Better a "sell-out" than a "no sale" ! Working from the developer's side, i can assure you that as a designer you would be taken much more seriously if you can relate design to a marketing strategy. ShoP may be the poster boy for this new kind of practice ( I think precisely because their design are much closer in aesthetics to the work of the resistance camp ), their more recent projects like the ones in Korea and and China do seem like they are cashing out on their "branded" look....more than actually influencing what actually gets built...so in a way there is a business decision to be made by architecture practitioners; selling your image ? selling s particular service ? I think the way for architects to be more relevant is to build a business around an approach to problem solving. And business methods are pattentable too !
nonarchitect,
brilliant view and one i have suspected for some time. in fact, i can't believe how little of what architects currently do is unpatentable...and yet with a slight nudge it very much could be. i'd love to hear more about your thoughts related to this coming from outside the profession. it seems that there really was this concept of the poet engineer that dominated the conceptual landscape and brought intelligent problem-solving to building systems and architectural programs and it is just starting to be rediscovered. could it be possible to create a practice whose role is to influence the building systems industry (look at how building systems in europe have advanced because of the involvement of architects like renzo piano, etc.), or to develop a practice around resolving programmatic issues, etc.
could this be the beginning of a new age of the architectural specialist...not based around building typology but around problem-solving methodology and expertise?
It is a great point, nonarch, about a "branded" look. For better or worse, people hire Gehry to get a 'Gehry'. As an architect falls into a small box of expectation, it has to become more difficult to solve some kinds of problems. What I love about Piano is that you can see a process of problem solving in arriving at different building forms: ie: his buidlings don't all look the same.
I love the example at Kensai: the shape of the main concourse is a small sliver of a giant regular toroid volume. Because the toroid is regular, that is, derives from center point with a consistant radius, all of the roof panels could be the same size and shape, simplifying fabrication and installation.
futureboy, yes for those architects pushing the technological aspects of architecture, they should think not only about patenting products, but patenting implementation procedures...but architects also need not limit themselves to engineering or technological innovations; ( this actually will put them in competition with the engineers, which is not a bad thing, but its not the only way ). to me, the most valuable aspect of a US based architectural education is its non-specialization ( except perhaps at a phd level), this allows architects to be "zero gravity thinkers" ( there is a great new york times article on how expertise and overspecialization in an area tend to stiffle true innovations ) so i think in the end running an architecture office could be more like running a consulting firm where what you are selling is the ability to solve particular problems rather than produce certain results...
Starchitects as Sellouts?
Better a "sell-out" than a "no sale" ! Working from the developer's side, i can assure you that as a designer you would be taken much more seriously if you can relate design to a marketing strategy. ShoP may be the poster boy for this new kind of practice ( I think precisely because their design are much closer in aesthetics to the work of the resistance camp ), their more recent projects like the ones in Korea and and China do seem like they are cashing out on their "branded" look....more than actually influencing what actually gets built...so in a way there is a business decision to be made by architecture practitioners; selling your image ? selling s particular service ? I think the way for architects to be more relevant is to build a business around an approach to problem solving. And business methods are pattentable too !
nonarchitect,
brilliant view and one i have suspected for some time. in fact, i can't believe how little of what architects currently do is unpatentable...and yet with a slight nudge it very much could be. i'd love to hear more about your thoughts related to this coming from outside the profession. it seems that there really was this concept of the poet engineer that dominated the conceptual landscape and brought intelligent problem-solving to building systems and architectural programs and it is just starting to be rediscovered. could it be possible to create a practice whose role is to influence the building systems industry (look at how building systems in europe have advanced because of the involvement of architects like renzo piano, etc.), or to develop a practice around resolving programmatic issues, etc.
could this be the beginning of a new age of the architectural specialist...not based around building typology but around problem-solving methodology and expertise?
It is a great point, nonarch, about a "branded" look. For better or worse, people hire Gehry to get a 'Gehry'. As an architect falls into a small box of expectation, it has to become more difficult to solve some kinds of problems. What I love about Piano is that you can see a process of problem solving in arriving at different building forms: ie: his buidlings don't all look the same.
I love the example at Kensai: the shape of the main concourse is a small sliver of a giant regular toroid volume. Because the toroid is regular, that is, derives from center point with a consistant radius, all of the roof panels could be the same size and shape, simplifying fabrication and installation.
futureboy, yes for those architects pushing the technological aspects of architecture, they should think not only about patenting products, but patenting implementation procedures...but architects also need not limit themselves to engineering or technological innovations; ( this actually will put them in competition with the engineers, which is not a bad thing, but its not the only way ). to me, the most valuable aspect of a US based architectural education is its non-specialization ( except perhaps at a phd level), this allows architects to be "zero gravity thinkers" ( there is a great new york times article on how expertise and overspecialization in an area tend to stiffle true innovations ) so i think in the end running an architecture office could be more like running a consulting firm where what you are selling is the ability to solve particular problems rather than produce certain results...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/business/30know.html?em&ex=1199250000&en=4b43ce36ce3b24df&ei=5087%0A
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.