I am trying to decide on grad schools and have a couple different options. In undergrad I always did better in structures, systems, and detailing courses then I did in studio or theory classes. Should I play to my strengths in choosing a school, or try to expand my horizons and become more creative/artistic?. It would be a challenge to study in a design oriented curriculum, but it could also be extremely beneficial as well
Illinois-Chicago- seemed to be towards the "design" of the scale, very interesting student work, Chicago is a great town and it would be awesome to live there
Minnesota- maybe a bit more balanced, nice new facility and a good curriculum, I'm a hockey player and actually wouldn't mind the winters up there
Colorado-Denver- Also seemed more balanced but not at the level that UMN's program is at. My local instate school, connected to local jobs, cheaper
Personally, I'd play to your strengths assuming you enjoy them. You're probably more likely to be good at what you enjoy and enjoy what your're good at. This profession has way too manner theoriticians and bullshitters, and not enough people who can actually get a building built. And, believe me, the latter is what the clients care about. They don't give a damn about theory. That's something architects get into to impress other architects. If you want to survive and maybe even thrive, gear your career to making the customer happy, not your colleagues. They aren't the ones who are going to hire you and pay your fees.
I think this is a really great question. I am someone who has had some diverse experiences with architecture-- but at a very superficial level. I worked at the AIA, shadowed a successful architect for some time, and completed one of the summer immersion courses. I found that the business of architecture was very interesting, and the actual work aspect seemed pretty enjoyable. In addition, the idea of planning and seeing an idea through to completion was very rewarding at my summer course, but as a realist-- I saw people take incredibly subjective ideas and establish them as almost facts of design. To people who know design, I think they see the way I would look at a problem, and say here is a guy who hasn't thoroughly studied what it means to be a designer. To that extent, they were right, but I have to say I was bothered by the sort of "know it all attitude" some of the people had in a field that is undisputedly subjective. Even in the art classes I took since then, I never felt this same artsy bullshit vibe when speaking with teachers, and students-- at least not to the same extent.
It makes sense that you should have some interest in how something looks aesthetically if you want to be an arch student, but I found that out of all the students I met who wanted to pursue a degree, they ranged from far out right-brained art types, to more logical/planning types. I think there are programs that are fitting for both groups.
An interesting question that challenges definition of what “design” is!
For me, “Design” is a continuum of problem solving decisions that culminate in an ultimate solution. In architecture, these decisions may range from mundane, practical considerations to the definition of higher order social and aesthetic criteria. Buildings may ranges from the prosaic to the sublime. But a bold architectural statement, per se, will often fail to resonate in a context where a more subdued solution might succeed.
The process of design may be obvious, yielding buildings which are fantastical, unique, and astounding. Or, it may be more transparent, yielding buildings that seem inevitable, as if they were simply meant to be just as they are. In either case achieving meaningful built-form requires a team exhibiting both high levels of technical proficiency and aesthetic judgment.
Ultimately, the technical component of making buildings is essential to the process, and should not be omitted from the education of a well-rounded architect. Technical problem solving is a crucial process in architectural design.
Design is a process of inquiry not only asking “What?” and “How?” but also, “Why?”
Perhaps the mission of “design” oriented schools is to push boundaries in asking “Why?” (Or “Why not?”) Theoretical work should liberate the imagination, and can address a different set of questions than a building which is bound to be realized. Yes, the academic environment is somewhat self-involved, and theoretical projects may be most accessible to others in this guild. But certainly, advanced form making exercises enabled by computer modeling technologies and focused on larger questions of urban and social-political context can produce compelling explorations. This art can inspire the profession and enrich society.
You seem to be thinking “Which grad school?” rather than “Grad school?”
So I assume that you have plotted a fairly specific path in that direction. Grad school will give you the time, tools and context to explore architecture in a way that would be unusual in a professional environment. Make the most of it!
If I were in your position, I would ask “Why grad school?” What questions do you want to explore, and what compels you forward in the world? What is your point of view, and what will you bring to the academic environment? What do you see yourself doing after grad school?
When considering schools, look at work produced by students, but also research the faculty. What questions are they exploring? What tools are they using? What have they designed, what have they built? How can they support and challenge your explorations.
From living in the mid-west, I know Chicago to be a great town for art and architecture. But it sounds like the practicalities of the Denver area are worth considering, especially as to networking if you see yourself living there in the long term.
Thanks for everyone's thoughts, I appreciate everyone taking the time do discuss some very interesting points.
I have been fortunate enough to be working for a small firm over the last year and a lot of geezertecht's points really hit home in the work that we do there. Everything we do is oriented around finding solutions for our clients that are not only aesthetically pleasing but cost effective as well. As with many other things in our current economic times, it all still comes back to money. Granted our projects would not be considered "exiting" by the design leaning community, but this small firm has been in business for 20 years doing projects that just need to get done. While flashy renderings and presentation boards are fun to do, I have not once worked on one professionally. There think there is subset of professional architecture that does not care about these things, but does care about finding realistic solutions to a problem.
I also agree with a lot of Jordans99 points. There were times in undergrad when i thought studio professors were speaking another language that I just didn't get. I still love the design aspect of architecture and I know no matter what I choose, I will make a strong effort to become more versed in an overall sense of design, as I do believe it will make me a much better architect. If you don't mind me asking Jordans99 what line of work are you in now? are you in the architecture field?
Thanks for bringing up some very interesting points Richard. As I said before, I was lucky to work in a firm after undergrad, and I fear that some of my friends who continued straight from undergrad to grad school and then look for a job, without ever working for a firm or an architect, may be in for a real surprise. It is always easy and fun to design in school because you can do whatever you want. Some may find that the world of professional architecture does not always work that way. There is no questions that computer tools like grasshopper and the whole field of parametric design have pushed the design limit forward, and I do enjoy using those tools. But thoughts were always in the back of my mind; how do you build this? and who's going to pay for this?
In the grand scheme of things I see myself becoming a licensed architect. Doing projects that involve architecture in all its aspects, from the most conceptual phases of design all the way through construction use.
Thanks again for all of your thoughts, very helpful and interesting
phil
Mar 4, 12 11:50 pm ·
·
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.
Should a "real world" thinker go to a "design" grad school?
I am trying to decide on grad schools and have a couple different options. In undergrad I always did better in structures, systems, and detailing courses then I did in studio or theory classes. Should I play to my strengths in choosing a school, or try to expand my horizons and become more creative/artistic?. It would be a challenge to study in a design oriented curriculum, but it could also be extremely beneficial as well
Illinois-Chicago- seemed to be towards the "design" of the scale, very interesting student work, Chicago is a great town and it would be awesome to live there
Minnesota- maybe a bit more balanced, nice new facility and a good curriculum, I'm a hockey player and actually wouldn't mind the winters up there
Colorado-Denver- Also seemed more balanced but not at the level that UMN's program is at. My local instate school, connected to local jobs, cheaper
Thanks for any and all throughts,
phil
Personally, I'd play to your strengths assuming you enjoy them. You're probably more likely to be good at what you enjoy and enjoy what your're good at. This profession has way too manner theoriticians and bullshitters, and not enough people who can actually get a building built. And, believe me, the latter is what the clients care about. They don't give a damn about theory. That's something architects get into to impress other architects. If you want to survive and maybe even thrive, gear your career to making the customer happy, not your colleagues. They aren't the ones who are going to hire you and pay your fees.
I think this is a really great question. I am someone who has had some diverse experiences with architecture-- but at a very superficial level. I worked at the AIA, shadowed a successful architect for some time, and completed one of the summer immersion courses. I found that the business of architecture was very interesting, and the actual work aspect seemed pretty enjoyable. In addition, the idea of planning and seeing an idea through to completion was very rewarding at my summer course, but as a realist-- I saw people take incredibly subjective ideas and establish them as almost facts of design. To people who know design, I think they see the way I would look at a problem, and say here is a guy who hasn't thoroughly studied what it means to be a designer. To that extent, they were right, but I have to say I was bothered by the sort of "know it all attitude" some of the people had in a field that is undisputedly subjective. Even in the art classes I took since then, I never felt this same artsy bullshit vibe when speaking with teachers, and students-- at least not to the same extent.
It makes sense that you should have some interest in how something looks aesthetically if you want to be an arch student, but I found that out of all the students I met who wanted to pursue a degree, they ranged from far out right-brained art types, to more logical/planning types. I think there are programs that are fitting for both groups.
An interesting question that challenges definition of what “design” is!
For me, “Design” is a continuum of problem solving decisions that culminate in an ultimate solution. In architecture, these decisions may range from mundane, practical considerations to the definition of higher order social and aesthetic criteria. Buildings may ranges from the prosaic to the sublime. But a bold architectural statement, per se, will often fail to resonate in a context where a more subdued solution might succeed.
The process of design may be obvious, yielding buildings which are fantastical, unique, and astounding. Or, it may be more transparent, yielding buildings that seem inevitable, as if they were simply meant to be just as they are. In either case achieving meaningful built-form requires a team exhibiting both high levels of technical proficiency and aesthetic judgment.
Ultimately, the technical component of making buildings is essential to the process, and should not be omitted from the education of a well-rounded architect. Technical problem solving is a crucial process in architectural design.
Design is a process of inquiry not only asking “What?” and “How?” but also, “Why?”
Perhaps the mission of “design” oriented schools is to push boundaries in asking “Why?” (Or “Why not?”) Theoretical work should liberate the imagination, and can address a different set of questions than a building which is bound to be realized. Yes, the academic environment is somewhat self-involved, and theoretical projects may be most accessible to others in this guild. But certainly, advanced form making exercises enabled by computer modeling technologies and focused on larger questions of urban and social-political context can produce compelling explorations. This art can inspire the profession and enrich society.
You seem to be thinking “Which grad school?” rather than “Grad school?”
So I assume that you have plotted a fairly specific path in that direction. Grad school will give you the time, tools and context to explore architecture in a way that would be unusual in a professional environment. Make the most of it!
If I were in your position, I would ask “Why grad school?” What questions do you want to explore, and what compels you forward in the world? What is your point of view, and what will you bring to the academic environment? What do you see yourself doing after grad school?
When considering schools, look at work produced by students, but also research the faculty. What questions are they exploring? What tools are they using? What have they designed, what have they built? How can they support and challenge your explorations.
From living in the mid-west, I know Chicago to be a great town for art and architecture. But it sounds like the practicalities of the Denver area are worth considering, especially as to networking if you see yourself living there in the long term.
Good luck!
Thanks for everyone's thoughts, I appreciate everyone taking the time do discuss some very interesting points.
I have been fortunate enough to be working for a small firm over the last year and a lot of geezertecht's points really hit home in the work that we do there. Everything we do is oriented around finding solutions for our clients that are not only aesthetically pleasing but cost effective as well. As with many other things in our current economic times, it all still comes back to money. Granted our projects would not be considered "exiting" by the design leaning community, but this small firm has been in business for 20 years doing projects that just need to get done. While flashy renderings and presentation boards are fun to do, I have not once worked on one professionally. There think there is subset of professional architecture that does not care about these things, but does care about finding realistic solutions to a problem.
I also agree with a lot of Jordans99 points. There were times in undergrad when i thought studio professors were speaking another language that I just didn't get. I still love the design aspect of architecture and I know no matter what I choose, I will make a strong effort to become more versed in an overall sense of design, as I do believe it will make me a much better architect. If you don't mind me asking Jordans99 what line of work are you in now? are you in the architecture field?
Thanks for bringing up some very interesting points Richard. As I said before, I was lucky to work in a firm after undergrad, and I fear that some of my friends who continued straight from undergrad to grad school and then look for a job, without ever working for a firm or an architect, may be in for a real surprise. It is always easy and fun to design in school because you can do whatever you want. Some may find that the world of professional architecture does not always work that way. There is no questions that computer tools like grasshopper and the whole field of parametric design have pushed the design limit forward, and I do enjoy using those tools. But thoughts were always in the back of my mind; how do you build this? and who's going to pay for this?
In the grand scheme of things I see myself becoming a licensed architect. Doing projects that involve architecture in all its aspects, from the most conceptual phases of design all the way through construction use.
Thanks again for all of your thoughts, very helpful and interesting
phil
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.