I thought about this while in school. Do people's design skills improve across the span of an education? Do they improve markedly, improve minimally, or remain flat? What do you think contributes to this? Also, once in practice, do design skills continue to improve, even if one's work is blended, meaning design and production? By osmosis from the office, from travel, or from literature? Sometimes, the light bulb lights up rapidly. Other times, less so. Also, how does one venture into new design vocabularies and vernaculars? What do you think?
but seriously, I think some design skills can be learnt, but that innate ability to create beautiful work that moves, that intuition which guides you and the decisions you make cannot, that which tells you what will work and what won't, cannot be learnt as easily as reading a book. It takes a lifetime to develop and a lot depends on your childhood. I mean, I know friends and family who just doesn't understand art or good design.
Naturally, it depends on what you mean by "design skills". Certainly, some aspects of design, such as shaping and sloping a roof so that it can be reliably waterproofed, are the product of knowledge and experience. IMO, other aspects of design, such as shaping a space so that it has pleasing proportions, seem more the product of innate ability and sensitivity -- an inherently strong designer may improve such skills to some degree through practice and maturity; an inherently weak designer may never get it right.
That's ridiculous.
Anyone can learn to design and yes you get better. Unless you are somehow saying your first year undergrad design is no more sophisticated than what you would do now ?
"Innate ability" is an excuse to not be honest with yourself. Better to be lucky.
access: most people are between the extremes of "no innate" and Mozarts upon entering a-school. Once out of the 1st year accelerated studio sequence, I would say I thought about 25% to 30% of the work of fellow studio classmates was better than mine, in my opinion. So, no prizes or extra scoop of ice cream for me, but I know what you mean.
stone: I didn't touch on that - I meant aesthetic ability throughout the entire project more so than the technical proficiency in designing one major system, such as the envelope or the roof.
If one didn't improve (either technically or in terms of expressing an idea, or spatially, etc) then we'd all be living in houses that looked and functioned as if they were designed by infants. I mean, it happens, but you get the idea.
btw 'design skill' is subjective. There are those who over-inflated egos who design crap but think they're God, while there are people who do amazing work but are always uncertain about what they do and constantly question themselves :)
it's a bit of a stretch to say ANYONE can learn design skills; that's simply not true. everyone has different talents, and some of those talents involve no creative/spatial/design thinking. that's like saying anyone can play lineman on a football team.. sure, they technically could, but it doesn't mean they should or can perform the task with any amount of success.
however, I agree in general that having a basic understanding is not difficult, and there is room to grow. but for some, those skills come naturally, therefore the learning curve is much less.
I think there needs to be a baseline of ability and aptitude. If you weren't drawing as a kid, I sort of question a person who decides to go into architecture as a last minute decision.
As for the analogies, there are many ways to exhibit talent in writing. However, someone whose true talent is in technical writing probably won't make a good journalist. They don't seem to be able to paint a picture or evoke emotions with words. On the other hand, the journalistic style of professional auto reviewers in the trade magazines makes reading their reviews a pleasure, and puts you in the driver's seat!
Ditto with architects, or designers, and their abilities and impact.
would you not say that the term "design skill" is rather unsound? yes, there are skills involved but designing is as much dependent on education, reasoning, intuition (the intrinsic extrinsicality) and so on.
while education and the technical skills (drawing, structural and constructional application...etc) are more or less linear in development, i believe that reasoning and-even more so- intuition tap into the fundamental make-up of the individual.
back at school, there were a couple of students (lets say group A) who, starting from the first year, excelled at pretty much everything, including design. it was obvious that they were mentally and skilfully attuned to taking up this role. at the end of the third year, the very best projects that exhibited originality and a mature individuality were by another set of students (say group B), a set of characters that brought to the table far more than technical proficiency. by comparison, the third-year work churned out by the generically excellent students aforementioned was well thought out, ticks all the right grading boxes...but it lacked originality, individuality and resonance. it was, in my opinion, rather boring and uninspired, lots of energy but little expression...there was even tinge of literality in their work. by comparison, i remember one boy's design (from group B), based on a terse assembly of a few lines/ planes, some straight and some curvilinear that was quite beautiful and 'betrayed' an innate sense of how to put things together in an unexpected and quite beautiful way.
is that something that is taught? no, i don't think so. if design is the sea waves, i think visual education gives you the sea but the wind is all yours.
jla-x: Just how many literary masterpieces can you cite that are written with bad grammar?
Judging a building based on facade is like judging a vocalist based on wardrobe. In the case of architecture, if it's not technically competent it's a failure no matter what it looks like. Performance is critical and too often overlooked.
Steven: It's not subjective, it's an accurate observation. But it also depends how you define technically competent. For me that would include human factors and the functionality of a building with regard to it's program and use.
They must, reflecting on FLW's Winslow House of 1893 in Oak Park, IL, sitting under one hip roof volume, compared to what he was doing several decades later, such as Fallingwater et. al.
Jun 10, 13 5:31 pm ·
·
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.
Design skills - do they improve over time?
I thought about this while in school. Do people's design skills improve across the span of an education? Do they improve markedly, improve minimally, or remain flat? What do you think contributes to this? Also, once in practice, do design skills continue to improve, even if one's work is blended, meaning design and production? By osmosis from the office, from travel, or from literature? Sometimes, the light bulb lights up rapidly. Other times, less so. Also, how does one venture into new design vocabularies and vernaculars? What do you think?
No. You either have it or don't.
Quit now.
but seriously, I think some design skills can be learnt, but that innate ability to create beautiful work that moves, that intuition which guides you and the decisions you make cannot, that which tells you what will work and what won't, cannot be learnt as easily as reading a book. It takes a lifetime to develop and a lot depends on your childhood. I mean, I know friends and family who just doesn't understand art or good design.
Naturally, it depends on what you mean by "design skills". Certainly, some aspects of design, such as shaping and sloping a roof so that it can be reliably waterproofed, are the product of knowledge and experience. IMO, other aspects of design, such as shaping a space so that it has pleasing proportions, seem more the product of innate ability and sensitivity -- an inherently strong designer may improve such skills to some degree through practice and maturity; an inherently weak designer may never get it right.
Anyone can learn to design and yes you get better. Unless you are somehow saying your first year undergrad design is no more sophisticated than what you would do now ?
"Innate ability" is an excuse to not be honest with yourself. Better to be lucky.
access: most people are between the extremes of "no innate" and Mozarts upon entering a-school. Once out of the 1st year accelerated studio sequence, I would say I thought about 25% to 30% of the work of fellow studio classmates was better than mine, in my opinion. So, no prizes or extra scoop of ice cream for me, but I know what you mean.
stone: I didn't touch on that - I meant aesthetic ability throughout the entire project more so than the technical proficiency in designing one major system, such as the envelope or the roof.
Yes, design skills improve continuously with age, so long as you are exercising them continuously.
If one didn't improve (either technically or in terms of expressing an idea, or spatially, etc) then we'd all be living in houses that looked and functioned as if they were designed by infants. I mean, it happens, but you get the idea.
btw 'design skill' is subjective. There are those who over-inflated egos who design crap but think they're God, while there are people who do amazing work but are always uncertain about what they do and constantly question themselves :)
^ A fundamental component of good design skills is technical competence. I'd rate that far higher than aesthetics, which are largely subjective.
Not caring about design can grow over time, making the question of design ability less relevant. We see the results every day.
judging a building based on technical competence is like judging a book on grammar.
@ will
it's a bit of a stretch to say ANYONE can learn design skills; that's simply not true. everyone has different talents, and some of those talents involve no creative/spatial/design thinking. that's like saying anyone can play lineman on a football team.. sure, they technically could, but it doesn't mean they should or can perform the task with any amount of success.
however, I agree in general that having a basic understanding is not difficult, and there is room to grow. but for some, those skills come naturally, therefore the learning curve is much less.
I think there needs to be a baseline of ability and aptitude. If you weren't drawing as a kid, I sort of question a person who decides to go into architecture as a last minute decision.
As for the analogies, there are many ways to exhibit talent in writing. However, someone whose true talent is in technical writing probably won't make a good journalist. They don't seem to be able to paint a picture or evoke emotions with words. On the other hand, the journalistic style of professional auto reviewers in the trade magazines makes reading their reviews a pleasure, and puts you in the driver's seat!
Ditto with architects, or designers, and their abilities and impact.
would you not say that the term "design skill" is rather unsound? yes, there are skills involved but designing is as much dependent on education, reasoning, intuition (the intrinsic extrinsicality) and so on.
while education and the technical skills (drawing, structural and constructional application...etc) are more or less linear in development, i believe that reasoning and-even more so- intuition tap into the fundamental make-up of the individual.
back at school, there were a couple of students (lets say group A) who, starting from the first year, excelled at pretty much everything, including design. it was obvious that they were mentally and skilfully attuned to taking up this role. at the end of the third year, the very best projects that exhibited originality and a mature individuality were by another set of students (say group B), a set of characters that brought to the table far more than technical proficiency. by comparison, the third-year work churned out by the generically excellent students aforementioned was well thought out, ticks all the right grading boxes...but it lacked originality, individuality and resonance. it was, in my opinion, rather boring and uninspired, lots of energy but little expression...there was even tinge of literality in their work. by comparison, i remember one boy's design (from group B), based on a terse assembly of a few lines/ planes, some straight and some curvilinear that was quite beautiful and 'betrayed' an innate sense of how to put things together in an unexpected and quite beautiful way.
is that something that is taught? no, i don't think so. if design is the sea waves, i think visual education gives you the sea but the wind is all yours.
I have seen the sea waves....like I have seen the alien beings so I know it is real...
J.R. Bob Dobbs.
This one is for Donna....you ever hang at Bob Dobbs...?
jla-x: Just how many literary masterpieces can you cite that are written with bad grammar?
Judging a building based on facade is like judging a vocalist based on wardrobe. In the case of architecture, if it's not technically competent it's a failure no matter what it looks like. Performance is critical and too often overlooked.
Steven: It's not subjective, it's an accurate observation. But it also depends how you define technically competent. For me that would include human factors and the functionality of a building with regard to it's program and use.
huh?
does naked lunch count as bad grammar?
cuz we all know its a masterpiece.
They are rebuilding the City
Yes . . . Always
They must, reflecting on FLW's Winslow House of 1893 in Oak Park, IL, sitting under one hip roof volume, compared to what he was doing several decades later, such as Fallingwater et. al.
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.