Historians today don’t do history, but historiography. Each aims to better the last in range of content and extremes of references, in language increasingly esoteric and dense: a babble of self referential writing that addresses only others in the lodge. Architectural writing, prone to fashion like all else in the design professions, has followed. — architectsjournal.co.uk
5 Comments
This guy speaks the truth. Unfortunately the battle is long over and the people in charge of schools today aren't going to just listen to the opposition for no reason, so we play the waiting game.
"Architectural writing should aid everyone’s understanding of buildings and assist architects to design better ones."
I think this is a very dangerous statement in many ways. There are, I think, different forms of writing. And different types have different uses. At the extremes, you can either go towards "elitist complexity" or "generalist simplicity". But each one has its own virtues and failings.
If you go elitist, you may discuss a subject in a language that is only accessible to few. But in doing so, you might actually become very precise, and much more in depth. If you go generalist, you may discuss a subject in a language accessible to many. But in doing so, you become less precise, and lose depth. Take "less is more", or "form follows function", or "a house is a machine for living". These are phrases that architects know as rote. But what of it? Few actually know the context behind these actual words. And fewer actually understand what the authors actually meant.
I think, on the subject, Einstein gives good advice: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Yes, Einstein was able to express his theories of relativity with examples of trains, elevators, and flashlights. But while among the elite of thought, he was also able to discuss with equations that the general public couldn't even begin to understand.
In simplest: concision should not be glorified over complexity. Both extremes have lead to an extremely shallow form of architecture theory.
"Architectural writing should aid everyone’s understanding of buildings and assist architects to design better ones."
I think this is a very dangerous statement in many ways. There are, I think, different forms of writing. And different types have different uses. At the extremes, you can either go towards "elitist complexity" or "generalist simplicity". But each one has its own virtues and failings.
If you go elitist, you may discuss a subject in a language that is only accessible to few. But in doing so, you might actually become very precise, and much more in depth. If you go generalist, you may discuss a subject in a language accessible to many. But in doing so, you become less precise, and lose depth. Take "less is more", or "form follows function", or "a house is a machine for living". These are phrases that architects know as rote. But what of it? Few actually know the context behind these actual words. And fewer actually understand what the authors actually meant.
I think, on the subject, Einstein gives good advice: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Yes, Einstein was able to express his theories of relativity with examples of trains, elevators, and flashlights. But while among the elite of thought, he was also able to discuss with equations that the general public couldn't even begin to understand.
In simplest: concision should not be glorified over complexity. Both extremes have lead to an extremely shallow form of architecture theory.
well said
Whatever one thinks of Alan's comments I'd encourage anyone interested in professional writing to enter our competition. Deadline is 30 June and its open to all - as long as you are under 35. James Pallister [at] emap [dot] 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.