Your teacher has fooled you. What he said only happens Sunday evenings for 15 minutes!

First year always sucks. Depends on the school, but - you should have stuck it out, imo.

hey, what you think is creative and fun might be very boring in the long run.
stick with the 45 degree angle at 1mm intervals for a while and see if you can create with those.

You should find out where that 'lesson' led. My guess is that was either #1 meant to drive you insane, but also lead to a productive process or #2 weed out those not willing to sell their soul (which it did).

First year is brutal, they'll weed out the less devoted, in my first year probably 50% dropped in the first semester, most in the first few weeks.


BUT also be aware that graphic design is a great profession. Pretty easy school (downright easy, comparatively), better working conditions later on and better pay.

Architecture is only partially 'fun' and projects are long, require focus and ongoing testing, etc., etc.
With graphic design, projects move quickly, have less of a process, etc. Much due to their timeframe, they tend to be more 'fun'.


My education is in architecture, but most of my business is graphics (web/3D/graphic/motion). I love both and find both very rewarding.


How much time do you have left in school? If it is not too long, I'd suggest finishing, learn some 3D, read some arch babble and apply for a MArch I.

But look around, I know of no one that had any idea what the profession would really be like, and that's the profession, school was 'fun' compared to what you do from day to day. Go talk to some architects, talk to some graphic designers, ask about their hours, pay, how much they enjoy what they do. Graphic artists tend to take things more whimsically, but their work is just as important to our 'real' world.

First year arch programs tend to be based on a weed-out system. It's the sad truth... Having you do mundane tasks like that is the school's way of trying to get those who aren't really truly interested in what lays beyond to drop. In my school, it was using five different line weight pens to create gradients on pages. It was the most tedious thing I've ever done; draw a line, put the pen down, move the ruler, pick up the next smallest pen, draw the next line, repeat. They label it as 'practice' and 'training' but at the end of the day its tedium.

trace beat me to it. Touche.

Murcutt probably would tell you that those apparently banal exercises are meant to make you learn how to 'sense space' (maybe not in your first year but later on...)

we had to do it on cold-press watercolor paper, but that was just an exercise to get us to really control the pen.

actually, since this was in grad school, i kind of enjoyed the forced zen of the whole thing. it was a nice one-hour mental vacation.

You got duped. Get back into the game, take control of your work and education, and don't sweat the small stuff. Academia is filled with politics, bullshit, and big egos by professors who think what they're teaching you is the word of the Lord. But it's also filled with thought-provoking, intelligent, and inspiring professors. Decide who you want to be inspired by and go with it.

The professors always do that. They trick the students like this and get the ones that are not serious about the program out of the program! If you like it and knew what you wanted, should have stuck with it!

finish out the graphic design degree, travel as much as you can, then try get some work in an architecture firm for a bit (i know, i know economy blah blah) to get a feel for if you would like it. after all that you still want to be an architect, apply to m.arch programs. i heard university of melbourne is starting an m.arch program next year that doesn't require a professional undergrad degree.

i wanted to be an architect but was intimidated by the workload and did an industrial design degree right out of high school. i graduated then wanted nothing to do with the field. 8 years later and i'm headed to an m.arch program this fall. bottom line is you're young and have plenty of time to decide what you want to do, so don't rush it.

This has to be a joke though, right? What school will ask students to hand draft for 5 years? Either the teacher was joking/exaggerating or the OP is joking/exaggerating right?

Did you really quit architecture because of some random comment by a teacher? Maybe you really didn't like the process of architectural representation although you would hardly know that in first year. I'll tell you what though, its definitely not all about "ruling lines, angles and precision" in terms of technique. Thats just how you represent the design, but thats the thing, its not only about how you represent it its also WHAT you are representing.

That is probably the biggest difference between architecture and other visual/graphical fields, regardless of amount of creativity (it will depend on what kind of creativity and what firm you work at).

A long time ago I remember a lecture by a movie special effects guy (who was trained in architecture) who said the he liked the fact that a mistake on his part didn't matter as long as it looked correct. You can't get away with that in the architecture field if you're trying to get things built.

One of my best friends from school quit architecture after the first year. He doesn't regret it, and in the end it might be good that he did. But he did do it for all the wrong reasons and thats a shame.

It's probably a good idea you quit when you did. Less than 1% of architecture actually does the creative, though provoking design you and so many others are interested in doing. Most of your life is spent doing tedious and boring shit, much like your 45 degree angle at 1mm intervals exercise. The whole professional is a myth and terribly over-rated.

"This has to be a joke though, right? What school will ask students to hand draft for 5 years?"

Um, many schools. My undergrad was entirely hand-drafting and taught zero CAD courses. We were forbidden to use CAD for presentations. So there's that.

All in all I wished I had gone to school for Graphic Design.

"Um, many schools. My undergrad was entirely hand-drafting and taught zero CAD courses. We were forbidden to use CAD for presentations. So there's that."

Obviously I can't know how every school works, but I would think these kinds of schools would be the minority. I'm sorry, but there is no way this is normal. Thats like structural engineering schools only allowing hand calculations. Did you go to Notre Dame by any chance?

"Less than 1% of architecture actually does the creative"

I don't agree with the random and arbitrary 1% figure especially if your idea of creativity includes the non-formal.

Sorry dude, but specification writing, shop drawings and developer designed, contractor approved stucco CMU boxes just don't really do it for me.

I'm going to get crap for this...

But I would even gamble to say that architecture is now a subset of graphic design. If you really think about it, architects mostly only produce the visual medium to how things are made. The exception being design-build or one-stop-shop developers.

Aside from a handful of schools, I don't think architects get the comprehensive legal/political (public administration), art/history (humanities) or scientific (chemistry, biology, environmental science) education to move past this.

Now some people, given the right school, can elect to take these things on their own. But if you go to a school like RISD, these options aren't even available.

I don't agree with poop or FP. I think the professor was probably trying to teach you something legitimate and probably trying to condition you. But I find it rather distasteful for a professor employing a method to make his paycheck smaller.

The reason I would say this is the only reason to be drawing hatch lines would be purely stylistic... meaning the lines should have corresponded to something. If schools are letting professors punish students with style over function, then I have absolutely no faith in architecture.

If I was a professor teaching students the fundamentals of line drawing, I would have had them copy USGS topographical line maps of the Wyoming Badlands.



Form, function and technique!

Wait, wouldn't that assignment make me more of a dick?

I've done my share of specs, shop dwgs, and non-inspiring work, but I've been able to do other work as well. If thats all you're doing, that would be a problem. But something I assume you can control at least somewhat. I've personally had to ask for better work, more involvment, etc.

Morse code dude, you shouldn't expect to go in one day and they'll say "I want you to design a creative building, for this creative client with a creative budget." Most if not all of my opportunities for creativity I've had to make myself.

In any case, back to topic. Why do I get the feeling that "ilovebauhaus" was in a bad architecture program to begin with. Not that graphic design would be wrong for him/her ultimately, but like my friend's experience, I wouldn't want to give up on the career path just because of one teacher or one bad experience. For every bleak outlook on the career (see above), I've met plenty of inspiring people (and their experiences) that keep me in this profession.

And "architecture is now a subset of graphic design"? That is pretty funny.

What do you produce Slartibartfast as an architect? What does your firm sell?

Information in a visual medium.

Following that logic, almost every other profession in the world other than good old physical labor would fall under : public speaker, mathmatician, writer, graphic design (4 prominent mediums: oral, numbers, written, visual) Since when are professions defined solely by the medium of their work? And can we clear up the fact that "graphic design" is a pretty specific field of work that doesn't encompass all graphic communication in the world? Note that we can use that same logic for "architecture"; "architecture" being capable of encompassing the general sense of how things come together.

Its tough to really know what you want to do with your life at 17. I went to two schools before graduating with a degree in Industrial Design. I would say get your bfa in graphic design and then go to get your m.arch.

I went printmaking --> graphic design --> industrial design --> architecture.

Don't regret any of it. Get out there and explore. Even if you don't ever get there, chances are you'll have a blast doing it.

well thankfully I was recently laid off as the only creative opportunity at my previous office was figuring out an excuse to leave early or come in late.

you might have more fun outside of architecture...

or not at all?

Can I ask what arch school in Australia is getting you to do hand draughting of this type and frequency?

I just finished the first studio series and yes, hand drawing lines for EVER seems irrelevant and boring. It sucks, but I feel like we learned an appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of lines, which later can develop into digital stuff.
I also had a conceited douche instructor, but he isn't the only person in the department (I changed sections).
Trying to answer your question, I am not very experienced "architecturally" per say, but I feel that architecture has a very long learning curve. It takes min. 5 years education + 3 years internship in the U.S. to technically be an "architect". And so, the creative part comes after that, I think. There are just lots of skills, conventions, and expectations frontloaded. Especially in the weed-out atmosphere of first year studio.

if you plan to be creative after you get license it will be too late.

our first year dwg studio had a bit of drafting, but mostly was defined by painting and dwg live nude models and still-lifes, with beginning of program starting on an island retreat called sketch-camp. we would spend half a week or so camping out and drawing every day, learned to do watercolors, that sort of thing. we never did repetition type stuff as i recall. or it was not a focus anyway....

can't imagine a school that would suggest anything like dwg lines everyday was part of bing a real architect. must be one of those teachers who never worked in office before and doesn't have license....?

Sounds like someone watched Karate Kid too many times.

"wax on wax off"

Sorry if I seemed like architecture school is boring repetition (above). Jump is right on that note. I guess what I wanted to express is that one can't enter the first studio expecting they are going do something like what Frank Gehry or some other household-architect's-name does; I see the basics (like drawing straight lines for a quarter, but doing interesting things with it) as an important thing to build upon for later.

"can't imagine a school that would suggest anything like dwg lines everyday was part of bing a real architect. must be one of those teachers who never worked in office before and doesn't have license....?"

i think schools should focus more on detailing and building than being all 'theoretical'.... graduates get a rude awakening once they hit the office life

"It's probably a good idea you quit when you did. Less than 1% of architecture actually does the creative, though provoking design you and so many others are interested in doing. Most of your life is spent doing tedious and boring shit, much like your 45 degree angle at 1mm intervals exercise."

This is exactly the kind of vibe I got from my arch school which pushed me to change back to GD.

"our first year dwg studio had a bit of drafting, but mostly was defined by painting and dwg live nude models and still-lifes, with beginning of program starting on an island retreat called sketch-camp. we would spend half a week or so camping out and drawing every day, learned to do watercolors, that sort of thing. we never did repetition type stuff as i recall. or it was not a focus anyway...."

I was under the false assumption that my school would be like this too. Instead we had 1 class hand drafting 1 class CAD and one class theory. Nothing I found to exciting or stimulating. Interestingly, in my first semester of GD we did exactly what you have described with the life drawing and sketch-camp.

"Can I ask what arch school in Australia is getting you to do hand draughting of this type and frequency?"

UQ. I am thinking the program was just not a great fit for me at all. I was actually initially going to USyd which allows you to undertake art studio electives along with your architecture degree (which excited me greatly) but in the end I couldn't afford the college board and decided to stay local.

It would be great if in Australia, like the US, you could undertake a M.Arch without an undergrad arch degree. I think I'd probably go own that route after my GD degree to experience the best of both worlds. Unfortunately here you are required to have done the 3 year B.Arch and a year's industry work to apply for the M.Arch.

Orachi, why do you think chemistry/biology are useful? This is something I've always wondered about after first seeing them as required courses for an architecture program. I can understand (and agree) that a good base of legal, political, commerce, environmental science, art history and pretty much a simple understanding of most things can be important, and I see slight benefit to understanding the simple function of organisms, etc. but I can't comprehend why it merits being as prevalent as it is in architectural discussion.
Thanks.

bauhaus did you not read my post? next year university of melbourne is apparently starting a professional m.arch degree.

Oh really? Sorry I missed it! I'll check out their website for info thanks maxpower.

And thanks for your words of wisdom. I am only 18... plenty of time to figure this life thing out. I think i'll definitely finish the GD degree first and go from there.

i don't know if it's up there yet, i heard it from someone who was faculty.

but yeah, finish up and travel. you don't know where you could be in a few years. i graduated from QUT and am now attending a US school. just roll with it and see what happens.

80 grit, while i understand the point of view, there is frankly not a way to teach a student to deal with the real world apart from sending them out into it. for about 5 years (and not doing construction either)

much better to teach theory and how to think and ask questions than worry about whether something is easily buildable or not. since we are talking australia the obvious example that comes to mind is utzon's opera in sydney. that kind of project can't come from a person who doesn't understand theory (even the structure comes from strong grounding in theory).

i guess for me theory is holistic and difficult, while detailing is a kind of specific knowledge, not exactly easy, but not hard either. the best engineers i work with treat design and construction as large system type of problem first and then work out the details later. same goes for architecture. i would really say any teacher who is imparting the idea that architecture is just a big ball of boot camp rubbish is not a particularly good teacher, and worse not teaching students to be ready for real world either.

negotiating with clients, talking to engineer, putting together a contract or a set of cd's needs a lot of creativity, flexibility and sense of humor even. craftsmanship is important, but lines are not part of that. that is just make work and silly. then again i think weeding out students is also stupid. shouldn't that happen before they enter the school? better to try and help students to learn than to punish them for choosing to share your career...

I'm currently studying Arch at QUT - in my second year, though I'm only doing 3 subjects per semester (am working in a part time office job as well as study). I'd say its been pretty good, definitely sounds a lot better than your experience at UQ. Our first year, 1st semester architectural design subject had us coming up with our own design for a small gallery space. Generally i've found QUT to be really good, esp. in light of some of the revelations on this forum about other schools.