Okay, I used Google. Not much of anything came up.
Are there any schools in the US that offer a M'Arch. in a school primarily focused around a Beaux Arts education? I decided yesterday that this is what I want to do.
I'm not thinking there is any in the U.S.-- Will I pretty much have to go to France?
It's always prevented me from going to art school other than the three years I spent in Art History. That and I draw like a two year old.
The student work seems stale (sorry!) but it doesn't seem exciting.
Miami seems okay but I cannot live in Florida anymore. I might be able to do Gainesville but I''m kind of happy salt water intrusion is happening so rapidly.
Plus, Miami's style is kind of hit or miss to me. I guess it is closer to what I would like to do but I have a weird personal style.
I did this little sketch a little while back for a 16 hour speed competition with a few friends in recreating a planning situation from classical Rome transposed to today.
ok, here's the thing: you want a school that teaches in a stale method, that doesn't produce stale work. I honestly don't think you can find it: too much of a contradiction. What about the beaux arts style is it that attracts you? Maybe if you can identify was the core of that desire is, you can find somewhere less stale that can offer you that within a more progressive overall educational model.
there isnt a place for neoclassicism in contemporary architecture. if that's what interest you then take arch history. we can learn from tradition but we cannot imitate it.
also- youre going to need to learn how to draw in order to become an architect.
I like classical architecture. I do not like however the inability to be imaginative with it. I suppose the imaginative part comes from what you glue onto a classical building and not so much the actual building. But, living in Florida, University of Miami's architecture hits far to close to home. Notre Dame's... well it looks like they just don't challenge the students enough to go crazy.
I loathe contemporary, deconstructionist and modernist architecture. There is some I like but I don't typically find few buildings I'd write home about.
I, more or less, feel like I'd be weirdly out of place going to one of the other contemporary schools. I guess I could probably get by but I just don't want to imitate recent styles when there's so many other more interesting styles to imitate.
See (via publications and online) who's doing interesting work that you admire. Then contact them and ask what they'd suggest, both for schooling and career path.
thats kinda hard to do when the architects you admire are no longer living.
im sorry but architecture IS about the building.. not what you glue onto it. to talk about style is unproductive for it negates good design. architecture is about so much more than just 'style' and imitation should have no place in the conception of building.
Yeah but what you glue onto it is the representation of the culture that goes on in the inside.
It would be like asking Koolhaus to design a shinto shrine while respecting the culture. Could it be done? Probably. Would it actually match up with the history and culture? Would his contemporary spaces be acceptable to shintoist traditions?
i fail to see how adornment or style is the only way to reflect a culture and its history. it's how the spaces are used and who is using it that makes a building speak. you can articulate that further with materials indigenous to the area and so forth, but striving toward the future should never be a thing to frown upon, as long as you respect what came before.
architecture will always be a progressive thing. it must be.
"i fail to see how adornment or style is the only way to reflect a culture and its history."
Symbolism is kind of important.
A space can't be used in the way it you want it to be used unless you tell people.
I'm sure if you designed an unconventional bathroom, didn't put a sign on it and left it that way... someone would eventually figure out that space is suppose to be a restroom. Although, in the mean time.. your gardner would be pretty pissed.
Most churches can only really be identified by what kind of cross is on the building. If you removed the crosses from a building... you'd have a hard time separating a Baptist church from an from a Pentecostal or Episcopalian church or an Orthodox Church from a Catholic church.
i think you should contact bob venturi. bob stern may have some good ideas as well, but he may be a little abstract for your taste, too spatially oriented.
in a more contemporary vein (i know anathema), fat architecture may be more your style.
how those offices translate into an education? you're on your own.
as a georgia tech alum it pains me to mention this, but they offer an M.S. in Classical Design... if I remember correctly, someone gave them a bunch of money to start the program a few years ago... however, keep in mind that an M.S. is not a professional degree, so you'd still need an M.Arch. in order to get your license... Betty Dowling runs the program... try contacting her... even if you decide GaTech's not for you, she may be able to point you in the right direction...
How can you aspire to complete a Beaux Arts education and yet you don't want to have to draw? These two things are mutually incompatible.
And, it doesn't sound like you really want to take a design program... it sounds more like you want to take arch. history classes while learning how to build, perhaps through apprenticeship. The point of a design education is to learn how to design spaces for people to inhabit, not how to apply specific, historically-used ornament and how to mimic previously-built styles. There are catalogues and vast amounts of research of such topics... why not pore over them and teach yourself? What could you learn at a school that would come close to that?
It's not that I don't want to draw, it's that I can't really draw?
I understand the whole designing places for people to inhabit... but that's not necessarily a universal construct. So, I'm not entirely sure how a design-oriented course can teach you all you need to know about how to make places "habitable." I think vernacular architecture and the "sissy" beaux-arts stuff is actually more objective since it's based off of volumes of folklore and cultural reference than making some "house with space and views."
It's not that I can't do it myself... it's that I need a Master's degree to even get a job to get a job. And I'd waste time and money to do something other than make cheesy graphics on design concepts that couldn't even fit into a practical scientific methodology to be proven or disproved.
why doncha read Element et Theories de l'architecture. composition proportion building type analysis. the essential qualities of classicism nothing wrong with that.
If you can justify your design and your reasoning well enough, you can succeed at any architecture school. You don't need to imitate the latest trends for your work to have value. However, if you plan to refute contemporary discourse, you need to really know what it's about instead of dismissing it as bullshit.
Cultural reference and folklore make something objective? I think a serious self-evaluation of one's own needs, terms, and assumptions is in order.
For example, what in particular makes your above sketch anything other than modern? Was Louis Kahn modern?
Louis Kahn is a prime example of being both a product of modernity and a Beaux-arts education. So, ask yourself what's Beaux-arts about it. Read Drexler's book / catalogue of the 70's MoMA BA show.
And what about Venturi's ideas about architecture doesn't do it for you? Seems right up your alley.
Shaky hands is no excuse not to draw, frankly. Its not like drafting is freehand drawing anyway. And the assumption that the qualty of the 'typical' beaux arts drawing can only be achieved by hand is ridiculous. You could layer photoshop transparent tones on perfectly projected shadows from an autocad drawing all day if you wanted to.
If thats what you really wanted to do.
@ fays.panda... i totally agree... the classicism program being at GT is totally bizarre... but that's what happens when someone gives millions of dollars to an architecture program and says that you must do this in return...
hillandrock, if you think you want to do architecture, you're going to need to approach it with a much more open mind, because you have a lot of misconceptions about what classical architecture is and how it works.
I suspect that you might prefer an art history course, or possible a preservation architecture course.
May 8, 09 5:30 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.
LAME SCHOOL QUESTION (Beaux Arts Edu.)
Okay, I used Google. Not much of anything came up.
Are there any schools in the US that offer a M'Arch. in a school primarily focused around a Beaux Arts education? I decided yesterday that this is what I want to do.
I'm not thinking there is any in the U.S.-- Will I pretty much have to go to France?
The Ecole des Beaux Arts has not offered a "Beaux Arts" education since 1968.
Really? So there's not really a place to get an education in classical architecture anymore?
notre dame
What about University of Miami? Not "classical," but certainly traditional.
Notre Dame is nice but I have shaky hands.
It's always prevented me from going to art school other than the three years I spent in Art History. That and I draw like a two year old.
The student work seems stale (sorry!) but it doesn't seem exciting.
Miami seems okay but I cannot live in Florida anymore. I might be able to do Gainesville but I''m kind of happy salt water intrusion is happening so rapidly.
Plus, Miami's style is kind of hit or miss to me. I guess it is closer to what I would like to do but I have a weird personal style.
http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww124/hampshiresire/AutoSave_romanblockfinaliso-1.jpg size=415>
I did this little sketch a little while back for a 16 hour speed competition with a few friends in recreating a planning situation from classical Rome transposed to today.
http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww124/hampshiresire/AutoSave_romanblockfinaliso-1.jpg
[url=http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww124/hampshiresire/AutoSave_romanblockfinaliso-1.jpg]Full size[/img]
WHAT THE SHIZ?
http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww124/hampshiresire/AutoSave_romanblockfinaliso-1.jpg OH WELL CLICK IT
ok, here's the thing: you want a school that teaches in a stale method, that doesn't produce stale work. I honestly don't think you can find it: too much of a contradiction. What about the beaux arts style is it that attracts you? Maybe if you can identify was the core of that desire is, you can find somewhere less stale that can offer you that within a more progressive overall educational model.
there isnt a place for neoclassicism in contemporary architecture. if that's what interest you then take arch history. we can learn from tradition but we cannot imitate it.
also- youre going to need to learn how to draw in order to become an architect.
I like classical architecture. I do not like however the inability to be imaginative with it. I suppose the imaginative part comes from what you glue onto a classical building and not so much the actual building. But, living in Florida, University of Miami's architecture hits far to close to home. Notre Dame's... well it looks like they just don't challenge the students enough to go crazy.
I loathe contemporary, deconstructionist and modernist architecture. There is some I like but I don't typically find few buildings I'd write home about.
I, more or less, feel like I'd be weirdly out of place going to one of the other contemporary schools. I guess I could probably get by but I just don't want to imitate recent styles when there's so many other more interesting styles to imitate.
An old-school suggestion, so to speak:
See (via publications and online) who's doing interesting work that you admire. Then contact them and ask what they'd suggest, both for schooling and career path.
thats kinda hard to do when the architects you admire are no longer living.
im sorry but architecture IS about the building.. not what you glue onto it. to talk about style is unproductive for it negates good design. architecture is about so much more than just 'style' and imitation should have no place in the conception of building.
Yeah but what you glue onto it is the representation of the culture that goes on in the inside.
It would be like asking Koolhaus to design a shinto shrine while respecting the culture. Could it be done? Probably. Would it actually match up with the history and culture? Would his contemporary spaces be acceptable to shintoist traditions?
Dance floors are square for a reason.
i fail to see how adornment or style is the only way to reflect a culture and its history. it's how the spaces are used and who is using it that makes a building speak. you can articulate that further with materials indigenous to the area and so forth, but striving toward the future should never be a thing to frown upon, as long as you respect what came before.
architecture will always be a progressive thing. it must be.
"i fail to see how adornment or style is the only way to reflect a culture and its history."
Symbolism is kind of important.
A space can't be used in the way it you want it to be used unless you tell people.
I'm sure if you designed an unconventional bathroom, didn't put a sign on it and left it that way... someone would eventually figure out that space is suppose to be a restroom. Although, in the mean time.. your gardner would be pretty pissed.
Most churches can only really be identified by what kind of cross is on the building. If you removed the crosses from a building... you'd have a hard time separating a Baptist church from an from a Pentecostal or Episcopalian church or an Orthodox Church from a Catholic church.
"Knock and it shall be opened to you."
i think you should contact bob venturi. bob stern may have some good ideas as well, but he may be a little abstract for your taste, too spatially oriented.
in a more contemporary vein (i know anathema), fat architecture may be more your style.
how those offices translate into an education? you're on your own.
maybe what you really need is a historic preservation program?
as a georgia tech alum it pains me to mention this, but they offer an M.S. in Classical Design... if I remember correctly, someone gave them a bunch of money to start the program a few years ago... however, keep in mind that an M.S. is not a professional degree, so you'd still need an M.Arch. in order to get your license... Betty Dowling runs the program... try contacting her... even if you decide GaTech's not for you, she may be able to point you in the right direction...
you might also try contacting witold rybczynski at upenn...
but i'm pretty sure that everyone will point you towards notre dame... it really is the best/only school really doing classical type stuff...
also, by the way, according to witold, you can make a ton of money doing this stuff.
How can you aspire to complete a Beaux Arts education and yet you don't want to have to draw? These two things are mutually incompatible.
And, it doesn't sound like you really want to take a design program... it sounds more like you want to take arch. history classes while learning how to build, perhaps through apprenticeship. The point of a design education is to learn how to design spaces for people to inhabit, not how to apply specific, historically-used ornament and how to mimic previously-built styles. There are catalogues and vast amounts of research of such topics... why not pore over them and teach yourself? What could you learn at a school that would come close to that?
It's not that I don't want to draw, it's that I can't really draw?
I understand the whole designing places for people to inhabit... but that's not necessarily a universal construct. So, I'm not entirely sure how a design-oriented course can teach you all you need to know about how to make places "habitable." I think vernacular architecture and the "sissy" beaux-arts stuff is actually more objective since it's based off of volumes of folklore and cultural reference than making some "house with space and views."
It's not that I can't do it myself... it's that I need a Master's degree to even get a job to get a job. And I'd waste time and money to do something other than make cheesy graphics on design concepts that couldn't even fit into a practical scientific methodology to be proven or disproved.
the ladies come and go
dreamin of fypon palladio.
why doncha read Element et Theories de l'architecture. composition proportion building type analysis. the essential qualities of classicism nothing wrong with that.
If you can justify your design and your reasoning well enough, you can succeed at any architecture school. You don't need to imitate the latest trends for your work to have value. However, if you plan to refute contemporary discourse, you need to really know what it's about instead of dismissing it as bullshit.
Cultural reference and folklore make something objective? I think a serious self-evaluation of one's own needs, terms, and assumptions is in order.
For example, what in particular makes your above sketch anything other than modern? Was Louis Kahn modern?
Louis Kahn is a prime example of being both a product of modernity and a Beaux-arts education. So, ask yourself what's Beaux-arts about it. Read Drexler's book / catalogue of the 70's MoMA BA show.
And what about Venturi's ideas about architecture doesn't do it for you? Seems right up your alley.
Shaky hands is no excuse not to draw, frankly. Its not like drafting is freehand drawing anyway. And the assumption that the qualty of the 'typical' beaux arts drawing can only be achieved by hand is ridiculous. You could layer photoshop transparent tones on perfectly projected shadows from an autocad drawing all day if you wanted to.
If thats what you really wanted to do.
@ fays.panda... i totally agree... the classicism program being at GT is totally bizarre... but that's what happens when someone gives millions of dollars to an architecture program and says that you must do this in return...
hillandrock, if you think you want to do architecture, you're going to need to approach it with a much more open mind, because you have a lot of misconceptions about what classical architecture is and how it works.
I suspect that you might prefer an art history course, or possible a preservation architecture course.
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.