“Practicing” architecture is moving from a profession that focuses on building buildings as its highest calling, to a lifestyle that appreciates the beauty of architectural design, real or fantastic. This shift has two underlying realities. Just like the musician who lives his art, or the athlete who loves her sport, there are people that love architectural design, deeply, but fewer architects are needed to create buildings in this generation. — Common Edge
"The lack of need is based on less construction activity (a normal cycle, but now longer than any living architect has experienced) and the fact that technology has pre-empted the body count necessary per building design."
For more on the current status of the profession, check out these articles:
101 Comments
architects are now trained to simulate building to the point where they believe it’s enough to see something even if they can’t build it—and less is getting built.
This is exclusively a US problem, and the article is not about the profession or practice, is about education.
I still don't understand why if everybody is beating the horse to death about the disconnect between academia and practice nothing really happens and ncarb, naarb, eesa, etc. are only a cash machine for who knows what.
I personally couldn't have graduated without knowing building systems, MEP and structural design, the school required 2 semesters of professional practice (internship) within the curriculum, and you got out with a license, work for an established firm and if lucky and talented and connected you could start your own in 5-10 yrs.
it's the training, stupid! but I guess it's easier to teach wishy-washy and parametricism than to lower yourself to understand how concrete is mixed and rebar is tied.
/\ /\ /\ What JLC-1 said man...preach
It's a society where everybody who doesn't have two fingers in your pie is trying to figure out how to get another one in.
I thought I remember someone, maybe it was Koolhaas, saying that in the 70s it was unfashionable to build -- that real architectural ideas were expressed in conceptual proposals. Maybe we're returning to that now that we see how politically fraught IRL architecture is.
I definitely feel like there is an Architecture lifestyle or an Architecture perspective that merges with other lifestyles that are focused on cultural consumption, publications, curating, instagram, artfully socializing etc.
A profession of poseurs? Hardly, if you agree it's just a lifestyle then you're missing the point. As a Veteran I find this line of thought comparable to the self-proclaimed military experts who have racked up IRL days of time playing Call of Duty, but have never truly answered that call, or those tough guys at the bar who always claim they almost joined, but... Conceptual work is all well and good, but it's all mental masturbation until it's constructed and occupied.
^ There is a lot of built work that is mental masturbation ...
I don't think "getting shit built" is good enough anymore. Theres too much thoughtless generic garbage littering our cities. And its kind of sad when thinking is described as "mental masturbation"
Certainly this is what most custom residential work has become and certainly not enough to support an architect's practice unless you are doing permit work left and right.
there is a difference between thinking about how to design the best building possible within the design restrictions you have, and thinking solely for your own immediate self-gratification. not all thinking is 'mental masturbation.'
Is it really self-gratification if images and ideas of a hypothetical project are shared with the public?
And what if its a virtual environment that the public can interact with or even modify. Is that "mental masturbation"? or is it just a virtual spatial experience?
i suppose if the images and ideas of the hypothetical project were created for self-gratification and shared with the public for self-gratification?
And what if its a virtual environment that the public can interact with or even modify. Is that "mental masturbation"? or is it just a virtual spatial experience?
that sounds like a video game. probably generally not referred to as 'mental masturbation.'
Yea, so i'm still confused about the difference between mental masturbation that results in an image or a virtual environment versus mental masturbation that results is an object or a physical environment.
I guess I don't see the existence of well-made video games as vital to humanity...
davvid, i don't think there necessarily has to be a difference. the theory of 'mental masturbation' is not a very deep or nuanced manifesto.
i believe the term simply refers to things done for self-gratification. instead of doing what you think is 'right,' or doing what you think is best for the building or the client or the community or the environment or whatever other motivation one may have, self-gratification implies you are doing things because that's what feels good at that time. that could be in built form, or in a "thoughtful" treatise, or an image, or whatever else.
i don't see where in this conversation the split between physical or virtual environments happened.
mental masturbation = quondam
But in all seriousness, what else are all arch grad students doing if they don't know how to build? What are the graduating thesis doing in the best interest of the community?
I'm speaking strictly of academia; there are multiple examples of what I consider mental masturbation built, not commenting on that.
"Mental masterbation" is the best way to refine ideas/techniques and practice design...or should we practice on real buildings with real consequences? I have 100 sketchbooks filled with archi-jizz...I become a better designer with every page I shoot a load on...As for "self gratification"..without that.... authorship is non-existent and everything is generic crap that can be designed by an engineer. "Self gratification" is another word for artistic discretion.
"I have 100 sketchbooks filled with archi-jizz...I become a better designer with every page I shoot a load on..."
Very well said!
I'm reacting mostly to the last paragraph:
Once upon a time only those who built could be heroes, and those who taught, taught about those builders. Now increasingly the student, the professor and the architect all share one mindset. They are not practicing, or preparing to practice, architecture; they are experiencing a really cool lifestyle.
Passion never can't make up for knowledge and experience in a profession. I'd rather we come up with a new name for the current trends in aestheticism than lump it in with architecture as a profession. They go as far a lumping ~Life of an Architect~ as a example of one who has made it a life style choice, where I just see Bob Borson as someone who repeatedly says they are lucky to do what they do, but also obviously works their asses off. He paid his dues, and in this (extended) age of instant gratification it seems folks are looking for a distraction.
"I'd rather we come up with a new name for the current trends in aestheticism than lump it in with architecture as a profession."
Only if we can also separate the "98% shit" building from the profession.
i think jla has said many times he doesn't think an architect needs experience in an office or mentorship. as i understand it he can only work on projects of limited scale because he has chosen not to pursue a path to licensure. instead of pursing the 'hard work through experience' path he has chosen the 'it's all about my own gratification' path. that, of course, allows him to put soul and spirit into a building whereas architects like bjarke ingels just suck.
i guess if there was a question where you had to chose between your 100 sketchbooks or real-life experience, which would be more important? not that you can't have both, but at some point if there is a guiding principal in your design philosophy that says the only thing that's important is your self-gratification, then in my opinion that's a real problem that will prevent you from becoming a competent architect.
+++ JLC-1
"Mental masterbation" is the best way to refine ideas/techniques and practice design
That's not jerking it, that's process. Jerking it is doing something for the sake of ego and with an audience to perform for. Of course there's not much of that in this profession.
its a profession? shit, no one told me...
I wish the author had given an example of someone living the "lifestyle" of architecture.
If you are not constantly thinking about better ways to do things or nice ideas for space you aren't going to make much progress as a designer. obviously program and site must be the primary driving force for real projects, but ideas for details, ways to resolve certain reoccurring scenarios, spatial moments, etc are good to have Been thinking about and testing in the sketch book...part of the Arsenal we bring to the table.
curt, you twisted my point on internships a bit...Yes experience is important, but working for someone as an employee/intern isn't the only way to gain experience. don't want to derail this thread into a debate about IDP...
"But the self-caricaturing black-clad, interesting haircut/eyeglasses sporting architect who knows little-to-nothing about building is an annoying, useless dilettante (even if he/she teaches in the Ivy League).".....pretty much sums it up
I just looked up Duo Dickerson and I am not impressed. I've never seen an architecture firm website with a generic "printer friendly contract" featured just as prominently as "projects"
davvid I've seen a few other architects explain the process the clearly on their website, granted that is the most detailed I've ever seen.
I'm actually thinking about doing that, because as of now my website has key projects and very basic, projects also over a year old, but the reality is much bigger. been debating explaining everything.....but I'd rather be designing than legalizing, but stating I can is useful and good money...
Does anyone have any knowledge of the website hosting this article, Common Edge? I've never heard of it until today. Here are portions of their About and Mission:
Common Edge is a non-profit organization dedicated to reconnecting architecture and design with the public that it’s meant to serve...Our mission is to advocate and report on public engagement in the planning and design of the built environment, with an emphasis on some important questions that some younger designers and architects are asking, like: How can planning and design better express the wants and needs of everyday people?
I'll just say two things: anyone who doesn't think public engagement has been happening in architecture hasn't been paying attention for the last three decades. And also: everyday people loooooved to smoke. Then smart people who cared about such things found that smoking is really unhealthy, and pushed to educate those everyday people more about what they thought they wanted.
Donna what is being proposed here is "everyday" involvement from a Campell Soup for real practical terms - did you see all the TV shows he was on?...............Where Patrik Schumacher could be considered geniune is when he mocks people who graduated from an Ivy league school or AA who say architecure should be this "political" practice and step down from their tower in the sky and bless humanity with design.........the only thing that annoys about guys like Duo Dickenson is their websites always suck with regard to design, although still better than the late 90's where Libeskinds website inspired me to send a resume with the word Architect on it a 1000 times filling up pages.....
I thought I remember someone, maybe it was Koolhaas, saying that in the 70s it was unfashionable to build
I think this is actually the biggest shortcoming of the article. As a young professional I actually don’t disagree with some aspects of his commentary. What I think is off, is any suggestion that this is a new trend. There have always been schools and students with a great deal of variety in their technical rigor. Which I have very neutral feelings about. While I do think there are some things that have shifted, I feel like most students are about as knowledgeable as they were in past generations... and probably meet with a similar level of intermittent disdain from some of their more experienced counterparts.
What's most infuriating, is this implicit assertion, that one could ever truly be educated in various construction methodologies, in a field that is constantly changing with regard to those methodologies. The whole reason I enjoy being an architect, is the constant learning my degree affords.
The word "lifestyle" in the title made me think that perhaps the author was on to something. We are definitely seeing more multidisciplinarity/transdisciplinarity and collaboration. Perhaps that disruption is introducing more architects to the world of art and design where trends and personal brands are taken seriously. And I realize that there are many architects that take pride in their uncool/anti-trend identity.
but beta the problem is the no-nothing have big egos and everyone know those architects are a joke.
The author seems like an angry "real" architect, just mad because she/he can't do the "cool shit" lot of kids do these days. And thats fair.
Whats unfair is that, as he suggests, there are just not enough "real" jobs, but goes on to rant against those who do not do those real jobs.
Also unfair: that he calls Bob Borson's Life of an Architect a "lifestyle" blog. It's possibly THE most valuable blog on practice that exists, and *frequently* discusses better and worse ways to build things with tons of case study examples. Clearly a case of Duo not doing his research properly, or perhaps he had his Under Armour compression shorts wrapped around his head.
Look at the type of work the author does. You can't do mediocre houses using conventional suburban building system in conventional ways and expect anyone to take notice other than maybe your local AIA chapter.
Irony in this case can be found in the website of an author bemoaning the perceived current effort to promote the virtual over the built. What would this website's organization lead to to conclude about the author's priorities?:
Its funny how these lamentations and lectures about contemporary arch. practice never come from people who have their shit together. They almost always have terrible DIY website or no website at all and their work in usually pretty unimpressive. We don't see David Chipperfield or Jeanne Gang or Steven Holl complaining about paper architecture or trendiness in architecture.
A house designed by an architectural designer:
A house designed by an industrial designer:
A house designed by an architect:
To be fair, davvid, it wouldn't be challenging to find examples that illustrate the opposite. It's disingenuous to say all houses created by individuals who self-ascribe those roles are as you've illustrated.
SneakyPete,
Thats true. My selection was a bit unfair.
yeah his website does suck, lost a bit of respect for him there..... ...davvid nice narrative.
It interesting to be judged by the home page of a website: its like judging a building by its from facade: - WAIT! thats what I was talking about in my Common Edge piece! - FYI: website: 99% of the CONTENT is in the built projects section: the subdivisions were for civilians, not architects: so the breaking out has only one "Priority" ease of navigation by non-architects: It DOES NOT require Flash, or any other facilitating software: Non-Architects LOVE it because it WORKS: Architects and web Designers HATE it because it is, literally, from 1997: and thats the point: my job is to COMMUNICATE, not impress, and especially my mission has ZERO to do with impressing other architects: architect-to-architect communication is for platforms like this (which I LOVE) (WHY AM I USING CAPS?!) - Architect websites should be friendly to non-architects: not a point of pride in themselves: the work, the ungracious scores of built projects at every price point seem to be a happy anomaly to those who hire me after visiting scores of other websites - and that is really the point...
your website can show people how important you think it is to invest in good design.
the built projects on the site do that (if you can relate to them): websites that work and are plain are a priori superior to those that do not work and are beautiful: I know that there are beautiful AND work websites but those take 10's of thousands of dollars (and much more every year) that I have chosen to spend over the last 27 years on the 30-40% of my 8 person practice that is dedicated to pro bono work, representing perhaps 100 built things and 200 total efforts:
please read this: http://www.aia.org/akr/Resources/Documents/AIAB104785
so you're saying good design isn't worth paying much for, at least as it relates to your business?
10s of thousands sounds a bit high.
Q - Name calling is one way to respond to truth, especially on the InterWebNets and politics: if "useless" is employing 8 people for 30 years designing 700 built things with an 80% build ratio, writing 8 books selling several hundred thousand copies, celebrating the work of over 100 other architects, delivering a Position Paper at AIA National signed by hundreds more - https://savedbydesign.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/cora-position-paper/ - I guess I have been very, very useless...
C - Good design is what I effort in buildings: and by limiting overhead to the essential (website, office, promotion), I can help those who cannot afford design fees, and employ 1 or 2 more people - And I have helped create any number of websites for NFP boards I am on: the $20K pricetag is common (It can be $10K, but not for one with all this data) and to keep it relevant the monthly updates changes take far more time - and IT WORKS: we have work, recession and boom, and, Q, I have never laid anyone off or missed a payroll in those 30 years...
duo you are dumb, unfortunately, i had faith... if you actually made money you would have a good website . this means you would have made enough money to pay your people and represented yourself well. i am torn. i understand eisenman and framing, but feel youe attitude sells me as an architect short....some of your projects are what i was doing pre license with knowledge of framing and building....jammin to Pantera drinking beer - so dont shoot me an email. but come on, choose a nice shirt when meeting a client, right?
Again the insults: "dumb"? Having enough fees to own my office building after 25 years and fully pay those who work for me, not sure how I have I inadequately charged: the 100 not for profits benefitting from the way I have organized my firm would have not had whatever benefit I could offer them, about half getting projects built and missions extended: good luck to you...
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.