Blog post: Worrisome Trends in Architecture Education

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 18, 2013 at 11:16am

I don't particularly care what architecture is. Well, I do, but not within the context of this discussion. You can argue for or against architecture as a science. You can argue for or against architecture as an art. You can argue that there can be no architecture without human intuition or emotions. But what you cannot do* is argue that architecture taught at university level should not be an academic discipline.

It is also not interesting that there are a few very talented or ambitious people in the field. What is interesting is that so few students (be they ambitious or lazy, talented or not) learn what it means to research/design with academic rigour. Forget "architecture", the key word in this discussion is "academic".

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

* I suppose you could argue even that, but I really don't want to talk to anyone who's promoting this point of view.

Permalink Reply by RWNB on August 19, 2013 at 9:56am

No in contrast, I have something more to say!

First I would like to point out, the fact that criticism is due only those, who is also for it  entitled.  Such an action can attain only validity, if this also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference,  if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.

First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.

Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD)  determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.

Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times  like that, and presumably also always so remain)  and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.

Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture.  This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.

Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ),  live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists.  In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively,  because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect,  you should have circumspect specialists around yourself.  And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.

Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.

........

If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/d...

"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)

I want to make it short, and  just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such  questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.

1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?
2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?
3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?
4. What is purely architectural discourse?
5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support?
6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ?
7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 19, 2013 at 12:16pm

Hi RWNB,

I'll post small replies, makes it easier to keep track.

First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.

I don't quite understand this. I'm no longer part of architecture, at least not directly. I was a student at TUDelft for nearly 6 years, had a 4 month internship at a small tensile architecture firm and then went straight into programming.

What I see today in terms of presentations is quite similar to what I saw ~8 years ago. More people use computational methods these days, but there hasn't been a methodological or ideological shift in my opinion.

I'm merely saying that I'm not an expert, but I am expert enough to see that there's a major problem here.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by RWNB on August 19, 2013 at 2:03pm

Only systemic immanent units are capable to work on the production and reproduction of the systems. Therefore, this process is difficult to accomplish outside of the system. Exception the system would be hijacked by another system.

Since you're rather part of the system of the science or informatic, it is not easy for you to operate, or maybe to change something in the system of the architecture.

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

Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD)  determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.

Influencing and determining are indeed different things, but there exists a continuum between them. I think CAD and -these days- computation play a major role in design. That is not a bad thing per se. What is bad is that few people are teaching how to use these tools responsibly.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by RWNB on August 19, 2013 at 1:37pm

i have given an answer to this theam: education has degenerated into a goods. if you can not afford a high-quality goods, then you have to settle for less.

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 19, 2013 at 12:21pm

Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture.  This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.

You're quite right by stating that academic rigour does not guarantee worthwhile research/design. It is however a prerequisite for it. I do not understand the second part of this paragraph.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by RWNB on August 19, 2013 at 1:39pm

yes, the seconde part is system specific. ;)

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 19, 2013 at 12:27pm

Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ),  live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists.  In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively,  because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect,  you should have circumspect specialists around yourself.  And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.

I'm not criticizing students. It's teachers and -more importantly- the institutions they belong to, along with software companies like AutoDESK, Bentley and Robert McNeel & Associates who must shoulder the blame.

As for the rest, it sounds an awful lot like an excuse. You do not get a free-pass from academic methodology by stating that you're a dilettante, or have to assess many facets, or be surrounded by specialists.

What's 'artificial complexity'? How does it differ from other types of complexity? Why should our designs aim to mimic the complexity of a human being? I was under the impression that simplification and reduction was a highly valued skill in design.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by RWNB on August 19, 2013 at 1:26pm

i have tried to respond system specific  to your criticism. if irritation (criticism) in the form and  intention enters a system, then the system is as a whole  part of the criticism. the system reproduces itself in a certain logig. Architecture student want to become simply an architects. this is their dicision. therefore they assign themselves in the logig of the system of  architecture, and inevitably they are part of the system. therefore your critism is also directed to each student. ignorance do not protect against system immanenz.

software companies like AutoDESK, Bentley and Robert McNeel & Associates have no reason to be a shamed. they only work on the production of their own system.

And at least, i believe at the cleansing and self-sustaining power of the systems of architecture.

Permalink Reply by Vicente Soler on August 19, 2013 at 2:42pm

Isn't that the same rationalization Morpheus uses so that Neo can kill all the security guards?

Permalink Reply by RWNB on August 19, 2013 at 4:06pm

maybe. ;)

by the way, currently i meet a lot of spaniards in Germany.
the reason probably lies in the fact that Germany is not willing
to offer his own citizens an adequate education.
Therefore it seems to be cheaper  to exploit spain.

This logic leads to the consideration that many spaniards can now speak German. Maybe you too?  :D

in this sense, if you want to know more about Neo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyY4v7GqaJw

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