by Engineers and Contractor/Construction managers sounds almost derogatory. I'm positive we've talked about this before, but can't seem to find the source. To the E/C types and sometimes by the general public "architectural" is sometimes synonymous with "fake" "trivial" "petty" and "superficial." Is it a severe misunderstanding/misperception on their part or ours?
My title as an "architectural designer" is looking less and less appealing.
i think it's different when you talk products vs. people...
architectural column to me means a fake column
but architectural designer says to me a designer in the field of architecture, (unlicensed to those who realize this is a runaround from the term intern), as opposed to other fields of design, (graphic, industrial, etc.)
i don't think you need worry how your title is percieved
i feel the same way about the word "modernist"... when used as a noun to describe a person, it's alright. but, when the word is used as an adjetive to describe a building or an object, it degrades it into some sort of superficial imitiative "style".
Along a similar vein, when you try to explain to a consultant or contractor you are doing something for aesthetic reasons, they also don't take it seriously. I asked the mechanical engineer to move a duct, for example, because a big louver was coming out at an aesthetically important location. Moving it was no big deal, but he did it very grudgingly.
well, many people use 'architectural' in a way that contrasts with 'structural'. They don't necessarily mean to be degrading, but that's the word they use for an element that doesn't hold the building up or anything, but someone thought it would look better that way.
The way to get a mechanical engineer to agree with you on that sort of stuff, kakacabeza, would be to not go on about it for a long time explaining how great the space will be without it, but use a simple no-nonsense approach like, "No, we're not putting that there, it's ugly. Please hide it down this hallway."
Actually my point was that the term is becoming more and more for things that are completely arbitrary and superficial whether or not the term is intentionally being used to be degrading or derogatory. It is actually worse that it is unintentional and becoming more of a popular connotation.
The Architect more often uses "architectural" for building materials/elements that serve its practical purpose (Structural or otherwise) AND has such a desirable finish that it should exposed.
Now that structural members become more heavily protected (against fire for example and therefore from sight) and building materials become increasingly specialized (think of the number of layers that walls have now-a-days - all for a individual purposes), what we see in a building is becoming more and more detached from its purpose and hence the detachment of true materiality.
I agree that it is very similar to the use of the term "Modern." The corruption in meaning/perception/connotation of words are inevitable, but it is also a reflection of the corruption of what the word truly represents. To me, truly "modern" buildings are rare, and millions of buildings are being built as "modern", "post-modern" or "post-post-modern" when in fact they are mere incomplete copies with half-understood ideas and concepts.
Use of the term "Architectural"
by Engineers and Contractor/Construction managers sounds almost derogatory. I'm positive we've talked about this before, but can't seem to find the source. To the E/C types and sometimes by the general public "architectural" is sometimes synonymous with "fake" "trivial" "petty" and "superficial." Is it a severe misunderstanding/misperception on their part or ours?
My title as an "architectural designer" is looking less and less appealing.
i think it's different when you talk products vs. people...
architectural column to me means a fake column
but architectural designer says to me a designer in the field of architecture, (unlicensed to those who realize this is a runaround from the term intern), as opposed to other fields of design, (graphic, industrial, etc.)
i don't think you need worry how your title is percieved
and why is "architectural" used to describe foam pediments on a walgreens?
i feel the same way about the word "modernist"... when used as a noun to describe a person, it's alright. but, when the word is used as an adjetive to describe a building or an object, it degrades it into some sort of superficial imitiative "style".
on the other hand, there are probably a lot of buildings out there that deserve to be called "architectural" and "modernist".
Along a similar vein, when you try to explain to a consultant or contractor you are doing something for aesthetic reasons, they also don't take it seriously. I asked the mechanical engineer to move a duct, for example, because a big louver was coming out at an aesthetically important location. Moving it was no big deal, but he did it very grudgingly.
well, many people use 'architectural' in a way that contrasts with 'structural'. They don't necessarily mean to be degrading, but that's the word they use for an element that doesn't hold the building up or anything, but someone thought it would look better that way.
The way to get a mechanical engineer to agree with you on that sort of stuff, kakacabeza, would be to not go on about it for a long time explaining how great the space will be without it, but use a simple no-nonsense approach like, "No, we're not putting that there, it's ugly. Please hide it down this hallway."
Actually my point was that the term is becoming more and more for things that are completely arbitrary and superficial whether or not the term is intentionally being used to be degrading or derogatory. It is actually worse that it is unintentional and becoming more of a popular connotation.
The Architect more often uses "architectural" for building materials/elements that serve its practical purpose (Structural or otherwise) AND has such a desirable finish that it should exposed.
Now that structural members become more heavily protected (against fire for example and therefore from sight) and building materials become increasingly specialized (think of the number of layers that walls have now-a-days - all for a individual purposes), what we see in a building is becoming more and more detached from its purpose and hence the detachment of true materiality.
I agree that it is very similar to the use of the term "Modern." The corruption in meaning/perception/connotation of words are inevitable, but it is also a reflection of the corruption of what the word truly represents. To me, truly "modern" buildings are rare, and millions of buildings are being built as "modern", "post-modern" or "post-post-modern" when in fact they are mere incomplete copies with half-understood ideas and concepts.
Alright...so I'm ranting.....
I've never heard "architectural" used in a sarcastic way. However, I have heard GC's refer to "gingerbread" in conversation - how offensive!
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.