The direct result of a competitive rather than a cooperative society.

Your point is taken.  But, in my observations, it was in studios were no one was bucking for prizes nor aspiring to be stars.  At work, it has been in environments where everyone was working on their own projects (studio vs. departmentalized firm structure).  Disappointing.  I like to talk architecture, and don't care if someone snickers or makes a smart ass comment.   But, yes, if the school or office had an entrenched competitive milieu, then that could be the case.  I never competed against anyone ... just my own standards.  I've always done my own thing.

Discourse is something peers (and large groups) engage in - since it's about defining supremacy of certain ideas and rejecting others - it can often be competitive - or more specifically, highly political - especially in the elite academic world where you're hired for and obtain leadership positions through your ability to convince enough people that your ideas are worth pursuing.  Dialogue is something you do in a more dichotomous relationship (teacher/student, boss/employee, with a significant other, parent/child, etc...) - where the goal is to come to a common understanding.

^

Good illustration of the distinction.  Too bad that dialogue can't occur in a student/student and employee/employee situation when each has his or her goals and is not engaged in competition.

we are doing our discourse thru a platform   http://disenyo.ph

we meet and discuss monthly and write on anything whenever we can.  In university or in work environment, it is very difficult to find curious minds.  They are always a rare breed.  Its the same reason that we group separately.

We had a lot of dialogue in my programs (undergrad and grad) - discussing our interests, ethics and values and how our individual designs reflected/challenged our own views and/or reflected the prevailing cultural norms.  In grad school there was a stronger push among the students to engage our theory readings and discuss the context/pros/cons of our readings.  In our reviews we all freely challenged and supported each others projects and the faculty/critics comments.

Unfortunately in work practice, clients/budgets/schedules often prevent deeper design dialogue, but as a practice our firm does try to stay up-to-date with the current design discourse (cultural/ecological sustainability, technology/manual representation, etc).  It does take effort to keep an atmosphere of respect when some values are more personal, but that type of dialogue in-house is critical when working with outside collaborators; being able to communicate effectively and take criticism, in my humble opinion, is a cornerstone of what we do as designers.

We had the following:

desk critic's (typ. 4 students and professor discuss you project idea, intent, iteration, sketch, mock model, parti etc.)

individuals who gladly participated in desk critic's.

individuals who preferred to avoid desk critic's (because they're reinventing the wheel!)

individuals who you had to tell shut the hell up because they would go on and on.

individuals who were like pulling teeth to say one word about their own project.

professors who had a following, so the students (mostly female's) did whatever stupid thing he suggested

but we just about always had desk critic's!

To talk architecture WITH ANYONE, requires first and foremost that they be SECURE with themselves and OPEN-MINDED. 

If those two key traits are non-existent; then an argument will ensue OR no discussion will be had atall.

@WhatsOnTheARE

imbho i find argument pursues upon arrogance and nothing more. otherwise you can talk anyone about anything.

all human beings occupy space and engage w/ the built environment. that being said, we all have some sense or knowledge of architecture

To talk architecture WITH ANYONE, requires first and foremost that they be SECURE with themselves and OPEN-MINDED.

If those two key traits are non-existent; then an argument will ensue OR no discussion will be had atall.

Good post.  And the secure can be any type of architecture student, including ones who are not stars.  I think the ones who so desperately want to be stars and don't know where they stand among that identified handful at any given point in time can be insecure and insular.

I've also seen people who are in an intellectual fog of sorts who can't discuss architecture in practical terms and almost enjoy being sort of weird.

Design gets better with dialogue.  With many students adjacent to me, I heard the "looks good, keep going." 

I bring this up because the word dialogue is everywhere today, as in dialogue in schools, dialogue in professions, dialogue between social factions, dialogue between governments, and inter-faith dialogue seems to be on the marquees at churches, too, when it's a bunch of politically correct eyewash.  Dialogue is supposed to get things done, not just talk for the sake of talking.

my dad always told me its a poor worker who blames his tools! that being said a skilled communicator leads / directs one to explore, question or engage multiple thoughts ideas. as we know, we can diplomatically book end to agree to disagree w/ a plethora of conversation sandwiched! :)

Before Modern movements in art and architecture took hold at the beginning of last century, the discourse was about furthering and refining a shared body of knowledge and wisdom, passed from practitioner to practitioner.   Modernism has evolved into an approach to art where uniqueness and novelty were valued over shared wisdom and tradition.  This has led to there being a sort of "competitive advantage" to having the rationale behind one's work be obscure and impenetrable, in order to appear to be unique and sophisticated.  This means that beyond a certain point, transparent and accessible discourse is discouraged in the design press and academia.

This has led to there being a sort of "competitive advantage" to having the rationale behind one's work be obscure and impenetrable, in order to appear to be unique and sophisticated.  This means that beyond a certain point, transparent and accessible discourse is discouraged in the design press and academia.

I read your whole post, but this is especially important.  It's basically how so many people might try to achieve starchitect status by theories which are paper thin, pretentious, quirky, and sort of follow the adage "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."  Both historical work and modernist work can have inherent harmony and be pleasing to the senses, in an intangible way to those not trained in design, and in intangible and explainable ways to those who are.  Perhaps the design press and academia can discuss the "obscure and impenetrable" posthumously, either through putting their heads together or obtaining a deathbed confession.  At that point, it won't be helpful to the student and the practitioner, unless it's entertained as a revival of sorts.  Interesting analysis.  And I agree.  There is actually a lot of room to be creative within established patterns and vocabularies.   That's for the architect to rise to that task.

This is why among the current international modernists, I so appreciate a guy like Bjarke Ingels.  His discourse is so refreshingly transparent.  "Here's the problem, here's our point of view on it, here's how we solved it, and here's how people's lives are better for it."    His worldview is deeply optimistic, which is at a right-angle to most to most of the starchitect avant-garde.