Blog post: Worrisome Trends in Architecture Education

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 19, 2013 at 12:48pm

(I'm interpreting most of these questions as I don't fully understand what you're asking. It could be I misinterpreted them)

1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?

As you pointed out, architects are at the spoke of a number of different specialties, and their work affects many different people. It's not like an architect is a painter, whose work may offend or upset the occasional viewer. As an architect you have a responsibility to produce quality work. How can anybody trust you with this responsibility if you're taking a purely artistic approach? What guarantees do you have that your clients money won't be spend on a poorly designed project if you can provide no rational for why your design is the way it is?

2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?

I don't get. Discourse is there to flesh out problems and agree on solutions. It might not always accomplish that, but what's the difference between talking about architecture as opposed to any other topic?

 

3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?

I'm sorry I don't understand.

4. What is purely architectural discourse?

I imagine it's having a discussion where you only talk about architecture?

5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support?

Functionalism and Rationalism are ideologies. Some would even call them methodologies. They are inherently philosophical things as they are nothing more than a collection of ideas and views. As a society we've decided that a certain level of rationalism is a good thing. The Enlightenment continued this trend after the Dark Age hiatus and it quickly led to a large number of very tangible benefits for almost everyone. 

I'm not arguing for or against Functionalism as an architectural style. I'm asking for a measure of rationalism in our academic process.

6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ?

Let's find out. In the meantime I'll settle for a little functionalism.

7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?

Algorithms and algorithmic design are rational in the sense that they do not allow for ambiguity. But that doesn't make them rational in the real-world sense. These are not the same kind of 'rational's. I can make an algorithm that produces total nonsense, but does so completely reliably. I can also use an algorithm in a setting for which it wasn't intended, thus invalidating the results.

This is actually the crux of the problem. Which algorithms does one use to solve a problem and what data do they require? If you can't answer this question or if you do not understand the algorithms you are using (at least on a superficial level) then I'd say you have no business using them.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on August 19, 2013 at 4:07pm

This is actually the crux of the problem. Which algorithms does one use to solve a problem and what data do they require? If you can't answer this question or if you do not understand the algorithms you are using (at least on a superficial level) then I'd say you have no business using them.

This is correct. I think, however, that through your focus on the specifics of your observations regarding the abuse of computational design approaches/jargon/algorithms through misinterpretation, intellectual overreach, and obfuscation, you may be missing that these identical phenomena have always existed, but have simply worn different fashions in previous eras. Academic chicanery has long existed in architecture, with architects reaching for explanations for their design approaches that they neither fully understand nor have any good reason to apply for their particular work. What has perhaps been lacking are people to point out that the emperor has no clothes.  This seems to me the larger issue with architecture, and I agree that it's a real problem...I just don't see it as a new trend at all. I think that computational design is simply the style en vogue today.

On the flip side, there are plenty of academics and practitioners alike who don't misapply, for whom computational design reflects serious study, and the sort of rigorous scholarly reflection that any serious research demands. But I think this has always been the case, no? You have people who are pushing boundaries, and you have jackasses. I suppose that there might be a case to suggest that computational design tools are like free braniac costume dispensers for buffoons...but offering this as a cause for concern regarding the proliferation of these tools in general is to me throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And to suggest that McNeel, Autodesk, or any of the myriad open-source platforms bear responsibility for the intellectual misadventures of misguided and lazy academics is flawed. I do think it's fair to lay blame at the feet of academics who would ask their students to produce such tripe...but again...how is this anything new?

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 20, 2013 at 1:52am

I agree it's not new. Architecture wasn't perfect 20 years ago or at any time in the past. The current fad just hits close to home because I write some of the software that is driving this craze.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on August 20, 2013 at 2:29am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCDAfa-NI-M

Permalink Reply by AnewGHy on August 19, 2013 at 6:17pm

I fully support David’s stance. I too have experienced precisely the problem expressed and I went to one of the ('so called') leading schools of architecture. There are some effective terms I have devised in the past to accurately and fairly describe exactly the observations David has made:

'Identikit Architecture': One place to start is close to home, scan the GH image library: twisty tower count? Voronoi-_add geometry of choice_ count? Tons of cringe worthy, samey, pointless, architectural diarrhoea;

and then there is:

'Architectural Autism': Here, only the 'designer' himself understands his project and imagery (...but actually, he probably doesn't). It’s self serving, lacks rationale, and inhibits the ability for critical appraisal as any critic is reduced to the equivalent level of retardation inherent in the work as only two utterly pointless conclusions can ever be made: either 1) "I like it", or 2) "I don't like it". An example can be seen in the nonsensical imagery critiqued by David on his blog post. (Also found in the vast majority of schools of architecture).

 

The reaction so far since the blogs publication, plus the defence for "intuitive" design and a “pure artistic” approach to architectural design, proves just how deep the rot is in the system of education: the institutions and the professional bodies are all in denial, so unsurprisingly, so are the students. Most tutors and the ubiquitous ‘guest critics’ don’t even have any qualifications to teach. Worse still, almost all of them haven’t even built anything. If architecture really is a profession, the education must be vocational, and of worthy academic merit.

A knock-on impact of this issue arises in practice where the disconnect between what is taught at university and what the reality in office is like becomes apparent. So many students get lulled into a false sense of security at schools of architecture. When it comes to being serious in a professional environment they either do not have what it takes to do the job, or are perplexed when faced with the fundamentals of building design. Students should demand that what is taught at schools of architecture is relevant to their chosen field of work – it’s a massive con and a serious disservice to anyone undertaking the course.

Then there is the huge gulf in quality between one architect to the next; what ever happened to consistency and professional rigour? It would appear that the professional bodies, whose role it is to create prestige that in-turn improves the quality of the profession, have become complacent. Even some prominent names in the industry – individuals who have strategic roles in government advisory groups for the built environment - do not have any qualifications in architecture. It makes a mockery of the whole profession as well as the long commitment to its study.

Ultimately, architecture is unique in that is it the only one of the professions that is suffering from a profound intellectual retardation. All of the other technical-based professions are constantly looking for ways to progress, ways to utilise the latest technology, ways to re-invent the wheel and look outside the box (engineering etc). Yet, the cutting edge of architecture can only conjure up whimsical manifestos who the vast majority of poorly educated students indoctrinated at institutions buy into: 'Parametricism' for example. So with all the advancements in technology, construction and the digital industries, the best architects can come up with is a pseudo-intellectual movement which has no relevance to any of the challenges we face today, and one which is obsessed purely with style. It’s all so primitive, backwards and embarrassing. Hopefully the abysmal pay scales after 5-7 years worth of study should now become self explanatory and self justifying. 

 

This can only change if architectural education is totally overhauled and refocused back on architecture for architectures sake, rather than this lazy, narrow-minded, cerebrally-stunted obsession with art and creating pretty, or incomprehensible imagery that can only withstand by assigning a polemic guff.

Irrelevant, confused and complacent. Sadly, the whole industry is now yesterday’s game.

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on August 20, 2013 at 5:58am

This can only change if architectural education is totally overhauled and refocused back on architecture for architectures sake

I think I strongly agree with you (although I think by saying "refocused back" you may be imagining a past when architects didn't obsess over fashionable and ultimately distracting ideas about architecture) but I'd be curious for you to elaborate on what you mean by "architecture for architecture's sake".

I guess in my own educational experience I was surrounded by a mix of teachers and critics, some aligned with modernism, some with postmodernism, and some with more emerging parametric approaches. I found within each of these schools hugely varying degrees of credibility and intellectual honesty. Some of the most inane, unhelpful, and theoretical/form-obsessed critiques came from total luddites, so I am wary of the perspective that suggests pied-piper whimsical manifestos are anything new.

Permalink Reply by AnewGHy on August 20, 2013 at 6:27am

"I think I strongly agree with you (although I think by saying "refocused back" you may be imagining a past when architects didn't obsess over fashionable and ultimately distracting ideas about architecture)"

No, I mean to simply focus on architecture as a professional discourse - make it a vocation.

"architecture for architecture's sake".

Rather than trying to establish if architecture is art, or science, or technology, or sculpture, or design, or maths, or algorithms etc, what I am pointing to is to accept and qualify architecture as a separate discipline in its own right, and to treat it as such. Hence: architecture for architectures sake.

"so I am wary of the perspective that suggests pied-piper whimsical manifestos are anything new."

I didn't make any claim to suggest irrelevant manifestos are anything new. The point with that particular example was to highlight that architecture is in desperate need of intellectual enlightenment. This will never happen while the existing/next generation of architects (i.e. architecture students) remain disillusioned, weak-willed and formulaic in approach to such an extent that they buy into such notions without ever thinking to question the validity or relevance. I'm sure many would even regard such standpoints as the avant garde.The entire set-up breeds complacency.

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on August 20, 2013 at 6:37am

Thanks for clarifying...totally agree with you.

Permalink Reply by AnewGHy on August 20, 2013 at 6:07am

*I support Ruttens stance, just to clarify.

Permalink Reply by RWNB on August 20, 2013 at 5:14am

For architects is a mono-causal thinking not  helpful. The description of the society (in form of architecture) without the economy, science, politics, art, philosophy and others is not possible.

And especially the system of the architecture receives from philosophy and art, a perception of meaning and freedom (autonomy).

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page