My background is largely in the written word. I decided to make a jump to a design career because I realized I wasn't ultimately happy just reading and writing about what others were creating....and wanted to get in on the fun of building stuff myself.
(insert obigatory disclaimer here about how well I understand the not-fun aspects of a career in design; at least some of them I'm already VERY familiar with.)
but this is just by way of explaining what motivates my question:
how do you, as a designer, think about the writing process?
do you see any parallels between the writing process and the design process?
how did you learn to write about design?
did you get a good understanding of the subject in school?
if you are in practice, what did you learn about it from a real-world perspective?
I realize I have biased my sample from the git-go because presumably if you are hanging around here typing, you have SOME comfort level with the written word (some more than others, ahem.)
nitpicker, you mention you are making a jump to a design career – what exactly are you focusing on? As for your question, I think its like any discipline – some designers can write, some can't; some can communicate, others can't. People that are good at designing and communicating and writing obviously have an edge. I can guarantee that most do not have all three skill sets. But for the most part, I think to be successful in Architecture you not only have to be great at designing something, but you have to be good at communicating (or at least delegating the later:); if you can't sell the project, it doesn't matter how good your design is. In regards to learning to write about design, I think schools will give you a basic understanding of the skill set but you don’t learn how to really write about the subject until you have real experience. BTW, did you forget your obigatory disclaimer? I assumed you left that in as a lighthearted joke.
i take inspiration from reyner banham and dave hickey, they can explain a complex concept so the guy pumping your gas can understand, relate, and get excited about it...that to me is an important talent. although i am a 'nobody', so, yeah...i got nothin' ...
one of my classmates wrote a novel for his thesis project. something like the ol fogey's approach i believe, though i never brought myself to read the whole deal. bits i did read were well written, but too artsy for my taste and i just couldn't get past the beginning...which is i think pretty normal for our world.
i quite like rem's approach to the written word, if not the content he uses the words for. but in general i would say most architects suck hind teat when it comes to writing intelligently. that doesn't seem to matter too much when it gets to building though....i mean look at schumacker and eisenman..or for even less clarity try reading a bit of louis kahn or flw.
That darned English alphabet has the wrong number of letters in it. Why didn't they go metric? That, and time, are lagging behind: 10 day week; 5 day weekend etc. etc.
Novels etc. didn't interest me much as a student and the denser end of the theoretical literature I found intriguing but annoyingly (and unnecessarily) obtuse. Only now am I getting into the likes of Wigley's 'The Architecture of Deconstruction' and Vesely's 'Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation.'
In the last decade, I've spent much more time reading novels. I love the emotional and visual coverage of a project suggested by Old Fogey. That sounds great. I'm aiming that way myself now although, to date, my writing is confined to lengthy journals, where I pursue topics abstract and anecdotal to my heart's content.
righteous, now don't get me wrong kahn apparently came up with a good line or two. but if you have ever read his book on light, you'd know what i is talkin bout. kahn was not a writer. ;-)
second of all, I'm studying landscape architecture as well as working in the field, on the business end mostly, at the moment.
third of all, you say it's "just like any discipline" which I think is true only up to a point. so far it seems to me quite true that a lot of people in design are only comfortable communicating things visually.
but I'm not only interested in how you communicate the finished project, but actually what goes into the process - both verbal and visual.
Listen you Hunns there are everything wrong with the english words, why didn't you stick with the runes we offered you a millinium ago.
Bside what do writing have to do with its -- is this just another exchouse to make it all deal with social skills and entertainment .
Well it don't seem anyone realy burn for the idea designing this tread is already without any fancy graphics --- what's wrong with you guy's ; isn't it about innovation and providing new houses , then how to accumulate that from quotes ?
And I am sure no writing is worth talking about converted the actural designed item. Words count nothing vreativity is what it is about , not the only creativity I ever reconised for words in design ,bad exchouses or academic nonsense.
May I say as designer shuldn't be judged on the mispell but the innovative touch. No words shuld count oposed that , no windy words shuld replace what architecture realy need, innovation and new production.
Not words.
How many years with postmodern monsters, twisted museums, gigantic office buildings useless trash. How many years ?
What about a new architecture an efficient building compoment industrie offering you the best of today's, at a third the cost four times as Strong.
Houses got uglier and quardouble Expensive , and you Romans still can't see it. the times they are a changing.
You Danes could not decide if you wanted Old Norse or German- so you mixed the two and made a mess.
Then you decided you did not like Danish pronunciation- so you changed that and left the spelling to reflect the old pronunciation.
With this process, I can imagine the mess you make of your building designs. This way, that way, this way... I think President Clinton must have done his graduate work in Denmark.
Didn't Nelson constitude that the danes hearts was in france ?
The germans we had to keep away the Romans , our design trends are our own bside with runes you wouldn't need so many way's to say "I hate you", or "Im'e smarter than you", no with runes you would have an efficient grammer and only a fraction of the letters. less talk more Design, take it from one who know.
My building structures never looked as anything beforem bside what's realy wrong with the english language is, that when somone start talking about new cheap houses, then there are so many letters, that you forget to answer. See even here words just mess things up.
--------- Eh suddenly Im'e not that sure about designers are bad with words ,but that don't change that academics don't need to be great visionary, seem they do well without --- if it wasn't so booring maby I shuld consider finding myself a spellchecker, --- but sadly I find it much more fun just playing.
I believe it is very important and they should be parallels. I believe an architect needs to be able to write down what he is designing. It’s just like a thesis (concept) for any project let it be in academia or the real world. I believe this starts in school with the basic Architectural Theory class. Without a basis of the written words of the past how can we make decisions today? Learning from history, in particular to architecture is very important, and reading their writings (theories) is even MORE important. So yes I find it very important for all architects to have a basic understanding of written words of not only themselves but also of others.
Wow Steven I must have misread the main discussions page.
I wrote a LOT in my old firm: marketing materials, mostly proposals for new projects. The audience was typically "laypeople": building committee members, facilities managers, people who would be deciding whether or not to hire us.
Ten years later, I can say this with confidence: trying to write about our design process definitely impacted my actual design process. Finding words, in fairly plain English, that explained what our design process was, what we saw in their particular project, how previous designs we had done had solutions that related to their projects: all the thinking involved in how to phrase those ideas made me think concretely about what those processes were. Sadly I'm not writing this right now well enough to get my idea across!!
I guess I do see writing an article/proposal/paper etc. as a parallel to design. I often even use a graphic layout to plan what I'm writing: starting with an outline that is a structural framework of big topics, subdivided into paragraphs, then filling in with description. I read what I write aloud and listen for a rhythm that sounds pleasing, and tend to use a lot of commas and connected phrases because I think it sounds more like a natural way of speaking.
And then honestly the words often were arranged graphically on the page: not like a brochure layout or anything, but we never sent out proposals with what we called "widows and orphans": one example being trailing sentences, where one line of the last paragraph trails onto the top of the next page, that kind of thing. So it was both about content and form, I suppose.
We also kept the archi-speak to a minimum, given our audience. I jokingly introduced the concept of the Gunning Fog Index to the office, and when I felt a paragraph was getting too thick I'd run it through the index just for fun - then typically go ahead and simplify it a little. (There is a more fun version of the FOG index here: my third paragrpah above came in at a 13.95, which is pretty average aka easy to comprehend with some college education.)
I learned a lot about writing, as about design, by just doing it a lot - and we often were told, flat-out, that one of the main reasons we made the frist cut in an open RFP was that the committee members liked the way we wrote.
Ah jeepers how embarassing...I ran vindpust's 9:02 post through the Smog index and it came back at 13.49: more comprehendable than my writing!!!! I'm screwed....
I guess that smog index doesn't filter for everything!
interesting thoughts, liberty bell. I write a lot of proposals, that being the main chunk of my job. of course, most of them are boilerplate letter proposals with no special input involved. and then there are the actual RFQs and RFPs ... like snowflakes, no two alike.
some of them are such a nightmare trip through the bowels of bureaucratic hell that there is no time, or energy, or inclination left over to write anything much that actually responds to the project. my time, after all, is limited. but it seems the uber-bureaucratic ones don't often call for any thoughtfulness about the project, since we've been shortlisted on a few where I know there wasn't a speck of lifeblood anywhere in the thing, but by God I crossed the t's and dotted the i's. (and if they asked for dotted T's and crossed i's, THAT'S WHAT THEY GOT.)
then again, there have been a few that were really intriguing to write... anything that comes across my desk that has to do with my personal interests, I'm on it like a duck on a june bug. in one or two cases, I think that's made a big difference.
I think it's absolutely true that you learn a lot by doing, both in writing and design. and of course, by getting to a point where you can trust the process. it's not just a matter of technical skill (although that's necessary) but also a matter of having judgement and experience enough to assess the situation and write to both the stated problem and the unstated one(s).
that creaky old motto I posted above about clarity, consistency, and credibility, points to the fact that you're not just communicating what you're communicating - you're communicating who you are, your understanding of the situation, and most crucially, your understanding of the listener.
now, if I could ever manage to get to the point with DRAWING that I am at with writing, and to some extent with public speaking, I'd really be cooking on the front burner.
in my case i am required to write nearly constantly as part of my phd work and for PR/proposals with office, but it is very hard work. not something that gets easier with practice, though i am perhaps better at it than i used to be...
i figger if i am not writing like john steinbeck then i am not a writer. everyday writing doesn't count. rfp's don't count either, but then i am not sure if i use text the way LB describes. i find the idea interesting, but for me design and writing are entirely separate, one following the other. for research publication i write in a different voice than for architecture biz realted goings on...and yet another for magazines. but none of those voices come from design...i suppose i would find that a limitation, to feel constrained by words that i had written...when i don't want to be constrained in my design even by things i might believe to be true.
One must make a clear project statement prior to design. Then your design should follow that statement to the letter. Then a project description should be clearly written to describe how the gods brought such a transcendent project to life.
Please people, learn this process. If you need help:
TECHNICAL WRITE IN A DAY (or maybe 2 if you want, it could take longer, or maybe not, but it's not my fault you bought my book, so sue me)
By: Mo Schlempole
Notwithstanding section 263, all expenditures (other than expenditures for the purchase of land or depreciable property or for the acquisition of circulation through the purchase of any part of the business of another publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical) to establish, maintain, or increase the circulation of a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical shall be allowed as a deduction; except that the deduction shall not be allowed with respect to the portion of such expenditures as, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, is chargeable to capital account if the taxpayer elects, in accordance with such regulations, to treat such portion as so chargeable. Such election, if made, must be for the total amount of such portion of the expenditures which is so chargeable to capital account, and shall be binding for all subsequent taxable years unless, upon application by the taxpayer, the Secretary permits a revocation of such election subject to such conditions as he deems necessary.
SMOGGED in at 27.8! This is what my posts will aspire to be!
AP, do you find my obscure slang expressions strange? trust me, I got a million of 'em.
jump writes:
"...i suppose i would find that a limitation, to feel constrained by words that i had written...when i don't want to be constrained in my design even by things i might believe to be true."
and whatever words you might write at the outset of the process are cast in stone? do you feel similarly constrained by whatever sketches you might make at the outset of the process?
in maya lin's book she talks about her process in exactly the opposite way. she starts out by reading and writing about the project, not drawing, for fear that she might be constrained by a 'predetermined form' if she makes images too soon.
i am not suggesting there is only one process to follow, we all have to find whatever path works for us personally. but again it strikes me how many similarities there are between the two processes (writing and drawing, or more broadly, using words and using images), and how if you don't feel comfortable in one mode or the other, you can get horrifically self-conscious and blocked, unable to move forward.
as one of my drawing instructors said, "Paper is cheap. Turn the page."
"it is very hard work. not something that gets easier with practice, though i am perhaps better at it than i used to be.."
I make a distinction between writing tasks that are just intrinsically difficult, and finding writing itself difficult. those damn byzantine RFPs are hard to write and they'd be hard for anyone. somebody dies and you have to write a condolence note - intrinsically HARD. you might put off doing something that's going to be such wretchedly hard work, but it feels different to me from having that fundamental level of doubt that you CAN do it.
designers should be able to express the idea and concepts through writing. they should write as if they say it verbally in plain unadorned language. designers tend to be copycats of medieval architects with obscure language which make it hard to understand.
Completely off the topic here... but "Paper is cheap. Turn the page" is the most offensive thing I've read recently on this forum! I think everyone should at least 'write' on both sides of paper...
nitpicker, you know i asked myelf the same question as i wrote that, and i suppose the answer is that i don't quite know, because i don't write as part of my design process. i just don't. i write for other things all the time...but never as part of the design process. not in the creative writing sense, certainly. i avoid writing about my work before or during design. only later, i use the words to describe projects. the rest of my writing time is devoted to other things entirely. I do believe there is a certain expectation to live up to the words you write, though. and for me that is a limitation...not ironclad, but still....there. some strange psychology happening?
i was trying not to criticise writing as design method, mind.
understood. just that it isn't part of your process.
and yet language almost always would be, even if not written language? you might be collaborating with someone in which case you'd at least talk about the project, and maybe make a few notes or something. even if working alone, you might talk to someone else in the office about what you're doing. or at least...talk to yourself?
I do know what you mean about the expectation of living up to words.
of course i talk with my partner and others when designing in the office. but that is not about writing...
when i wrote about the expectations of the written word...well, because i usually write about design after the fact then words of that variety mean to me something fulfilled. writing before or during design would be like deciding on answers early. in that context, i would feel obliged to meet the expectations of a concept written down...which is not how i work. my preference is to keep a design open until the very last minute...even changing the whole thing out in the 11th hour. why writing doesn't fit into that process i don't know...i think somewhere along the way i have come to distrust words, and especially words that deal with architectural concepts. i believe there is a different agenda in them than in building/architecture....i am perhaps slightly neurotic on this point ;-)
regarding education and writing, we did not have much of it in a directed way at my uni, or at least no more than in other faculties. writing was i think tolerated more than encouraged as a design tool...perhaps that is where my bias began...
i am learning to write more lately as i try to get research out for phd reqs...but i don't really see a correlation between that work and design any more than i believe architecture is frozen music...;-) maybe i am missing an opportunity...
"i think somewhere along the way i have come to distrust words, and especially words that deal with architectural concepts. i believe there is a different agenda in them than in building/architecture....i am perhaps slightly neurotic on this point ;-)"
that level of distrust, I think, is only rational. I suppose I am forgetting, in my earnestness, the hideous prevalence of archibabble, theory-speak, and other forms of language that are intended to reinforce solidarity among those "in the club," and won't serve to communicate anything meaningful to anyone outside that circle. distrust of language is a perfectly reasonable response to the corruption of language.
still on my shelf from college days, when I was a peer writing tutor and took a really fantastic seminar on teaching writing, is a little book with a green cover called "Style: An Anti-Textbook" by Richard Lanham. terrific book, almost the whole damn thing is quotable, from which I should restrain myself. but here's a thought on page 58:
"A style is a response to a situation. When you call a style bad, or exaggerated...you ought to make sure you understand the situation it responds to. You may be objecting to the situation, not to the style invented to cope with it."
so maybe, in objecting to archibabble, we are really seeing a problem in the relationship(/disconnect) between architecture and society. I realize this isn't the most startling insight of all time, of course. and I'm not completely sure it was archibabble you are talking about when you refer to 'distrust' of writing about architecture, but I feel like it must have played a role in poisoning the well for a lot of people.
designers typically cannot write any better than they can speak. i certainly include myself in this category.
it begins in our first years of architecture school. i remember presenting my first real project in a manner with which i would have written an essay in high school. i stated the problem, outlined my response to it, and then detailed my response to the problem. it was very short and frankly not very deep. but it worked to describe the project, and was probably much better than the project itself.
the review was about two minutes long. i was complemented on my drafting skills and pilloried when it came to the design. and then a reviewer suggested that i sounded a little too much like a salesman when i presented the project.
the next person got up and the presentation was a litany of "um" and "like" and "you know" and declarative sentences that sounded like questions. as in: "um, i like thought maybe that the user would, you know, see the...you know, and confront it?"
i think she was labeled on the spot one of the students to watch.
the difference was: i was actively trying to convince my audience that my project was a valid and pleasant solution to the problem, whereas the student next to me had depended on her visual, non-verbal communication skills to display the quality of her project.
the problem was and is: in the real world, a client (say) might be initially shocked and disgusted with the imagery the architect puts forth. but if presented correctly, the client can see the reasons why the images in front of them are the way they are...and perhaps can be persuaded to approve the project. but this is not taught all the time in school, and frankly i learned much more about verbal and written skills in high school than i ever did in architecture school.
i especially credit my public speaking class that i took in my freshman year of high school. and debate.
"too much like a salesman"? for being clear and articulate and using plain English?
*sigh*
of course, I have heard from some instructors that they don't want students talking too much about their designs because sometimes it's just b.s. to try and justify a weak or lacking design. I certainly get that. but I don't at all see the argument for rewarding a totally inarticulate verbal presentation.
speaking as someone who is not all that far removed from being a design layman (er, layperson), I can testify that can be very hard work to make sense of complex visual information about design projects if you're not already fairly well versed in that kind of information. and that would probably describe a lot of clients and certainly a lot of community groups or other bodies you might need to present a design to. they're going to be relying VERY heavily on what you say and how you say it to help them decide what they think about your design.
there is a thing called "confirmation bias," -- people will come to a fairly quick conclusion about how they feel about something, and then will pay disproportionate attention to information that confirms their pre-judgement and will be less attentive to information that might contradict it. so once again, it comes down to credibility, and the relationship you establish with your audience.
exactly. and i have literally seen my boss go into a meeting with a design that, by all accounts, the client would have absolutely HATED. but then he explains it in such a way that the client is convinced that the design in front of them is THE way to go. and the explanation is honest and does not mislead the client. what the explanation does, is it frames the information at hand in a way that supports the design of the project.
the word "frame" is key, because it is a loanword from the world of graphics and images. the drawings on the wall leave out as much as my boss's design explanation.
writing about architecture should be the same way, but too often writing by architects tends to read like it's intended to not convey ANY information save an impression of the architect's ability to use a thesaurus and their superficial familiarity with the writings of deleuze.
I've always wondered why clearly explaining yourself was considered a bad thing...since it always seemed to get me in trouble at crits...glad to know that effective communication is valued somewhere...if not at an architecture lecture
Can designers write?
My background is largely in the written word. I decided to make a jump to a design career because I realized I wasn't ultimately happy just reading and writing about what others were creating....and wanted to get in on the fun of building stuff myself.
(insert obigatory disclaimer here about how well I understand the not-fun aspects of a career in design; at least some of them I'm already VERY familiar with.)
but this is just by way of explaining what motivates my question:
how do you, as a designer, think about the writing process?
do you see any parallels between the writing process and the design process?
how did you learn to write about design?
did you get a good understanding of the subject in school?
if you are in practice, what did you learn about it from a real-world perspective?
I realize I have biased my sample from the git-go because presumably if you are hanging around here typing, you have SOME comfort level with the written word (some more than others, ahem.)
however, this is a topic I'm very curious about.
nitpicker, you mention you are making a jump to a design career – what exactly are you focusing on? As for your question, I think its like any discipline – some designers can write, some can't; some can communicate, others can't. People that are good at designing and communicating and writing obviously have an edge. I can guarantee that most do not have all three skill sets. But for the most part, I think to be successful in Architecture you not only have to be great at designing something, but you have to be good at communicating (or at least delegating the later:); if you can't sell the project, it doesn't matter how good your design is. In regards to learning to write about design, I think schools will give you a basic understanding of the skill set but you don’t learn how to really write about the subject until you have real experience. BTW, did you forget your obigatory disclaimer? I assumed you left that in as a lighthearted joke.
i take inspiration from reyner banham and dave hickey, they can explain a complex concept so the guy pumping your gas can understand, relate, and get excited about it...that to me is an important talent. although i am a 'nobody', so, yeah...i got nothin' ...
OldFogey made the girls cry! Sounds like you have the "it" factor!
one of my classmates wrote a novel for his thesis project. something like the ol fogey's approach i believe, though i never brought myself to read the whole deal. bits i did read were well written, but too artsy for my taste and i just couldn't get past the beginning...which is i think pretty normal for our world.
i quite like rem's approach to the written word, if not the content he uses the words for. but in general i would say most architects suck hind teat when it comes to writing intelligently. that doesn't seem to matter too much when it gets to building though....i mean look at schumacker and eisenman..or for even less clarity try reading a bit of louis kahn or flw.
oh that's right, just because the brick didn't tell you what it wanted
Kill The Brick
That darned English alphabet has the wrong number of letters in it. Why didn't they go metric? That, and time, are lagging behind: 10 day week; 5 day weekend etc. etc.
Novels etc. didn't interest me much as a student and the denser end of the theoretical literature I found intriguing but annoyingly (and unnecessarily) obtuse. Only now am I getting into the likes of Wigley's 'The Architecture of Deconstruction' and Vesely's 'Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation.'
In the last decade, I've spent much more time reading novels. I love the emotional and visual coverage of a project suggested by Old Fogey. That sounds great. I'm aiming that way myself now although, to date, my writing is confined to lengthy journals, where I pursue topics abstract and anecdotal to my heart's content.
righteous, now don't get me wrong kahn apparently came up with a good line or two. but if you have ever read his book on light, you'd know what i is talkin bout. kahn was not a writer. ;-)
katze, first of all, YES that was a joke.
second of all, I'm studying landscape architecture as well as working in the field, on the business end mostly, at the moment.
third of all, you say it's "just like any discipline" which I think is true only up to a point. so far it seems to me quite true that a lot of people in design are only comfortable communicating things visually.
but I'm not only interested in how you communicate the finished project, but actually what goes into the process - both verbal and visual.
Listen you Hunns there are everything wrong with the english words, why didn't you stick with the runes we offered you a millinium ago.
Bside what do writing have to do with its -- is this just another exchouse to make it all deal with social skills and entertainment .
Well it don't seem anyone realy burn for the idea designing this tread is already without any fancy graphics --- what's wrong with you guy's ; isn't it about innovation and providing new houses , then how to accumulate that from quotes ?
And no designers don't need to write at all
And I am sure no writing is worth talking about converted the actural designed item. Words count nothing vreativity is what it is about , not the only creativity I ever reconised for words in design ,bad exchouses or academic nonsense.
May I say as designer shuldn't be judged on the mispell but the innovative touch. No words shuld count oposed that , no windy words shuld replace what architecture realy need, innovation and new production.
Not words.
How many years with postmodern monsters, twisted museums, gigantic office buildings useless trash. How many years ?
What about a new architecture an efficient building compoment industrie offering you the best of today's, at a third the cost four times as Strong.
Houses got uglier and quardouble Expensive , and you Romans still can't see it. the times they are a changing.
In the Wind:
You Danes could not decide if you wanted Old Norse or German- so you mixed the two and made a mess.
Then you decided you did not like Danish pronunciation- so you changed that and left the spelling to reflect the old pronunciation.
With this process, I can imagine the mess you make of your building designs. This way, that way, this way... I think President Clinton must have done his graduate work in Denmark.
Didn't Nelson constitude that the danes hearts was in france ?
The germans we had to keep away the Romans , our design trends are our own bside with runes you wouldn't need so many way's to say "I hate you", or "Im'e smarter than you", no with runes you would have an efficient grammer and only a fraction of the letters. less talk more Design, take it from one who know.
My building structures never looked as anything beforem bside what's realy wrong with the english language is, that when somone start talking about new cheap houses, then there are so many letters, that you forget to answer. See even here words just mess things up.
Why would you think, houses look more and more like Bookshelves ???
Is this gonna turn into another 3DH thread?
if we ignore the viking, will he just stop sacking and pillaging our happy community?
Blustery:
So, why do you Danes hate so much and feel like you are less intelligent than the rest of the world?
Ask Niels Bohr or Kirkegaard.
True Frenchmen.
I'll have My Favorite Martian ask them.
--------- Eh suddenly Im'e not that sure about designers are bad with words ,but that don't change that academics don't need to be great visionary, seem they do well without --- if it wasn't so booring maby I shuld consider finding myself a spellchecker, --- but sadly I find it much more fun just playing.
sorry, lb. i hadn't posted until now. i stayed away from this one cuz i was a little scared of it.
If the contributions on Archinect are an indicator, I would have to say no, no and NO!!!
hokey old copyeditor's saying:
the three c's of copyediting are clarity, consistency and credibility.
the third is the most important.
i don't beleive it. i maen i do believe it. i don't know what i mean.
I believe it is very important and they should be parallels. I believe an architect needs to be able to write down what he is designing. It’s just like a thesis (concept) for any project let it be in academia or the real world. I believe this starts in school with the basic Architectural Theory class. Without a basis of the written words of the past how can we make decisions today? Learning from history, in particular to architecture is very important, and reading their writings (theories) is even MORE important. So yes I find it very important for all architects to have a basic understanding of written words of not only themselves but also of others.
Wow Steven I must have misread the main discussions page.
I wrote a LOT in my old firm: marketing materials, mostly proposals for new projects. The audience was typically "laypeople": building committee members, facilities managers, people who would be deciding whether or not to hire us.
Ten years later, I can say this with confidence: trying to write about our design process definitely impacted my actual design process. Finding words, in fairly plain English, that explained what our design process was, what we saw in their particular project, how previous designs we had done had solutions that related to their projects: all the thinking involved in how to phrase those ideas made me think concretely about what those processes were. Sadly I'm not writing this right now well enough to get my idea across!!
I guess I do see writing an article/proposal/paper etc. as a parallel to design. I often even use a graphic layout to plan what I'm writing: starting with an outline that is a structural framework of big topics, subdivided into paragraphs, then filling in with description. I read what I write aloud and listen for a rhythm that sounds pleasing, and tend to use a lot of commas and connected phrases because I think it sounds more like a natural way of speaking.
And then honestly the words often were arranged graphically on the page: not like a brochure layout or anything, but we never sent out proposals with what we called "widows and orphans": one example being trailing sentences, where one line of the last paragraph trails onto the top of the next page, that kind of thing. So it was both about content and form, I suppose.
We also kept the archi-speak to a minimum, given our audience. I jokingly introduced the concept of the Gunning Fog Index to the office, and when I felt a paragraph was getting too thick I'd run it through the index just for fun - then typically go ahead and simplify it a little. (There is a more fun version of the FOG index here: my third paragrpah above came in at a 13.95, which is pretty average aka easy to comprehend with some college education.)
I learned a lot about writing, as about design, by just doing it a lot - and we often were told, flat-out, that one of the main reasons we made the frist cut in an open RFP was that the committee members liked the way we wrote.
Ah jeepers how embarassing...I ran vindpust's 9:02 post through the Smog index and it came back at 13.49: more comprehendable than my writing!!!! I'm screwed....
I guess that smog index doesn't filter for everything!
interesting thoughts, liberty bell. I write a lot of proposals, that being the main chunk of my job. of course, most of them are boilerplate letter proposals with no special input involved. and then there are the actual RFQs and RFPs ... like snowflakes, no two alike.
some of them are such a nightmare trip through the bowels of bureaucratic hell that there is no time, or energy, or inclination left over to write anything much that actually responds to the project. my time, after all, is limited. but it seems the uber-bureaucratic ones don't often call for any thoughtfulness about the project, since we've been shortlisted on a few where I know there wasn't a speck of lifeblood anywhere in the thing, but by God I crossed the t's and dotted the i's. (and if they asked for dotted T's and crossed i's, THAT'S WHAT THEY GOT.)
then again, there have been a few that were really intriguing to write... anything that comes across my desk that has to do with my personal interests, I'm on it like a duck on a june bug. in one or two cases, I think that's made a big difference.
I think it's absolutely true that you learn a lot by doing, both in writing and design. and of course, by getting to a point where you can trust the process. it's not just a matter of technical skill (although that's necessary) but also a matter of having judgement and experience enough to assess the situation and write to both the stated problem and the unstated one(s).
that creaky old motto I posted above about clarity, consistency, and credibility, points to the fact that you're not just communicating what you're communicating - you're communicating who you are, your understanding of the situation, and most crucially, your understanding of the listener.
now, if I could ever manage to get to the point with DRAWING that I am at with writing, and to some extent with public speaking, I'd really be cooking on the front burner.
in my case i am required to write nearly constantly as part of my phd work and for PR/proposals with office, but it is very hard work. not something that gets easier with practice, though i am perhaps better at it than i used to be...
i figger if i am not writing like john steinbeck then i am not a writer. everyday writing doesn't count. rfp's don't count either, but then i am not sure if i use text the way LB describes. i find the idea interesting, but for me design and writing are entirely separate, one following the other. for research publication i write in a different voice than for architecture biz realted goings on...and yet another for magazines. but none of those voices come from design...i suppose i would find that a limitation, to feel constrained by words that i had written...when i don't want to be constrained in my design even by things i might believe to be true.
One must make a clear project statement prior to design. Then your design should follow that statement to the letter. Then a project description should be clearly written to describe how the gods brought such a transcendent project to life.
Please people, learn this process. If you need help:
TECHNICAL WRITE IN A DAY (or maybe 2 if you want, it could take longer, or maybe not, but it's not my fault you bought my book, so sue me)
By: Mo Schlempole
?!
I'd really be cooking on the front burner?!
hmmm, can I write? let's see what my latest essay rates....
woohoo - 15.85 overall with one paragraph hitting 18.49!
thank you infrastructural urbanism!!!!
When designers write the first question is to serif or not to serif.
Glad you're having fun tk.
:-)
Notwithstanding section 263, all expenditures (other than expenditures for the purchase of land or depreciable property or for the acquisition of circulation through the purchase of any part of the business of another publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical) to establish, maintain, or increase the circulation of a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical shall be allowed as a deduction; except that the deduction shall not be allowed with respect to the portion of such expenditures as, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, is chargeable to capital account if the taxpayer elects, in accordance with such regulations, to treat such portion as so chargeable. Such election, if made, must be for the total amount of such portion of the expenditures which is so chargeable to capital account, and shall be binding for all subsequent taxable years unless, upon application by the taxpayer, the Secretary permits a revocation of such election subject to such conditions as he deems necessary.
SMOGGED in at 27.8! This is what my posts will aspire to be!
chili, I am bowing down to your excellency!!!
I wish I could claim authorship, but I'm afraid credit for that goes to the United States Government.
AP, do you find my obscure slang expressions strange? trust me, I got a million of 'em.
jump writes:
"...i suppose i would find that a limitation, to feel constrained by words that i had written...when i don't want to be constrained in my design even by things i might believe to be true."
and whatever words you might write at the outset of the process are cast in stone? do you feel similarly constrained by whatever sketches you might make at the outset of the process?
in maya lin's book she talks about her process in exactly the opposite way. she starts out by reading and writing about the project, not drawing, for fear that she might be constrained by a 'predetermined form' if she makes images too soon.
i am not suggesting there is only one process to follow, we all have to find whatever path works for us personally. but again it strikes me how many similarities there are between the two processes (writing and drawing, or more broadly, using words and using images), and how if you don't feel comfortable in one mode or the other, you can get horrifically self-conscious and blocked, unable to move forward.
as one of my drawing instructors said, "Paper is cheap. Turn the page."
"it is very hard work. not something that gets easier with practice, though i am perhaps better at it than i used to be.."
I make a distinction between writing tasks that are just intrinsically difficult, and finding writing itself difficult. those damn byzantine RFPs are hard to write and they'd be hard for anyone. somebody dies and you have to write a condolence note - intrinsically HARD. you might put off doing something that's going to be such wretchedly hard work, but it feels different to me from having that fundamental level of doubt that you CAN do it.
designers should be able to express the idea and concepts through writing. they should write as if they say it verbally in plain unadorned language. designers tend to be copycats of medieval architects with obscure language which make it hard to understand.
Completely off the topic here... but "Paper is cheap. Turn the page" is the most offensive thing I've read recently on this forum! I think everyone should at least 'write' on both sides of paper...
nitpicker, you know i asked myelf the same question as i wrote that, and i suppose the answer is that i don't quite know, because i don't write as part of my design process. i just don't. i write for other things all the time...but never as part of the design process. not in the creative writing sense, certainly. i avoid writing about my work before or during design. only later, i use the words to describe projects. the rest of my writing time is devoted to other things entirely. I do believe there is a certain expectation to live up to the words you write, though. and for me that is a limitation...not ironclad, but still....there. some strange psychology happening?
i was trying not to criticise writing as design method, mind.
understood. just that it isn't part of your process.
and yet language almost always would be, even if not written language? you might be collaborating with someone in which case you'd at least talk about the project, and maybe make a few notes or something. even if working alone, you might talk to someone else in the office about what you're doing. or at least...talk to yourself?
I do know what you mean about the expectation of living up to words.
hmm,
of course i talk with my partner and others when designing in the office. but that is not about writing...
when i wrote about the expectations of the written word...well, because i usually write about design after the fact then words of that variety mean to me something fulfilled. writing before or during design would be like deciding on answers early. in that context, i would feel obliged to meet the expectations of a concept written down...which is not how i work. my preference is to keep a design open until the very last minute...even changing the whole thing out in the 11th hour. why writing doesn't fit into that process i don't know...i think somewhere along the way i have come to distrust words, and especially words that deal with architectural concepts. i believe there is a different agenda in them than in building/architecture....i am perhaps slightly neurotic on this point ;-)
regarding education and writing, we did not have much of it in a directed way at my uni, or at least no more than in other faculties. writing was i think tolerated more than encouraged as a design tool...perhaps that is where my bias began...
i am learning to write more lately as i try to get research out for phd reqs...but i don't really see a correlation between that work and design any more than i believe architecture is frozen music...;-) maybe i am missing an opportunity...
"i think somewhere along the way i have come to distrust words, and especially words that deal with architectural concepts. i believe there is a different agenda in them than in building/architecture....i am perhaps slightly neurotic on this point ;-)"
that level of distrust, I think, is only rational. I suppose I am forgetting, in my earnestness, the hideous prevalence of archibabble, theory-speak, and other forms of language that are intended to reinforce solidarity among those "in the club," and won't serve to communicate anything meaningful to anyone outside that circle. distrust of language is a perfectly reasonable response to the corruption of language.
still on my shelf from college days, when I was a peer writing tutor and took a really fantastic seminar on teaching writing, is a little book with a green cover called "Style: An Anti-Textbook" by Richard Lanham. terrific book, almost the whole damn thing is quotable, from which I should restrain myself. but here's a thought on page 58:
"A style is a response to a situation. When you call a style bad, or exaggerated...you ought to make sure you understand the situation it responds to. You may be objecting to the situation, not to the style invented to cope with it."
so maybe, in objecting to archibabble, we are really seeing a problem in the relationship(/disconnect) between architecture and society. I realize this isn't the most startling insight of all time, of course. and I'm not completely sure it was archibabble you are talking about when you refer to 'distrust' of writing about architecture, but I feel like it must have played a role in poisoning the well for a lot of people.
designers typically cannot write any better than they can speak. i certainly include myself in this category.
it begins in our first years of architecture school. i remember presenting my first real project in a manner with which i would have written an essay in high school. i stated the problem, outlined my response to it, and then detailed my response to the problem. it was very short and frankly not very deep. but it worked to describe the project, and was probably much better than the project itself.
the review was about two minutes long. i was complemented on my drafting skills and pilloried when it came to the design. and then a reviewer suggested that i sounded a little too much like a salesman when i presented the project.
the next person got up and the presentation was a litany of "um" and "like" and "you know" and declarative sentences that sounded like questions. as in: "um, i like thought maybe that the user would, you know, see the...you know, and confront it?"
i think she was labeled on the spot one of the students to watch.
the difference was: i was actively trying to convince my audience that my project was a valid and pleasant solution to the problem, whereas the student next to me had depended on her visual, non-verbal communication skills to display the quality of her project.
the problem was and is: in the real world, a client (say) might be initially shocked and disgusted with the imagery the architect puts forth. but if presented correctly, the client can see the reasons why the images in front of them are the way they are...and perhaps can be persuaded to approve the project. but this is not taught all the time in school, and frankly i learned much more about verbal and written skills in high school than i ever did in architecture school.
i especially credit my public speaking class that i took in my freshman year of high school. and debate.
"too much like a salesman"? for being clear and articulate and using plain English?
*sigh*
of course, I have heard from some instructors that they don't want students talking too much about their designs because sometimes it's just b.s. to try and justify a weak or lacking design. I certainly get that. but I don't at all see the argument for rewarding a totally inarticulate verbal presentation.
speaking as someone who is not all that far removed from being a design layman (er, layperson), I can testify that can be very hard work to make sense of complex visual information about design projects if you're not already fairly well versed in that kind of information. and that would probably describe a lot of clients and certainly a lot of community groups or other bodies you might need to present a design to. they're going to be relying VERY heavily on what you say and how you say it to help them decide what they think about your design.
there is a thing called "confirmation bias," -- people will come to a fairly quick conclusion about how they feel about something, and then will pay disproportionate attention to information that confirms their pre-judgement and will be less attentive to information that might contradict it. so once again, it comes down to credibility, and the relationship you establish with your audience.
exactly. and i have literally seen my boss go into a meeting with a design that, by all accounts, the client would have absolutely HATED. but then he explains it in such a way that the client is convinced that the design in front of them is THE way to go. and the explanation is honest and does not mislead the client. what the explanation does, is it frames the information at hand in a way that supports the design of the project.
the word "frame" is key, because it is a loanword from the world of graphics and images. the drawings on the wall leave out as much as my boss's design explanation.
writing about architecture should be the same way, but too often writing by architects tends to read like it's intended to not convey ANY information save an impression of the architect's ability to use a thesaurus and their superficial familiarity with the writings of deleuze.
I've always wondered why clearly explaining yourself was considered a bad thing...since it always seemed to get me in trouble at crits...glad to know that effective communication is valued somewhere...if not at an architecture lecture
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.