for whatever reason, my interests seem to drift away from architecture towards photography. anyway, i came across this piece on "how to be become a professional photographer" that prescribes working for free to gain industry knowledge and experience, after graduation ... just substitute architecture for photography as the domain (granted the arch. degree is typically 5-6 years whereas the photography one is 3-4). yes, its been discussed many times here but here goes:
Step # 2: Become a slave.
What? Are you crazy? I just spent thousands of dollars and two to four years getting a degree, and you want me to work for free? If you’re smart you will. Here’s why. At this point in your career, you don’t know anything. And not only that, you don’t know that you don’t know Jack! This is THE most important step in this whole process. Become a slave. The thing you have to be careful with, though, is in choosing your master. Here’s the thing. You graduate art school, get back from Florida, and now it’s time to get a job! You run out and knock on every photo studio door you can get your little grubby hands on. If the photographer isn’t too busy, he’ll be kind enough to look at your portfolio (he couldn’t give a crap what your book looks like) , he’ll say “pretty nice stuff” and send you along your way. The chances of you getting a job as an assistant photographer are very very very slim. I’m not saying that it’s impossible, but almost. You see… Most photographers in today’s market hire “Freelance Assistants”. The are hired on a per day basis. The reason they do this is so that when they aren’t working, they don’t have to pay them. The number of full time assistants in the Pittsburgh market can be measured on one hand. Sure, they’d love to have someone around all the time, even when they’re slow for marketing and maintenance purposes, but they just can’t afford it. That’s where you come in.
i'm not very fond of his blase' tone and i don't think the argument is applicable in most scenarios
but imagine the scenario where you work for a very eminent figure in your field who is also willing to sacrifice some of his time in exchange for yours to teach you the technicalities of his trade as well as the everyday aspects of running a business.
of course, its obvious that not every office or architect is QUALIFIED to offer this sort of mutual convenience (we always talk about interns being qualified for offices or not...sometimes we need to talk about whether offices are qualified for interns or not) ; it means a far more direct engagement with the actual figurehead who is willing to selflessly further educate the newbies and not merely assign them on drafting and modelling assignments and expect them to jump the hoops by themselves.
so my question would be, aside from the black and white of yay and nay- sayers...in the absence of monetary compensation for work done, what and how much would constitute a proper compensation, in terms of education, for a fresh gruaduate (or even a seasoned individual should s/he desire to gain experience from an eminent architect/designer/photographer/whateverer)? and on par, how much should the architect/whateverer sacrifice in proportion to the newbie's time? for curiosity's sake.
I've worked in two 'starchitect' offices, both in Europe, and I've seen two different approaches to this....
Office A:
The office paid all interns, and paid them well. (Only about half what a Junior Architect fresh from an M.Arch program would make, but still about 4x the average rent for a bedroom in a shared flat.) Interns were hired for a minimum of 6 months (more often, 1 year) and given a real contract. The office handled the visa applications, and even tried to help interns find housing if they were having trouble.
Interns were full members of the project teams, were able to take time to learn new programs, to pitch ideas for the projects, and were encouraged to interact with the partners & principals when they came by for reviews.
Interns essentially did the same tasks as junior architects, but were given even more freedom to experiment and learn about the office culture and design process. The office recognized that the time the interns spend getting this education made them more productive, and more valuable as employees. Interns were made to feel invested in the success of the company, and to have a sense of authorship in the projects they worked on.
Office B:
The office paid interns nothing, or as little as possible. If you fought for it, you could scrape together enough to cover rent, and if you kept asking for more eventually you could get enough to survive. Contracts were verbal or non-existent, and the office refused to help with any visa paperwork, meaning many of their employees worked on tourist visas, illegally. Interns would generally stay for three months, and there was incredibly high turnover.
Generally, interns were quizzed about their skills in their initial interview, then assigned to projects based on those skills. Those who knew AutoCAD or Rhino were sent to do 2D drawings or 3D modeling. Those who could render would quickly become the "rendering guy." Most would be assigned to the model shop, and remain there for the duration of their internship.
Interns (and junior architects) were mainly encouraged to keep their opinions to themselves, and to focus on production. The principal's sketches were handed to the model shop, who tried to match these exactly; the models were passed to the 3D guys, who translated the physical models into 3D and 2D. There was little opportunity for creativity. When asked what they learned, most would be at a loss, and console themselves that at least they got a 'big name' on their resume.
---
Offices who don't pay their interns create a culture of mutual exploitation: the interns get the name, and the office gets free grunt work. If an office pays their interns well, and expects them to take on certain responsibilities and commitments, they create a culture of mutual respect, and both the company and the interns benefit.
Become a Slave
for whatever reason, my interests seem to drift away from architecture towards photography. anyway, i came across this piece on "how to be become a professional photographer" that prescribes working for free to gain industry knowledge and experience, after graduation ... just substitute architecture for photography as the domain (granted the arch. degree is typically 5-6 years whereas the photography one is 3-4). yes, its been discussed many times here but here goes:
Step # 2: Become a slave.
What? Are you crazy? I just spent thousands of dollars and two to four years getting a degree, and you want me to work for free? If you’re smart you will. Here’s why. At this point in your career, you don’t know anything. And not only that, you don’t know that you don’t know Jack! This is THE most important step in this whole process. Become a slave. The thing you have to be careful with, though, is in choosing your master. Here’s the thing. You graduate art school, get back from Florida, and now it’s time to get a job! You run out and knock on every photo studio door you can get your little grubby hands on. If the photographer isn’t too busy, he’ll be kind enough to look at your portfolio (he couldn’t give a crap what your book looks like) , he’ll say “pretty nice stuff” and send you along your way. The chances of you getting a job as an assistant photographer are very very very slim. I’m not saying that it’s impossible, but almost. You see… Most photographers in today’s market hire “Freelance Assistants”. The are hired on a per day basis. The reason they do this is so that when they aren’t working, they don’t have to pay them. The number of full time assistants in the Pittsburgh market can be measured on one hand. Sure, they’d love to have someone around all the time, even when they’re slow for marketing and maintenance purposes, but they just can’t afford it. That’s where you come in.
from http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-become-a-professional-photographer-2#ixzz0mD3o6FAc
rubbish.
Exactly the kind of crap I am tired of hearing at functions targeting young professionals.
There is so much wrong with this argument that I don't even want to start.
i'm not very fond of his blase' tone and i don't think the argument is applicable in most scenarios
but imagine the scenario where you work for a very eminent figure in your field who is also willing to sacrifice some of his time in exchange for yours to teach you the technicalities of his trade as well as the everyday aspects of running a business.
of course, its obvious that not every office or architect is QUALIFIED to offer this sort of mutual convenience (we always talk about interns being qualified for offices or not...sometimes we need to talk about whether offices are qualified for interns or not) ; it means a far more direct engagement with the actual figurehead who is willing to selflessly further educate the newbies and not merely assign them on drafting and modelling assignments and expect them to jump the hoops by themselves.
so my question would be, aside from the black and white of yay and nay- sayers...in the absence of monetary compensation for work done, what and how much would constitute a proper compensation, in terms of education, for a fresh gruaduate (or even a seasoned individual should s/he desire to gain experience from an eminent architect/designer/photographer/whateverer)? and on par, how much should the architect/whateverer sacrifice in proportion to the newbie's time? for curiosity's sake.
I've worked in two 'starchitect' offices, both in Europe, and I've seen two different approaches to this....
Office A:
The office paid all interns, and paid them well. (Only about half what a Junior Architect fresh from an M.Arch program would make, but still about 4x the average rent for a bedroom in a shared flat.) Interns were hired for a minimum of 6 months (more often, 1 year) and given a real contract. The office handled the visa applications, and even tried to help interns find housing if they were having trouble.
Interns were full members of the project teams, were able to take time to learn new programs, to pitch ideas for the projects, and were encouraged to interact with the partners & principals when they came by for reviews.
Interns essentially did the same tasks as junior architects, but were given even more freedom to experiment and learn about the office culture and design process. The office recognized that the time the interns spend getting this education made them more productive, and more valuable as employees. Interns were made to feel invested in the success of the company, and to have a sense of authorship in the projects they worked on.
Office B:
The office paid interns nothing, or as little as possible. If you fought for it, you could scrape together enough to cover rent, and if you kept asking for more eventually you could get enough to survive. Contracts were verbal or non-existent, and the office refused to help with any visa paperwork, meaning many of their employees worked on tourist visas, illegally. Interns would generally stay for three months, and there was incredibly high turnover.
Generally, interns were quizzed about their skills in their initial interview, then assigned to projects based on those skills. Those who knew AutoCAD or Rhino were sent to do 2D drawings or 3D modeling. Those who could render would quickly become the "rendering guy." Most would be assigned to the model shop, and remain there for the duration of their internship.
Interns (and junior architects) were mainly encouraged to keep their opinions to themselves, and to focus on production. The principal's sketches were handed to the model shop, who tried to match these exactly; the models were passed to the 3D guys, who translated the physical models into 3D and 2D. There was little opportunity for creativity. When asked what they learned, most would be at a loss, and console themselves that at least they got a 'big name' on their resume.
---
Offices who don't pay their interns create a culture of mutual exploitation: the interns get the name, and the office gets free grunt work. If an office pays their interns well, and expects them to take on certain responsibilities and commitments, they create a culture of mutual respect, and both the company and the interns benefit.
hear, hear evanc.
I'd also like to see what the bottom line was for both firms, and would not be surprised if they were the same, if not better for firm A.
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.