a whole, has advanced qualitatively "since modernism"...I think advancement in architecture happens to fragments of it.

intellectually, there are many paths as well

I guess I'm wondering whether you can say that architecture has advanced [or innovated] since modernism, as is evident in parallel, perpendicular or related industries.

If it has advanced, where are the examples. If it has not advanced, why? And is advancement in architecture irrelevant [after all, its functions are pretty basic].

In cases where the scale of production is large [where developers build thousands of units per year] innovation hasnt happened. In the case of developers, most of their product is residential, so you could argue that the owners dont want to risk their investment in order to get 'design'.

I think the why comes down to the structure of the industry and how it operates, and development, but this was not a trick question.

And I'm looking for qualitative advancements, not just better materials or more efficient HVAC systems.

"More specifically, the automotive industry has increased its design, technology and productive capacities over that time [as evident when one compares a brand new car with a 1950's model]."
I'm not sure what you mean by qualitative advancement, but I sure prefer a 1950 porsche to the present ones...

Sure, but would you prefer a 1950 Ford Prefect or a 2005 Ford Focus?

to be specific...I think architecture has made some advancements in producing, and most importantly designing components for connecting parts/pieces together...with the help of cnc...this is the most obvious example to me that is also being used in the automotive industry...

I am not sure I buy into the 'mass customization' of folks like Lynn. It's a great idea and theorectically could bring the 'art' aspect of architecture down in price. The problem is that things are still custom.

On the other end is prefab, which will save tons for huge projects. Problem is, unlike the automotive industry or others, it's still not mass produced. A 'large' run of homes is still barely a prototype for other industries.

I don't think architecture can ever reach the effeciency of the other industries mentioned, but things will evolve.

the kierian/timberlake arguement is not only naive, it is irresponsible. they completely ignore some very basic aspects of teh industries they compare: the macroeconomic differneces as articulated above, the effects of structural unemployment implicit in the argument for centralization and automation (what architect argues for the effects of structural unemployment as experienced in the rust belt and detroit?), they also ignore the unavoidable fact that archietctecute is inevitably a cusotm design (as mentioned above and they totally ignore the fact that-if designed correctly-the products either float or fly away (boats and planes) where as architecture is heavy and sits on a site and therefore is hard to move, and they also ignore other economic factors such the massive subsidies and trinle down economics on these other industries. architecture is not mechanized and this is not a bad thing.

small true switters, yes. this is what i'd mean by a smug proposition, simplistic and ready to sacrifice so much variety for the sake of pronouncing intelligence but ends up sounding silly. a little child who calls everything potato. sort of like charles jenks writings but at least there is a measure of the ridiculous in jenks' writings that alleviates.
it is all like a mule who willingly sets its own carrot stick in front
and follows it, choosing to defocus all else.

potatoes are friendly though, let us not forget.

technology has changed the quality of many parts of architecture in a profound way. we now have sick-building syndrome, skyscrapers that sit on wheels (basically) so the earthquake don't take them down, plastic all over the place, sashes that insulate as well as a wall, etc etc.

but these are just parts and bits and pieces. they are sort of taken for granted or forgotten about most days and are not the parts that shape our vision of what architecture is...design on the other hand has changed much more dramatically. many of the projects we see in magazines are only possible in our current culture...and many of those buildings are actually only buildable today because of our technology and our design culture.

so yeah architecture has changed and advanced if newness is considered a step forward. people haven't changed so much though, and that is more imprtant in the end.

as far as the mass-produced customisation of buildings goes, man it has been going on here for decades and is very old hat. hundreds and thousands of homes are built in factories in japan. and almost every single one of them is seriously god awful. way too much plastic.

In the past 50+ years I think the materials available to architects is the great advancement. Think of insulation then and now. We have come a long ways. The technology has gone into the materials and given us infinite more options.

keep in mind, too, that the 'bad' prefab are simply because that's the bottom of the market they are aiming at.

With the likes of Dwell and the popularity growing, prices for high quality designs at reasonable costs is growing. As things grow, prices drop. The quality of craftsmanship, the consistency, etc., are superior to the local Joe with a hammer, too.

Sure, architecture is inherently custom, but when we look around, 99% of the crap out there could be built anywhere, in a factory, or whatever. It's only the high, high end that benefits from custom construction.

Are the technological advancements down to architects, or is it scientists, engineers etc?

Prefab is useful because it demonstrates a combination of systemization, design and technology. But ultimately where it's coming from [usually small, tightly focused enterprises] means that its applications are only going to be niche. But they will be useful as flag bearers to raise public consciousness.

One of the features of modernism was its insistence on introducing light and airflow into the interior of buildings to increase health and well-being. This changed architecture, for the better, and it was designer led. albeit facilitated in part to technological advances in glass making. Has any such change happened since then to the same effect?

Shopping and Museum spaces have changed in the last few years, emphasizing surfaces, breaking down fixed circulation routes, and increasing and allowing for many views across and through internal and external space. Does this count? These are qualitative, yet subtle.

The automotive industry produces prototypes and concept cars that point to future developments. A few years after the Dominus Winery was built, we started seeing the usage of gabions in a range of architectural applications, and we still do.

I'm bumping this topic up, but I'm not sure I'm coherent enough to add anything of value - exhausting day.

My first thought was that of course architecture has advanced - insulated glass, sound deadening materials, efficient HVAC - but that's really construction side, not architecture, as stated above.

Your third paragraph above, diabase, is the heart of the question, I think. Designers wanted to improve the health of users/function of building, so designer-led ideas wer allowed by AND resulted in technological advances in the material the designers wanted to use.

I don't know how designers today are trying to improve the built environment on a broader level than a single project. Bill McDonough's ideas about changing the use stream of products comes to mind, but I don't know how his ideas have manifested in architecture.

One difference between his ideas and the car industry, of course, (and I know he did the Ford River Rouge plant) is the planned obsolescence of cars - the car companies want you to buy a new one every three years, and even a good "old" car is only 50 or so years old - buildings are typically intended to last longer than that.

Perhaps one way that the built environment has seen qualitative advances is more in the area of urban design/planning, whereby urban mistakes of the past (freeways along city waterfronts, for example) are being torn out and replaced with more human-scale, livable uses. This would be a long-term planning change that could still be successful whether the buildings sited within it are around for 15 or 100 years.

Liberty Bell, your coherence is undiminished.

There has always been in architecture, and particularly in student projects, the use of the one-liner, the gimmick or the contrivance.

The building element or experience that relies on surprise and has no longevity. These pass for a kind of innovation because they introduce non-functionality into the building.

The Dutch architecture of the 1990's was influential because it played with, reduced and concentrated circulation and program into aesthetic and function.

The Bilbao-Effect buildings [Bilbao [obviously], Graz, Selfridges Birmingham, Disney Centre LA] worked for a time, but will not last.

Is the next change green? Not just solar panels, but genuine and throrough application of green principles?

I think green may be the next major influence. I can see green pursuits changing the form of architecture sigificantly, in a way that people would be proud to "show off" to their neighbors/clients.

But I can also see a super-efficient green box wrapped up in French Country Manor style with a bio-deisel armed Hummer in the garage.

Some people will just never accept a "modern" aesthetic.

Diabase,

I don't think this question is misguided at all, in fact, it is vital to be asked. However, I think that setting the datum for advancement check at 'modernism' is possibly fallacious. I am not capable of using the pedantic semantics so I will go straight to the point. Would anyone say Baroque was an advancement over the Renaissance? Last I heard a fellow decided to classify art history that way and it was so. That said, I think I understand the gist of your question.

Attempting to clear up the second issue, you said architecture is a combination of science, art and economy. So is cooking, and many other things as well. I don't think breaking it down into its many possible constituents is the profitable way to go in answering this question. If we take this route to the extreme, we are in the end going to say that science is alot faster than the arts, and the MBAs and economists are always going around in circles.

Nevertheless, I do think that in science, we have a fairly robust system that takes falsification as the hallmark of progress. Whether some scientists agree this as a checking criteria is not important, since it is futile to look for some 100% consensus in a domain (or should I call it a 'world') as varied as humanity.

Given this, I don't think we have such an index yet in architecture, and perhaps, which I strongly suspect, this is the real interesting point in architecture. Such that when we see something built innovatively from the 19th c., it is still well appreciated with something done alongside it in the 21th. Perhaps this is also why most scholarship in architecture has to do with the connoiseurship types.

Then there is the building science part of architecture, which I assure you is moving at a million miles an hour and a very well funded research field. Although it is generally recognized that this field investigates building systems, most of its teachers or students are not architects but engineers. If there is some kind of change over the last 60 years, it is the rise of very well organized corporate construction giants who has more or less instituted the implicit blueprint for every player in this field. As a working architect, one does not dismissed the forcefulness of what these folks do and encourage at trade conferences.

Personally, I do not accept the Dutch dance or the Bilbao effect as a "change" in architecture per se. Many of these prevailing winds were more media cause and effect than anything else. But if we are cynical about it, then the real progress in architecture over the last 60 years is that the internal criterion has been adjusted to be an external one; that architects see their advancement and innovation through what is accepted and transgressed in the media (like wallpaper...).

I will not take up the k-t argument because of its faulty premise. Comparing and then justifying diverse industries with different products sharing some similarities in process do not seem like sound thinking to me.


Going back to my innovation point, I think at the end of the day, this question is about how we measure innovation in our field. Do we measure it as a consensus of the domain, practitioners and gatekeepers? Or is there some internal index that we can come up with like in science? The prior has been taken up to some regard since we do have a system of jury and critics, as well as the Pritzker prize and competition system.

Excellent points BE.

I am aware that the question is simple. The starting point of modernism is for convenience as well as the genuine change in the way architects and designers led change [the example used above still apllies]

I fear that architecture today can sometimes pass for an assembly of building materials. I appreciate that the building materials industry is always advancing, but it is not guided or driven by the needs of architecture, but by the needs of companies and shareholders to grow and turn a profit.

I have never been asked by a building materials company to provide my views on what I would like to see developed - in my country at least, success as a buildin product is limited to demonstrating its compliance with codes and councils.

I dont see alot of merit with the K-T approach, or prefabrication. These can only be niche applications.

In my opinion, what we should be focusing on is a falsification approach [like you mention]. We are surrounded on all quarters by sh*t - surely pointing out the obvious and educating the public should produce some debate, if not some change.

Just out of interest, BE, for a long time in the nineteenth century, the Baroque was understood primarily as a corruption of Renaissance principles. Wittkower was a key exponent of this thought. It is only relatively recently (as part of the reaction to Modernism) that the Baroque has undergone a general rehabilitation.

'Advancement' is a vector: that it, it presumes a quantity of difference and a direction to that difference. To answer your question, diabase, you would need to posit a direction. You seem hesitant (quite rightly I think) to have that direction set by technological development, which measures improvement in terms of capability and efficiency in speed and cost.

agfa8x - I see that the Uni of Auckland is currently offering a range of teaching positions...

The AAA was set up in Australia in 2001 [i believe] partly in opposition to the RAIA, with the aim to promote architecture in Australia through education, events, lectures etc. They don't have anything to do with professional practice.

Now, the success or otherwise so far is up for debate, and I have no association with them or experience [as I left Australia early 2004], but the sentiment is worthy.

This is not the full answer, but it is a part. The important thing is that this organisation has the support and leadership of the Australian architectural elite and its community.

yes, I see that, too...

State supported design awareness is a note-worthy thing. I support that since design is more of an awareness than anything else. Why do we as designers see something more in a building than others who are not trained in this 'art'? Similarly, I don't think we are very good at spotting microchip conflict in a IC blueprint, but some engineers who do these designs do it immediately. Perhaps the way for this vectorized advancement is to bring some quality discussion to the forefront, sort of sharing our lens.

I think thus far in the history of "architecture", there are always a couple of players in the narrative. On the one hand, there is the genius architect (Blake's and Rand's type...) and then there is the esteemed client or patron. There is a move to enlarge the latter to include the masses but the narrative is luke-warm at best and never as moving as the former. By increasing the variety of players to this narrative can indeed be considered as an advancement, so to speak.

However, I also see a negative side to these new design cultural awareness. It does make the upwardly mobile want an architecturally designed home filled with industrial designed objects with some conceivable last names attached (Graves designed...etc) but this is as good as wanting a Porsche to show off than really wanting something by knowing what it is. You can see I am sliding into treacherous territory here since I am falling into the "really" and "not really" trap...It is a very difficult scenario because not everyone can be a connoisseur and it takes time and money, in huge supply, for the client to be truly esteemed for innovative architecture. The downward side to my imaginary scenario would be a regurgitation of forms in many aspects, something someone by the name of Koestler called bissociation. Or what we call eclectic. This, to me, is neither interesting nor progressive.

I am guessing cynicism has no place in this board but since it is Sunday evening, permit me. I think, diabase, you are absolutely right: materials are not invented or developed for architecture; rather, architectural design is a bricolage of what lego blocks these building giants give us. But the kick here is that we are really capable of positive and beneficial bissociation here as someone trained with these lens. While someone who is slightly less trained in these areas see only a certain level of use in X materials/parts, we see more and can come up with seriously interesting stuff. So perhaps how to promote connoisseurship and heighten expertise (not the technical type like how they test you in ARE) is another way to go. After all, some folks do go greater distance given the same lungs and hearts, but maybe he trained more.

agfa8x, your point is well taken. However, given how some historians think, I think they would have classified Renaissance as the height of all histories for the next thousand years just to enforce the flow of their narrative. This is the danger of Collingwood and Tonybee historicism, or the form I know it to be pre-post modern. Modernism as itself would be considered debased given this train of thought. So since it is nihilistic, I don't know how I can work around it.

Good thread!

This question is irrelevant.

Becasue?

Rather because?

BE, I'm afraid I see your characterisation of architectural history as pretty broad. For example, I can't support your idea that the history of architecture emphasises the 'genius architect' and the 'esteemed patron'. Which architectural historians are you referring to here?

Otherwise, I'm sorry, I don't really follow the argument of your last post.

The original question is irrelevant.

Someone said about architecture 'never have so many been so famous to so few' and that's relevant here. 'Advancement' in architecture is advancement only in terms of the relatively small world of high architecture and in terms of what matters to that small world. It is effectively an exclusive, inside conversation between a very small number of people with a greatly inflated sense of self importance that includes only high architects, wannabees, critics, students (see wannabees) and academics (especially see wannabees). It's a conversation that happens totally in the isolation of the world outside it. As an inside conversation, it can only respond to itself and is essentially impotent to combat the 'unmitigated awfulness' of the globalizing world. No one else is listening to the conversation.

Additionally, being 'advanced' is a valueless quality. Advanced isn't good necessarily, it's advanced. Advanced is nihilistic, it doesn't care about the world outside the conversation. Advanced is selfish; it doesn't concern itself primarily with the users of buildings, those who architecture should be serving. Being advanced only serves our conversation. If we're right to hate the unmitigated awfulness, we should be looking for ways to be good, not advanced.
Most of the western world live and work in cheerless, uninspired, and gloomy buildings. Most of the built world is increasingly private and turns a cold shoulder to social life. Most of the United States doesn't care about museums or pavilions. Will advanced architectural form make their lives better ?

agfa8x,
Rather, I would say perhaps my characterisation is narrow. I do not pretend to be an architectural historian so here's my 8th grade take. The type of emphasis I was invoking is really a very general, but narrow one: for example, the relationship between the Medicis and F. Bruneschelli, Duke of Milan and Da Vinci and to our modern day fictional characterization of Fountainhead and perhaps Wright and the Kaufmans in "Fallingwater Rising". So microscopic but a prevalent perception. Then you have Peter Blake's triad of master builders and so on.

Either way, my point about nihilism in historical narratives is that some of them, as one you have mentioned, tend to put things in a skewed form of commentary to play with the structure of their narrative. It just seems counterproductive to say that this is disgusting against some idealism when we cannot even clarify why we call a "copy cat" trend (Renaissance) the best in the last 1500 years. Perhaps somewhere around 1500, some cultures were doing even better work stone to stone?

An interesting question to ask is since Baroque was such a perverted form of architecture, why were these buildings left to stand and not torn down or construction halted? As such, there are definitely counter-forces to the perspective presented by you. As for my own point, I simply don't know what to do with these "enlightened" commentaries generated by ivory towers wizards for the sake of publication.

I think thenewold is missing the point altogether. It is precisely the going outside we are talking about here. If you think this going to the outside from the inside is so abhorrent, then please kindly name a field of inquiry which does not go from the inside to the outside as a format of greater participation? Everything that is worth discussing always begin with a discusive spirit from people who care about it before a representation for the greater publics. Perhaps no one is listening to the conversation but compared to the more "public" fields, the field of architecture is very small. If your point is a reassessment of the expectations, I buy it. But if you are arguing against the logics of this structure, then I simply see no way out.

Personally, I think your second argument is even more nihilistic than the first one. If everyone is living in these dull and insipid concrete blocks, then maybe seizing any opportunity, advancement included, is a better strategy than none. No, I don't think advancement is selfish at all. If we have not advanced, you would not be typing on your keyboard on your LCD screen. In fact, we would not even hear about your idea!

Advanced isn't good necessarily, it is advanced". There are better arguments than such circular, senseless rhetoric. I think if you truly have something to say to this thread, maybe something more advanced is more beneficial than going around the block like that.

So, thenewold, in your judgement, advancement for architecture would be in engaging with the concerns of the public?

I would agree that that is certainly an important area for advancement.

I would argue that the reason that particular view of the architect-patron relationship is prevalent is because it seems obvious to us. It seems obvious to us because that is the way things are now in a capitalist world. There is no reason to presume it has always been that way.

I don't think anybody ever said that the Renaissance was the best architecture in the last 1500 years. You might be fighting against an imaginary enemy there. Who are these 'ivory tower wizards' who have so offended you?

"Advanced isn't good necessarily, it is advanced".

yeah, though i wouldn't go so far as (or actually so near, since your idea wants to rid itself more of value) to call it nihilistic because nihilism still has value, it carries its russian catclaw traces of rebellion. even the nihilism of schopenauer and nietzsche are waves that want against. maybe if i were slushy i would say poignant even. i wouldnt also say "it is advanced". just that it is what it is until i'm ready (never am ready) to claim a metaphysical (metalingual) position above (whats above? how can i? that is exactly derrida's criticism of foucault's rationalization of insanity). underline the impossibility of forming an ahsitorical ethics regarding history (outside advancement there is no advancing). thenewold taps the right source, a phenomenon of is not necessarily its own phenomenon. especially that it is very much ethical.

i also agree it is silly to cut a sliver and call it architecture when it comes to this. hence the irrelevance of the original question. pulsating organs that happen and their consequences that take place.

on par, some might criticize you thenewold (and i so want to know you now) for being the nihilist party. there is a truth to that, but so what.

Given other choices to describe something like "a phenomenon of is not necessarily its own phenomenon", don't you think it is nihilistic to choose this way just to show its nihilism (which also by the way, sounds like a bad french translation)? Personally, I don't think I understand a single word you just said.

I am presuming that the capitalistic grip has not been that strong in the renaissance with the Medicis and the Duke of Milan. That said, I don't think there is a way to go around the client/patron-architect duality simply because taken as an ontological and later, professional disposition, an architect exists because of a client or patron. Even in vernacular architecture, there are craftsman involved within the tribe so not everyone is so called, a builder.

You misunderstood what I said about the Renaissance; I was trying to restate that Baroque against Renaissance disposition that you claimed in the 19th c. No one has offended me but I am well aware of the magic that second rate architectural historians can spin. They do make fine stories but as far as the extent of their claim goes, I am not convinced.

if you don't (understand) then why call it nihilistic?no you did not understand, you're right.

and that bad french translation bit ouch that hurts
i will go nurse my wounds now maybe commit suicide

Anyone know Abbas Kiarostami?
which is more advanced, Kiarostami or Hollywood?

um, just askin'

This is not picking a fight with you, so allow me to say this first.

I call it nihilistic because I understand, or at least seem to comprehend what that word means. not necessarily having anything to do with what you just said. And yes, as I admitted, I did not understand the flow of your argument. Perhaps if the paragraph is lightened up less with self-invented synthetic phrase and more with proper english (plain language), I may think differently.

There is no need to be a martyr to your own language. It is no longer in vogue these days.

this is quite an interesting topic that seems to be heading into a tailspin. as is evident in today's critical circles, the focus on linguistics often times seems to overide the actual assessment of the situation. i have to say that i feel that there is a thing such as advancement and that it is possible for architecture to take an active role in this process. the second thing i will state is that there is a prevailing economic system that we are engaged within that will not disappear in the foreseeable future, erego we cannot resort to the neo-marxist iconoclasm of late-60s academia.
given these statements, here is my two cents on the discussion. i think that this is an incrediable interesting and timely discussion. the relationship of the building system/building product/sweets catalog industry is very much an outgrowth of modernism's embrace of industrialization. this retroactive manifesto (in koolhaasian terms) creates a legitimation of an already occurring trend during that period. industrialization of steel shapes and sizes, catalog building systems, etc. existed before le corbusier's essays of "towards a new architecture", yet what he did was academicize them and translate them into an aesthetic, political, cultural realm. how did that work out? in some ways good, in a lot of ways not.
the tendency of architects to feel that the incorporation of new technologies or concepts of technology is not necessarily the way society at large actually co-opts them in the end. currently, although green is very much tied by many architects to a "new modernity", it is already being co-opted into standard development (read ad-hoc) practices. is this necessarily bad? no. is this necessarily the best use of these "advancements" probably not. but then again automobiles suffer the same problem.
so what then is this discussion about. well, maybe it is the second part of the initial question that possibly can yield more fruit... that meaning, the cultural aspects of art are very much in line with the trickle-down effect that architecture tends to have. in this way we are not just advocates of technology per se, but engage in a cultural context that transforms the values related to technology. this can become an engagement with political, cultural, aesthetic, and production based terrains. this is the engagement of evolution towards the tipping points of mass-acceptance and accomodation. if viewed through this lens, suddenly the history of architecture becomes much more optimistic in its impact on society. i might say that this view is that of a "design intelligence" approach such as that promoted by michael speaks. does it necessarily solve all ills, no. but it does engage possibility. and that is something that many architects forget all too quickly when engaging in the design of a project. it isn't necessarily always about the cool form, or the use of the cool new material but the broadening of possibility (zoning, construction practices, cultural acceptance, programming, etc.) that design must engage in.
and BE, i totally agree with your comment on historians. to accept any one narrative as truth is to engage in a lie. there is no such thing, just varying degrees of gray as evidenced by the many truths before us.

BE, you're still harassing historians without naming them.

The Medici family epitomise capitalism. They were bankers, and their power came from their money.

Your presumption that all of architectural history is governed primarily by the relationship between an architect and a client. I take that as an essentially capitalist proposition. What about the medieval cathedrals? Who is the architect? Who is the patron?

Also, It is a serious accusation to not only say 'I didn't understand that', but to tell someone their language is essentially meaningless poser-talk. I understand cellardoor's comment more readily than I understand your own.

i like my language, i think its one of the few things i can think of owning. i wish i was gorgeous to get more fucks and maybe lose all sense of me, but...whatever. anyways, sticks and stones and bones and all that and more.

Sorry, I didn't have time to read through all of the 20-some responses between the first question and where my first response fell. I'm sure they're all highly articulate and I'm equally sure I missed some important parts of the post.

I think I'm arguing that advancement as an intellectual or academic goal is kind of a fake goal for architects to have. Being advanced should be maybe a by-product of other things. I think architectural ideas that are successful and which have the proper goals in mind are those whose primary focus is making spaces that are good for users and which push the status quo of the building industry.

I would argue that the primary goal of most of today's elite architecture schools is to be 'provocative'. In a lesser intensity, architectural critics think the same. But students at these schools are creating things that are indeed provocative but impossible, irrational, and worse, irrelevant. 90% of the student projects in Archinects' own gallery have provocative digital form but are hopelessly and utterly out of touch with reality. It would be as if aerospace students were doing conceptual projects on interdimensional space craft instead of real aircraft while simultaneously bemoaning the awefulness of the modern airplane cabin and air travel experience. These students would be basically ignoring REAL problems. That's what architectural academia is today. That's the sort of fantasy that passes. The building industry has REAL problems and people who want only to be advanced or provocative are wasting their talents. These are our 'pork' projects. Dithering on provocative curiosities while the world drowns (literally sometimes) around us.

So I'm equating the pursuit of 'advanced' with the pursuit of the provocative. Is this stuff really in anyone's interest but architects ? Architects need to return to the realm of the possible from the quagmire of the provocative. To shelve the enabling 3D software, pack away the routers and prototypers, and do something that's not only good but possible.

I understand the philiosophical argument and delineations around the question. I am not simplistic, although I like my text to be, and in doing so I gloss over some subtleties, or rather imply or enclose them in the argument. In the end, what I ask from you must produce some use and application - I am a speculator with a pragmatist bent.

I am looking for opportunites for an architect-led advancement in architecture, which, argued by myself and others, has not seemed to have occured meangingfully since modernism [yes, this is a generalisation]. I am looking for fundamentals to frame the situation.

As agfa8x states ''Advancement' is a vector: that it, it presumes a quantity of difference and a direction to that difference'. I have posited some directions, as have others. Are there any more, or are there any better, or is it all hopeless?

thenewold - I agree with you to an extent. Advancement is too often confused with the new medium and the fashion that it produces. Thats why I keep on trying to bring it back to pragmatics.

I myself have never insinuated or hinted that the new mediums pass for advancement. Quite the opposite. There is some opportunity however.

Diabase - Agreed. However, there's nothing about the form-meisters lot at arch schools that's pragmatic. Pragmatism would compromise their ability to be artisticly selfish. This lot cites the universe, society, politics, and philosophy to pretend social sensitivity but they're selfish to the core. They don't want to improve the lives of the public, the public is their formal rationale and excuse.

thenewold:
did anyone at any point say that advancement was:
a) simply novelty of form?
b) driven by the academy?
Those are your particular hangups.

diabase:
For myself, I think that there is too much disengaged theory; and too much untheorised practice. Advancement for me would be a more full engagement between theory and practice, in which each are shaped by the other, and in which intuition is recognised as something to be taken account of by both.

all thoughtful things advance at all possible paces. your question is not one. it's a statement of your fears about yourself. think about it...