as i begin my architectural career i often wonder where and how my design strategy will develop. i struggle to find a point of view, something that will resonate throughout my work.
my experience with architectural education is one where things such as aesthetics [what looks good] and intuition are frowned upon in favor of the the new theory du jour or the latest and greatest computer program. but why? i understand their place in academia but fail to truly understand their place in practice.
im tired of metaphors.
what about site? experience? material? and those two unmentionables [aesthetics and intuition]? i assume they all have significant roles for you practicing architects but why not in architectural education?
im finding it difficult to find a point of view amongst different theories and opinions, perhaps in part because i learn more through experience than i do from reading an essay or book.
for those of you who may be of the same mind-set, how do you carve out a design process that may be more experiential than it is theoretical and how do you defend/promote/advance it?
Newb,
It sounds like your education experience has been pretty specific, and there should be a choice in the studio programs at a school of architecture that favor a more technical, theory driven approach and those that are more intuitive / experiential. The important thing to remember is you do not have to trade one for another. Your instinct to experience your spatial world and draw inspiration from it will not only benefit you in design practice, but also in being able to convey your ideas to colleagues and clients. The highly theoretical tangents that we strive for in academic work are hard for the rest of the world to understand and relate to! There is always a measure of translation between architectural theory and architectural practice.
Another way of looking at your academic training is as high level problem solving. If you can resolve a complex theoretical idea, then your better able to resolve complex architectural design problems. Also, the jury process and getting your work critiqued should strengthen your belief in your own work. If you don't believe in it, and like it, how will you convince anyone else to?
Travel a lot. Keep a sketchbook. Soak up great art and film and other creative art forms. A moment in a place or space can trigger a very strong design idea that with continued practice, you can translate into a great building. You're at the beginning of your career and there's lots to learn. Just keep at it.
Be true to your own ideas and inspirations. I spent too much time early on worrying about what was cool in architecture, what my critics would think was cool, etc. I wish I had devoted more time to what I liked, rather than what I thought others would like.
Remember that architecture is only nominally about form. You can spend a lot of time worrying about how the thing looks, only to find at the end that you don't have good architecture, just a tossed salad.
If you make the idea generate a parti, the form will come naturally out of it. The idea could be anything: an interesting scientific principle, a structural concept, a sensory notion. Pursue the idea to its logical conclusion and see what it generates.
farwest1, i think you have hit the nail on the head. to this point i feel like im trying to keep up with trends and doing things to please the people in judgment of me. part of that has to do with not truly finding my own point of view, another part due to lack of confidence i guess.
you would think that something as subjective as architecture would really free the creative juices, but in some cases it locks them up. with so many opinions i feel like i've spent too much energy satisfying those and less time satisfying my own.
i've got to stop worrying about the "right" answer
newb...my design process is aimed towards achieving a balance of all the factors you mentioned...i often will sketch perspectives and miscellaneous conceptual volumes while working on potentially problematic details while studying program adjacencies, all at once...and yes, keeping in mind the client needs/budget/schedule...it's all part of "designing" imho, and it's important for me not to focus too much in a single aspect of the process.
Also, an important part of my design process (which should be highly personal) is to focus on pleasing the building, not myself...
simples- i agree with you when it comes to pleasing the building
in actuality when designing, the finish line shouldn't just reflect something you like.
it should ultimately satisfy a number of factors which came about as a result of the process it should satisfy itself and its place this building should look and feel like it belongs nowhere else on earth but where it rests.
I have had this problem for a very long time now and I have come to the conclusion that having no method in the madness is bankrupt bunk. Only making what is cool, is impressive BS in a very arts and crafts type of way and ultimately, once you have depleted all your cool ideas, you will get frustrated and bored with architecture, unable to grow. (Full throttle - no traction!) It makes you not much more than a very creative architectural technician, instead of the rational academic you are trying to become. Scientist has it far easier, 1+1=2, always, but seemingly in architecture, it might be today but not tomorrow. In science, there is a discipline and system to order your process.
Having observed hundreds of students, thinking that somewhere along the line, they will see the light, designing blind with nothing more than "what will the client/lecturer think of the design?" to guide them. This usually leaves you frustrated and bitching about how they just don't get it. The thousands of failed crits, every day, mostly prove my point. Looking at the results on this threat and some of the useless, empty answers, there must be thousands of people with this exact same problem, but still in the closet about it. Trying to make sense of formulating and applying architectural concept and/or theory. Be wary of those who profess that architecture can not be taught and the reason why you are in architecture school is to soak up the culture, aka Dr. Garry Stephens http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/surviveschool.html
If you use no backbone, or do not understand the golden thread that runs through the teaching and practice of architecture, you will be shooting in the dark, and you will spend many a uncertain sleepless night in the studio and ultimately your entire life will be in the balance once you move on to practice. Architecture can not be a discipline if there is no discipline, i.e., method of getting informed, asking questions and getting answers.
Punching "Normative Theory" into the search engine will, probably now, yield one result. Normative theory is to the creative arts what the scientific method is to science. Architecture students should be exposed to this in large neon letters before they are given the keys to the studio, or you will be wasting your time. It is the link between history of architecture and the project you are working on right now. It is the missing link that makes everything fall into place and will show you the relationship between Corb and Ghery and Vitruvius and Wright and Zaha...
If you apply it, or something similar to it, architecture will be an intellectual challenge and a joy, instead of the frustration that might steal 10 years of your life before you open a - (fill in your favorite alternative career).
Normative theory is explained here http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi/178.htm , (kudos to far to modest Pentti Routio of Finland) and if your lecturer's haven’t explained it to you then ask them why. If they can't answer, ask for your money back! (They'll probably tell you they are not there to spoon feed you and then turn around to find out what it is.) Once you understand the principles, get a mentor who understands it as well. From there the sky is the limit!
Or, I could just be a crackpot, blowing smoke. Who knows?
Best of luck! Now, go and get laid to improve your mood.
Seriously, I wonder how some of these answers are supposed to help the kid? Do people give them to make themselves seem as if they mysteriously know the answer and everybody else doesn’t? It's better to have people think you an idiot that opening your mouth and leaving no doubt!
You've just been listening to the wrong people. What you bitch about is exactly my complaints about the blobbers - no testing, nothing experiential, just some bs that gets regurgitated over and over, from prof to student to publication to student, etc., etc.
The key to process, imho, is all about testing your ideas. Find something that interests you, then explore a process, then test the idea.
Things like site, materiality, spatial experience, etc., are fundamental parts of architecture. NO project should ignore these.
newb. my thoughts on this topic based on workplace
just make sure you work for the right firm. or as mdler said. the only thing thats going to influence your design is the client... and their wallet.
if you work for a "production firm" you will find that the client is the only thing driving your design. yet its good experience form the technical side.
most clients who work with this type of firm think that they only need an architect to facilitate their design (which they already have imagined or clipped out of a magazine)
if you work for a "design firm" i'd imagine you'll have more freedom then you can take all of the above comments into account!!
clients who employ a more design architect will let you explore your own talents and ideas
Anti -- I'm sure you're joking, because given what I've read of your encompassing stance on green issues, along with your political views, I can't imagine you actually working for a developer, or for a firm that works with developers?
If I may... your stance on green issues -- a stance requiring of yourself that you only consume foods similarly in line with a green position...could you provide some examples, perhaps a few images that are handy, of some of your projects that would demonstrate how someone such as yourself might work for developers, or for a firm that works for developers, and yet maintain your exacting standards of green? Thank you, I am always ready to learn.
a normative approach to design is dangerous because it is founded in an ideal concept and not reality. sometimes designers think that by achieving the normative ideal they have achieved something...only to find that people don't live the way normative concepts would have it...at which point they become belligerent.
hopefully newb has things figured out by now, but i think to be honest no one can tell anyone else how to put the puzzle together. the point of going through all the popular stuff is to find your own way, and not to adopt it as the final and correct way to go. so it is perfectly fine to not like what you are trying out. in the 90's i spent a lot of time working out the theories of eisenman, not because i thought it was right, and certainly not because my profs thought it was worth doing, but just to see what i could get from it.
it takes years to figure this stuff out and it means you just have to be content with not having control for awhile. it's like a videogame world where you have to figure out the rules of cause and effect, how the buttons and shit works and everything, all while actually playing the game.
very difficult and potentially frustrating, but should be a cinch for the zelda generation. all i had was super-mario brothers...;-)
By always pushing the envelope asking clients to sign off on alternative and high performance materials and systems with reasoning where applicable.
Incorporating solar passive angles into designs where possible.
zero voc paints, low-e glazing.
Of course not every city and client permits everything you want and at times pushes on to you what they want. Site adapt work is common. So are LEED edu and gov facilities, casino expansions.
On the side i still do small custom residential projects, little duplex muti-family condo things and such.
Being able to do the widest range of things comes from experience with what ever materials you have had at your disposal. Eating healthy only helps keep the body in form to keep on top of it all, oh and makes for some nice composting.
life is compromise, those more vigilant help steer the course
I was looking forward to seeing your hardline positions from your various thread contributions translated into built form distillations via some highly educational and instructional example images.
So your blurb about "compromise" was a bit anticlimactic.
what drives your design process?
as i begin my architectural career i often wonder where and how my design strategy will develop. i struggle to find a point of view, something that will resonate throughout my work.
my experience with architectural education is one where things such as aesthetics [what looks good] and intuition are frowned upon in favor of the the new theory du jour or the latest and greatest computer program. but why? i understand their place in academia but fail to truly understand their place in practice.
im tired of metaphors.
what about site? experience? material? and those two unmentionables [aesthetics and intuition]? i assume they all have significant roles for you practicing architects but why not in architectural education?
im finding it difficult to find a point of view amongst different theories and opinions, perhaps in part because i learn more through experience than i do from reading an essay or book.
for those of you who may be of the same mind-set, how do you carve out a design process that may be more experiential than it is theoretical and how do you defend/promote/advance it?
Newb,
It sounds like your education experience has been pretty specific, and there should be a choice in the studio programs at a school of architecture that favor a more technical, theory driven approach and those that are more intuitive / experiential. The important thing to remember is you do not have to trade one for another. Your instinct to experience your spatial world and draw inspiration from it will not only benefit you in design practice, but also in being able to convey your ideas to colleagues and clients. The highly theoretical tangents that we strive for in academic work are hard for the rest of the world to understand and relate to! There is always a measure of translation between architectural theory and architectural practice.
Another way of looking at your academic training is as high level problem solving. If you can resolve a complex theoretical idea, then your better able to resolve complex architectural design problems. Also, the jury process and getting your work critiqued should strengthen your belief in your own work. If you don't believe in it, and like it, how will you convince anyone else to?
Travel a lot. Keep a sketchbook. Soak up great art and film and other creative art forms. A moment in a place or space can trigger a very strong design idea that with continued practice, you can translate into a great building. You're at the beginning of your career and there's lots to learn. Just keep at it.
Be true to your own ideas and inspirations. I spent too much time early on worrying about what was cool in architecture, what my critics would think was cool, etc. I wish I had devoted more time to what I liked, rather than what I thought others would like.
Remember that architecture is only nominally about form. You can spend a lot of time worrying about how the thing looks, only to find at the end that you don't have good architecture, just a tossed salad.
If you make the idea generate a parti, the form will come naturally out of it. The idea could be anything: an interesting scientific principle, a structural concept, a sensory notion. Pursue the idea to its logical conclusion and see what it generates.
thanks to you both for the words of inspiration.
farwest1, i think you have hit the nail on the head. to this point i feel like im trying to keep up with trends and doing things to please the people in judgment of me. part of that has to do with not truly finding my own point of view, another part due to lack of confidence i guess.
you would think that something as subjective as architecture would really free the creative juices, but in some cases it locks them up. with so many opinions i feel like i've spent too much energy satisfying those and less time satisfying my own.
i've got to stop worrying about the "right" answer
wasn't "...what drives your design process..." listed in the "phrases and words architects use and u hate" thread??
my clients
deadlines
aesthetics is not "what looks good." aesthetics is about why it looks good.
make it good, make it last
make it fast.
make a... cast?
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
make it big, make it wide make it so its hard to hide....
texture - how things feel not just the touch but the other senses as well
comfort - temperal shading, visual stimulation, etc etc
- and a host of other things far too intense to place into words, you cannot copy my mojo nor contain - just sit back and enjoy the ride.
my is....superstar
stimulants, depressants...
newb...my design process is aimed towards achieving a balance of all the factors you mentioned...i often will sketch perspectives and miscellaneous conceptual volumes while working on potentially problematic details while studying program adjacencies, all at once...and yes, keeping in mind the client needs/budget/schedule...it's all part of "designing" imho, and it's important for me not to focus too much in a single aspect of the process.
Also, an important part of my design process (which should be highly personal) is to focus on pleasing the building, not myself...
alcohol,
and a lot of it
simples- i agree with you when it comes to pleasing the building
in actuality when designing, the finish line shouldn't just reflect something you like.
it should ultimately satisfy a number of factors which came about as a result of the process it should satisfy itself and its place this building should look and feel like it belongs nowhere else on earth but where it rests.
shrimp ... and white wine.
Dear Newb.
I have had this problem for a very long time now and I have come to the conclusion that having no method in the madness is bankrupt bunk. Only making what is cool, is impressive BS in a very arts and crafts type of way and ultimately, once you have depleted all your cool ideas, you will get frustrated and bored with architecture, unable to grow. (Full throttle - no traction!) It makes you not much more than a very creative architectural technician, instead of the rational academic you are trying to become. Scientist has it far easier, 1+1=2, always, but seemingly in architecture, it might be today but not tomorrow. In science, there is a discipline and system to order your process.
Having observed hundreds of students, thinking that somewhere along the line, they will see the light, designing blind with nothing more than "what will the client/lecturer think of the design?" to guide them. This usually leaves you frustrated and bitching about how they just don't get it. The thousands of failed crits, every day, mostly prove my point. Looking at the results on this threat and some of the useless, empty answers, there must be thousands of people with this exact same problem, but still in the closet about it. Trying to make sense of formulating and applying architectural concept and/or theory. Be wary of those who profess that architecture can not be taught and the reason why you are in architecture school is to soak up the culture, aka Dr. Garry Stephens http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/surviveschool.html
If you use no backbone, or do not understand the golden thread that runs through the teaching and practice of architecture, you will be shooting in the dark, and you will spend many a uncertain sleepless night in the studio and ultimately your entire life will be in the balance once you move on to practice. Architecture can not be a discipline if there is no discipline, i.e., method of getting informed, asking questions and getting answers.
Punching "Normative Theory" into the search engine will, probably now, yield one result. Normative theory is to the creative arts what the scientific method is to science. Architecture students should be exposed to this in large neon letters before they are given the keys to the studio, or you will be wasting your time. It is the link between history of architecture and the project you are working on right now. It is the missing link that makes everything fall into place and will show you the relationship between Corb and Ghery and Vitruvius and Wright and Zaha...
If you apply it, or something similar to it, architecture will be an intellectual challenge and a joy, instead of the frustration that might steal 10 years of your life before you open a - (fill in your favorite alternative career).
Normative theory is explained here http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi/178.htm , (kudos to far to modest Pentti Routio of Finland) and if your lecturer's haven’t explained it to you then ask them why. If they can't answer, ask for your money back! (They'll probably tell you they are not there to spoon feed you and then turn around to find out what it is.) Once you understand the principles, get a mentor who understands it as well. From there the sky is the limit!
Or, I could just be a crackpot, blowing smoke. Who knows?
Best of luck! Now, go and get laid to improve your mood.
Seriously, I wonder how some of these answers are supposed to help the kid? Do people give them to make themselves seem as if they mysteriously know the answer and everybody else doesn’t? It's better to have people think you an idiot that opening your mouth and leaving no doubt!
You've just been listening to the wrong people. What you bitch about is exactly my complaints about the blobbers - no testing, nothing experiential, just some bs that gets regurgitated over and over, from prof to student to publication to student, etc., etc.
The key to process, imho, is all about testing your ideas. Find something that interests you, then explore a process, then test the idea.
Things like site, materiality, spatial experience, etc., are fundamental parts of architecture. NO project should ignore these.
newb. my thoughts on this topic based on workplace
just make sure you work for the right firm. or as mdler said. the only thing thats going to influence your design is the client... and their wallet.
if you work for a "production firm" you will find that the client is the only thing driving your design. yet its good experience form the technical side.
most clients who work with this type of firm think that they only need an architect to facilitate their design (which they already have imagined or clipped out of a magazine)
if you work for a "design firm" i'd imagine you'll have more freedom then you can take all of the above comments into account!!
clients who employ a more design architect will let you explore your own talents and ideas
The client and the budget... unfortunately.
value engineering , developer guidelines
Anti -- I'm sure you're joking, because given what I've read of your encompassing stance on green issues, along with your political views, I can't imagine you actually working for a developer, or for a firm that works with developers?
everybody needs green consulting and 3d visualization... be it facilities and even retail now.
I've pitched in every field, what is next? who knows.
If I may... your stance on green issues -- a stance requiring of yourself that you only consume foods similarly in line with a green position...could you provide some examples, perhaps a few images that are handy, of some of your projects that would demonstrate how someone such as yourself might work for developers, or for a firm that works for developers, and yet maintain your exacting standards of green? Thank you, I am always ready to learn.
a normative approach to design is dangerous because it is founded in an ideal concept and not reality. sometimes designers think that by achieving the normative ideal they have achieved something...only to find that people don't live the way normative concepts would have it...at which point they become belligerent.
hopefully newb has things figured out by now, but i think to be honest no one can tell anyone else how to put the puzzle together. the point of going through all the popular stuff is to find your own way, and not to adopt it as the final and correct way to go. so it is perfectly fine to not like what you are trying out. in the 90's i spent a lot of time working out the theories of eisenman, not because i thought it was right, and certainly not because my profs thought it was worth doing, but just to see what i could get from it.
it takes years to figure this stuff out and it means you just have to be content with not having control for awhile. it's like a videogame world where you have to figure out the rules of cause and effect, how the buttons and shit works and everything, all while actually playing the game.
very difficult and potentially frustrating, but should be a cinch for the zelda generation. all i had was super-mario brothers...;-)
thanks chris -- I was asking Anti for illustrative and instructive examples of his day to day work that exemplify his standards without compromise.
By always pushing the envelope asking clients to sign off on alternative and high performance materials and systems with reasoning where applicable.
Incorporating solar passive angles into designs where possible.
zero voc paints, low-e glazing.
Of course not every city and client permits everything you want and at times pushes on to you what they want. Site adapt work is common. So are LEED edu and gov facilities, casino expansions.
On the side i still do small custom residential projects, little duplex muti-family condo things and such.
Being able to do the widest range of things comes from experience with what ever materials you have had at your disposal. Eating healthy only helps keep the body in form to keep on top of it all, oh and makes for some nice composting.
life is compromise, those more vigilant help steer the course
I must admit, Anti, that was disappointing. ^
I was looking forward to seeing your hardline positions from your various thread contributions translated into built form distillations via some highly educational and instructional example images.
So your blurb about "compromise" was a bit anticlimactic.
haha when the world changes wake me up, otherwise i am just doing my best to tread water like the rest of the lower classes
Anything but actually doing something.
Nighty-night.
the thought of a vengeful man made god and a damaged planet full of misrable lonely people
the intense fear that anyting I produce actually sucks
^^ yes, a lot of the time that's about right.
Parti...I mean Party
crazy 8's for all the people who are down with 8balls tomarrow
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.