Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
University of Southern California (USC)
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
Kansas State University
Competence vs. Genius in Architects
I'd like to share an idea regarding the limits of architecture's practitioners (especially the young). Opinions on this would be appreciated.
To begin, it is very clear to me that many (if not most) architectural schools today train their students with the expectation that the students are all geniuses. Although it may not be true for every architecture school, it certainly seems to be true for the most illustrious schools and many others. Design studio syllabi often look like they are authored by MENSA; design exercises taught in most schools seem to be created for people who exhibit unprecedented insight and brilliance, and many design professors even expect unprecedented insights from their students on a regular basis.
About geniuses: they are actually rare. They make up a small fraction of any given population (including architecture students). The majority of people are not geniuses, and instead are merely "competent" - not brilliant, but certainly capable of getting stuff done. This distribution of human intelligence is constant and unchanging.
Only 1-2 percent of practicing architects have the requisite "genius" to operate at the artistic level that our academia prepares them for. Many of them are famous and you all know their names. The other 98 percent fall into anonymity, presumably to work on a less artistic and more technical level - one that is ubiquitous, and is not taught in school.
So, why do we educate for such an extremely high standard of intelligence? Why don't we instead educate for the majority of students, who are merely competent? There's nothing wrong with competence - There are many competent professionals in other fields who do their work well without being "geniuses". Indeed, the gauntlet of office experience in architecture tends to favor competent individuals. The geniuses don't need to be catered to in school, especially at the expense of other (less intelligent, but certainly talented and competent) students - if they're truly geniuses, they'll blossom anyway.
By "genius" do you mean an egotistical maniac who cannot run their office well enough to be able to pay their interns? If so, there sure are a lot of these "geniuses" around.
One has no idea where the level of competence is drawn and catering to the wrong base level is doing everyone a disfavor, especially when these are academic settings and people pay good money in return for an education. It's a old problem in the education system from grade school onwards: how to balance the curriculum so that the fast learners don't get bored yet the slow ones can catch up.
Geniuses are rare in every field, but you don't water down the curriculum because some don't fit the mold of genius early in their life. If you had to teach science to be merely competent, don't expect as many breakthroughs anymore in the same timespan; don't expect quality of education to improve either. Most of these students regardless of major are what, kids who just turned eighteen and left their homes for the first time? They're lost, expected to have an identity crisis at around their drinking age, and then finally reach full maturation in their spongy brains at age 24. Geniuses are not easy to pinpoint and you yourself would find it difficult to spot intrinsic intelligence from someone who's simply good at memorizing and bragging. A genius can be that person who never talks or makes the weirdest damn things no one understands; a competent person could be that person who puts on a glib appearance in front of others. Perhaps you best define genius before we go on.
The current curriculum is not distinguishing between genius or lesser-being. The heads might sound pompous and full of hot air but at least everyone is getting the same type of lecture that should be expected of in higher education. You can push for that spark in everyone, not only reserve it for the elite. Teach to the brightest and the rest will catch up if they want to. Some will struggle, sure, but there are a lot more in the middle who just need a little push to excel.
Take the geniuses out and you'll still be teaching to the most competent persons. No real difference.
INTERESTING.........
How would a said be geniuses blossom? Do they blossom from competitions or just hired by a well established architect and establish connections and run a practice?
I have listened to countless lectures from zaha hidid ,frank gehry, Daniel libskind, architecture schools, AIA, csi, etc and out of them all Daniel is the only one who really give any insight to how someone blossoms to the infamous star architect and that is thru competitions. Also for the competent individuals is there role so inferior to the geniuses someone has to make the CD"S. I think even the geniuses have to know how to put together a set of plans or have some technical skill. Lastly, what is the best case scenario for someone who wins a competition do you have to keep winning to get to zaha's scale?
Only 1-2 percent of practicing architects have the requisite "genius" to operate at the artistic level that our academia prepares them for.
Sounds like surixurient > unsupportable subjective conjecture presented as factual data.
Depends on the definition of "genius" doesn't it? Ponte Fabricio, a bridge in Rome, has stood since 23 B.C.. Be interesting to see what the Roman engineers would think of today's famous architects.
"I have listened to countless lectures from zaha hidid ,frank gehry, Daniel libskind, architecture schools, AIA, csi, etc and out of them all Daniel is the only one who really give any insight to how someone blossoms to the infamous star architect and that is thru competitions."
Genius is different than extremely talented. Usually when dealing with the word genius, you think of some eccentric like say John Nash the mathematician who was brilliant but a bit of a recluse. Then again, math and science operate in their own worlds but it's the easiest example to work with: a genius there is something like Feynman or Einstein who redefines convention while others are technically innovative in the present like the guys who make all the materials breakthroughs and such. Technically superior (for the purpose of this example) and able to solve an engineering problem but if asked how they would redefine physics or whatever, they might not have any insight at all. Not to put down any of their intellectual attributes.
I don't know if there's much of a distinction in architecture but some people are merely good at making things look different. Guess we can put it as who is responsible for paradigm shifts and who isn't.
24 I think we are trying to stay in the realm of architect i don't know who those individuals that you named are except Albert of course, but i'll start taking a look at them. Do you have any thoughts on my other questions?
Your other question depends on the definition of genius meaning a person who wins competitions and is famous. Which I don't agree with and tried to show a different view.
Is Zaha necessarily a genius or just talented and seized the opportunity to be renowned? Is she doing something no one else can understand or even see or merely things most cannot achieve without experience and unique vision? Is Zaha reinventing anything on a large scale or is she simply defining what postmodernism/deconstructivism is? What we already have words for but no image, as opposed to an idea without any form of language to describe it.
I think most people get her singular look and new talents can overtake her current designs if prestige and fame influences were brushed aside. Your definition of genius to mean winning awards would have to be contextually and chronologically limited--Zaha could be considered brilliant decades ago but today said to not be pushing the boundaries. Do traits of a genius dissipate over time?
I see where your coming from.
I think educating so as to make the student stretch their mind and capabilities is absolutely necessary. My concern is that, in typical US architecture programs today, we don't concurrently also teach competence.
It would be extremely challenging, though, to come up with a definition of 'competence' that would meet everyone's agreement. The registration exam covers some of it, but very surface-level.
Of course my problem has always been one of motivation; it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.
Never confuse stupid bullshit with genius or high IQ. Your success as a professional has a lot to do with the first and almost nothing to do with the last two.
"Genius"
"Competence"
I'll take competence
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.