Q, I think you misplaced your modifier there; I think you meant to write "Witold's ridiculous essay on the way architects talk".
We tore this apart a bit on TC, halfway down. Witold repeats the same self-hating, everyman, undisciplined criticisms of architectural culture every time Slate gives him a platform to bray. It's a good gig for him, but it certainly doesn't add anything intelligent to culture.
and he teaches students who want to pursue architecture?! way to kick a profession while it's down. with friends like him...
maybe mr rybczynski needs to leave the university more often and talk to regular practicing architects. i haven't met many that talk use the words 'discourse' or 'tectonic' in general conversation, much less 'fenestration' or 'trabeation'.
on the one hand, these are perfectly good words - not really jargon, but real english! i'm surprised a professional writer would criticize anyone for using whatever vocabulary they have at their disposal. he should be celebrating words that are more descriptive and specific!
a tendency to criticize those whose use words that reveal their education [gasp!] may be a sign of the times. would mr r prefer that we all limit our language to a 5000-7000 word-a-day l.c.d. vocabulary so nobody feels left out?
on the other hand, i can't believe that there are many architects who would condescend to their clients by knowingly using vocabulary the client doesn't understand. (though i'm sure some exist, it's not the general condition that mr rybczynski suggests.) most architects will work very hard to build relationships with their clients and find common ground. we definitely don't need pithy pundits undermining those hard-won relationships by suggesting that - despite what clients have experienced in person - we're really cliquish snobs!
i've admired mr rybczynski's writing in the past - 'clearing in the distance' is beautiful - but with each of several recent slate columns he's begun to erode my respect for his judgment and thoughtfulness. i hope slate is a good-paying gig because he's definitely reduced the likelihood that i'll buy his next book.
the article itself doesn't warrant much of a response, but I do have a question for the older archinectors out there:
I've seen this narration of the pivotal role played by the Pruitt-Igoe complex in the "demise of modernism" a number of times. did it start with Jencks? if anybody out there was paying attention to the profession in the early 70's -- was this recognized as such a historical event at the time, or is this significance solely retrospectively applied by jencks et al?
The significance of the author's architectural observations are paradoxically a testament to the irrelevant present state of a once viable profession.This is made emphatically evident by the many marginal meaningless “cross-attacks” the article reactively provoked thereby necessitating aesthetic thinkers of public good conscience to analyze and expose the very nature and efficacy of architecture itself, from its past-present questionable manifestations to its unreliable man-made chaotic imminent future, an accelerating future of such serious extreme consequences requiring advanced original solutions and tru-creative new tenets of building that will no longer depend on failing archaic institutions, especially the one with the most social significance, the one that is trapped in pedantic institutional antiquated doctrines of irrelevant building design, a perennial limiting two dimensional box mentality.
For those who respect and treasure enlightenment see: antobian-astratect.blogspot.com
Feb 27, 11 12:08 am ·
·
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.
6 Comments
Q, I think you misplaced your modifier there; I think you meant to write "Witold's ridiculous essay on the way architects talk".
We tore this apart a bit on TC, halfway down. Witold repeats the same self-hating, everyman, undisciplined criticisms of architectural culture every time Slate gives him a platform to bray. It's a good gig for him, but it certainly doesn't add anything intelligent to culture.
Witold the witless. What an annoying simpleton!
and he teaches students who want to pursue architecture?! way to kick a profession while it's down. with friends like him...
maybe mr rybczynski needs to leave the university more often and talk to regular practicing architects. i haven't met many that talk use the words 'discourse' or 'tectonic' in general conversation, much less 'fenestration' or 'trabeation'.
on the one hand, these are perfectly good words - not really jargon, but real english! i'm surprised a professional writer would criticize anyone for using whatever vocabulary they have at their disposal. he should be celebrating words that are more descriptive and specific!
a tendency to criticize those whose use words that reveal their education [gasp!] may be a sign of the times. would mr r prefer that we all limit our language to a 5000-7000 word-a-day l.c.d. vocabulary so nobody feels left out?
on the other hand, i can't believe that there are many architects who would condescend to their clients by knowingly using vocabulary the client doesn't understand. (though i'm sure some exist, it's not the general condition that mr rybczynski suggests.) most architects will work very hard to build relationships with their clients and find common ground. we definitely don't need pithy pundits undermining those hard-won relationships by suggesting that - despite what clients have experienced in person - we're really cliquish snobs!
i've admired mr rybczynski's writing in the past - 'clearing in the distance' is beautiful - but with each of several recent slate columns he's begun to erode my respect for his judgment and thoughtfulness. i hope slate is a good-paying gig because he's definitely reduced the likelihood that i'll buy his next book.
sorry donna, but Witold's got a point.
and so does Quilian.
the article itself doesn't warrant much of a response, but I do have a question for the older archinectors out there:
I've seen this narration of the pivotal role played by the Pruitt-Igoe complex in the "demise of modernism" a number of times. did it start with Jencks? if anybody out there was paying attention to the profession in the early 70's -- was this recognized as such a historical event at the time, or is this significance solely retrospectively applied by jencks et al?
http://awopbopaloobop.blogspot.com/2010/10/pruitt-igoe-myth.html
The significance of the author's architectural observations are paradoxically a testament to the irrelevant present state of a once viable profession.This is made emphatically evident by the many marginal meaningless “cross-attacks” the article reactively provoked thereby necessitating aesthetic thinkers of public good conscience to analyze and expose the very nature and efficacy of architecture itself, from its past-present questionable manifestations to its unreliable man-made chaotic imminent future, an accelerating future of such serious extreme consequences requiring advanced original solutions and tru-creative new tenets of building that will no longer depend on failing archaic institutions, especially the one with the most social significance, the one that is trapped in pedantic institutional antiquated doctrines of irrelevant building design, a perennial limiting two dimensional box mentality.
For those who respect and treasure enlightenment see: antobian-astratect.blogspot.com
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.