You know, one of the things we didn't talk about was criticism of student projects and whether or not the critic is being paid. I've only been paid as a juror once. As a discipline we tend to not pay our jurors, and I do critiques because I enjoy them and feel a social responsibility to doing them, both for my friends (the professors) and for the upcoming members of a profession that values and relies on mentorship.
So I'm here telling students to never take an unpaid internship, but then I encourage my fellow professionals to give unpaid labor to the academic world...ugh. We're so dysfunctional.
I think that it also depends on the transparency of the program and your relationship with them.
At one, I received a small honorarium for travel early on, but now I donate my time given an evolving relationship with them.
At another, I was given nothing but coffee before and a chicken parmesan dinner because they are cash-strapped. But that was a good dinner
.
At a third, I've received different amounts based on the level of coordination exercised by the program (read: who books the hotels and organizes travel).
Point being, at each place I was clear about what was happening, so I was able to make the choice to commit my time.
Apr 13, 18 12:23 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I was paid as a guest crit... with lunch... and also money as my office covered my salary for the day.
I feel like we are in this weird political moment when a lack of architecture dialogue in popular media and urbanism politics is going to hurt the goals of social housing. we are returning to a functionalist mindset where political narratives on both NIMBY and YIMBY sides overwhelm the role that architecture plays as a humanistic, expert practice where the physical design plan would tip the scale from one side to another. When we have architects, critics and media becoming advocates for one politics over another, we end up losing the design of it all, so there’s no role for architects to play (this is how the media and bureaucrats want it).
Architects were pushed out of city planning in the 1970s just when Civic Modernism (a la Sert, Saarinen, Kahn, Jacobs) were forming a better idea of how bold architecture and urban design could fit together. Then Reagan came along and here we are. Now it’s a fight between bland McUrbanism and McMansions .... as if that’s the only choice!
This probably ties into the self-loathing of the profession, as we have been sidelined for so long that we have been convinced it’s OUR fault nobody loves us (except rich clients who know the value of design).... driving us into the arms of one shitty architecture man after another, and ignoring the good (male and female) ones. Well, there’s always hope if you can catch a celebrity’s wondering gaze?
Can you advocate for fringe architecture as part of education and "weed out" students at the same time? It seems to me that they are counter intuitive approaches to education, and this is only made more complicated by the requirements that NCARB place on teaching sequences.
Yes, there are those less than productive students (some on the site would call them lazy) who need to be prepared for a potential drubbing. Furthermore, if they DON'T get that beatdown the instructor needs to be clear that a glowing review may not be reflected in their final evaluation and grade (drubbing post-facto).
But on the other extreme of this, the student that is not sure what architecture can do for them and is experimenting, willing to take a risk (the fringe). Weeding out- at least in it's historic sense- would do the latter a disservice, no?
It suggests that how we discuss outcomes and evaluations are not always dictated by reviews and it's ok for students to seemingly underperform, so long as they are prepared for what happens next. That education about consequences is an important part of the higher ed experience- especially now given all the talk about the fragility students present.
Mark, absolutely. That's why I think it's important that we have Cooper Union, McGill, AA, Bartlett, RISD and Cranbook. Plus, having professors - even at state school - Don Wall.
Exactly, Marc. And also why good teachers are so important: a good teacher, one with real emotional intelligence, can treat students according to their own abilities and either encourage them along some whacked-out but interesting path they are already on *or* gently steer them back into a more mainstream understanding of the goals of the syllabus. (I say this as someone who acknowledges that while I'm a kickass teacher of certain areas of architecture I'm a lousy design studio professor - teaching design is HARD. It's easy to show someone how to make a project look the way *you* want it to look but teaching them how to excavate their own abilities and interests towards a given project program is fucking hard!)
I'm just re-posting this bit from Chemex's post above because it's so good: This probably ties into the self-loathing of the profession, as we have been sidelined for so long that we have been convinced it’s OUR fault nobody loves us (except rich clients who know the value of design).... driving us into the arms of one shitty architecture man after another, and ignoring the good (male and female) ones. Well, there’s always hope if you can catch a celebrity’s wondering gaze?
Apr 13, 18 10:30 pm ·
·
Chemex
The pod was very clarifying to some themes that all seem weirdly connected! Until architecture is back in the center of pop culture, we have to keep up the nuanced, good-faith criticism!
Chemex, do you think this is possible? Architecture has become a chameleon capable of celebrating the shininess of the thing without addressing it's cultural/contextual (critical?) relevance or the idea. Meanwhile, capital and property have demonstrated that building need not be the primary concern. You don't need to be visible and well crafted to be in control.
Apr 15, 18 2:47 pm ·
·
Chemex
I think there is potential in the future, if we put architecture back at the center of politics. The current conventional wisdom on urban design right now is similar to “buildings don’t kill people, people kill people.”
Apr 16, 18 12:08 pm ·
·
Chemex
Not sure if that gets at your question in a way, but it’s hard to see how we critique vs. accept the way things are.
Ultimatley, architecure is tied to human-scale—a results-based history that speaks for itself. The failure of bureaucrat public housing and hyper capitalist McUrbanism/McMansions will also speak for themselves, in that nobody prefers to live in them, save to meet basic needs. But a society without culture and a design/craft ennoblement can’t survive. It’s hard to have a conversation when “architecture” is used as a straw man for every negative thing, while politics is our savior. That seems like the wrong direction.
In all seriousness, I'm not entirely convinced that architecture itself can regain its pop status. I think we will need to rely on other ways of making images to become relevant again. But then again, that cycle is nothing new.
19 Comments
You know, one of the things we didn't talk about was criticism of student projects and whether or not the critic is being paid. I've only been paid as a juror once. As a discipline we tend to not pay our jurors, and I do critiques because I enjoy them and feel a social responsibility to doing them, both for my friends (the professors) and for the upcoming members of a profession that values and relies on mentorship.
So I'm here telling students to never take an unpaid internship, but then I encourage my fellow professionals to give unpaid labor to the academic world...ugh. We're so dysfunctional.
I think that it also depends on the transparency of the program and your relationship with them.
At one, I received a small honorarium for travel early on, but now I donate my time given an evolving relationship with them.
At another, I was given nothing but coffee before and a chicken parmesan dinner because they are cash-strapped. But that was a good dinner .
At a third, I've received different amounts based on the level of coordination exercised by the program (read: who books the hotels and organizes travel).
Point being, at each place I was clear about what was happening, so I was able to make the choice to commit my time.
I was paid as a guest crit... with lunch... and also money as my office covered my salary for the day.
Wait... I can get paid for being a juror?
I feel like we are in this weird political moment when a lack of architecture dialogue in popular media and urbanism politics is going to hurt the goals of social housing. we are returning to a functionalist mindset where political narratives on both NIMBY and YIMBY sides overwhelm the role that architecture plays as a humanistic, expert practice where the physical design plan would tip the scale from one side to another. When we have architects, critics and media becoming advocates for one politics over another, we end up losing the design of it all, so there’s no role for architects to play (this is how the media and bureaucrats want it).
Architects were pushed out of city planning in the 1970s just when Civic Modernism (a la Sert, Saarinen, Kahn, Jacobs) were forming a better idea of how bold architecture and urban design could fit together. Then Reagan came along and here we are. Now it’s a fight between bland McUrbanism and McMansions .... as if that’s the only choice!
This probably ties into the self-loathing of the profession, as we have been sidelined for so long that we have been convinced it’s OUR fault nobody loves us (except rich clients who know the value of design).... driving us into the arms of one shitty architecture man after another, and ignoring the good (male and female) ones. Well, there’s always hope if you can catch a celebrity’s wondering gaze?
This post is painfully accurate, Chemex. Well done.
Thanks. The pod was very insightful
(finally, more time to type!)
Can you advocate for fringe architecture as part of education and "weed out" students at the same time? It seems to me that they are counter intuitive approaches to education, and this is only made more complicated by the requirements that NCARB place on teaching sequences.
Yes, there are those less than productive students (some on the site would call them lazy) who need to be prepared for a potential drubbing. Furthermore, if they DON'T get that beatdown the instructor needs to be clear that a glowing review may not be reflected in their final evaluation and grade (drubbing post-facto).
But on the other extreme of this, the student that is not sure what architecture can do for them and is experimenting, willing to take a risk (the fringe). Weeding out- at least in it's historic sense- would do the latter a disservice, no?
It suggests that how we discuss outcomes and evaluations are not always dictated by reviews and it's ok for students to seemingly underperform, so long as they are prepared for what happens next. That education about consequences is an important part of the higher ed experience- especially now given all the talk about the fragility students present.
(please forgive the low blood sugar ramble)
Mark, absolutely. That's why I think it's important that we have Cooper Union, McGill, AA, Bartlett, RISD and Cranbook. Plus, having professors - even at state school - Don Wall.
Exactly, Marc. And also why good teachers are so important: a good teacher, one with real emotional intelligence, can treat students according to their own abilities and either encourage them along some whacked-out but interesting path they are already on *or* gently steer them back into a more mainstream understanding of the goals of the syllabus. (I say this as someone who acknowledges that while I'm a kickass teacher of certain areas of architecture I'm a lousy design studio professor - teaching design is HARD. It's easy to show someone how to make a project look the way *you* want it to look but teaching them how to excavate their own abilities and interests towards a given project program is fucking hard!)
I'm just re-posting this bit from Chemex's post above because it's so good: This probably ties into the self-loathing of the profession, as we have been sidelined for so long that we have been convinced it’s OUR fault nobody loves us (except rich clients who know the value of design).... driving us into the arms of one shitty architecture man after another, and ignoring the good (male and female) ones. Well, there’s always hope if you can catch a celebrity’s wondering gaze?
The pod was very clarifying to some themes that all seem weirdly connected! Until architecture is back in the center of pop culture, we have to keep up the nuanced, good-faith criticism!
Chemex, do you think this is possible? Architecture has become a chameleon capable of celebrating the shininess of the thing without addressing it's cultural/contextual (critical?) relevance or the idea. Meanwhile, capital and property have demonstrated that building need not be the primary concern. You don't need to be visible and well crafted to be in control.
I think there is potential in the future, if we put architecture back at the center of politics. The current conventional wisdom on urban design right now is similar to “buildings don’t kill people, people kill people.”
Not sure if that gets at your question in a way, but it’s hard to see how we critique vs. accept the way things are.
Ultimatley, architecure is tied to human-scale—a results-based history that speaks for itself. The failure of bureaucrat public housing and hyper capitalist McUrbanism/McMansions will also speak for themselves, in that nobody prefers to live in them, save to meet basic needs. But a society without culture and a design/craft ennoblement can’t survive. It’s hard to have a conversation when “architecture” is used as a straw man for every negative thing, while politics is our savior. That seems like the wrong direction.
Shocked at what you are suggesting, just shocked.
In all seriousness, I'm not entirely convinced that architecture itself can regain its pop status. I think we will need to rely on other ways of making images to become relevant again. But then again, that cycle is nothing new.
oh wow - "cut you at your knees" because i'm judging a book by its cover
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.