|
Home > Archive > Architecture > October 2005 > Designers, arquitektuur professors, and Great Architects
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Designers, arquitektuur professors, and Great Architects
|
|
| Adam Weiss 2005-10-07, 12:21 am |
| Anyone can draw a piece of shit building and put it up.
Anyone who went to college can write a few pages of bullshit, if they
went to arquitektuur* school they can expand that bullshit to 20 or 30
pages, add a bunch of pictures, and if they have the time edit it into a
book. (If they kiss enough XXX, they can get a job teaching arquitektuur)
But only a few can actually design and build great buildings - really
great and unique designs actually constructed in brick and mortar,
steel, glass, wood....
This is what separates the "wanna-bes" and the "think they ares" from
the "really greats".
*See my other post defining "arquitektuur" versus architecture. I'm
still working on these terms, so your input is welcome.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-10-07, 6:21 pm |
| Adam Weiss <aw722@blockspam.org> wrote in
news:4345E73A.9050109@blockspam.org:
> Anyone can draw a piece of shit building and put it up.
>
> Anyone who went to college can write a few pages of bullshit, if they
> went to arquitektuur* school they can expand that bullshit to 20 or 30
> pages, add a bunch of pictures, and if they have the time edit it into
> a book. (If they kiss enough XXX, they can get a job teaching
> arquitektuur)
>
> But only a few can actually design and build great buildings - really
> great and unique designs actually constructed in brick and mortar,
> steel, glass, wood....
To paraphrase the old saying:
Those who can, do...those who can't, become critics...
It's easy to be mean, and it's easy to tear down others. Bottom dwellers -
sinking is easy. And there is nothing a scumpig likes better than trying
to splash everyone else with its own slime, so that it can then point and
say, "See, you're just as dirty and the wurst of us!"
> This is what separates the "wanna-bes" and the "think they ares" from
> the "really greats".
And/or those who simply want to stick their pieholes in front of a
microphone...
> *See my other post defining "arquitektuur" versus architecture. I'm
> still working on these terms, so your input is welcome.
The "q" is too literate. To indicate the ignoranti, I think something more
like "arkutekchur" would be more appropos =8-o
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <SickOfSpam@SickOfSp.am> wrote in message
news:eWA1f.4631$4h2.3903@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Adam Weiss <aw722@blockspam.org> wrote in
> news:4345E73A.9050109@blockspam.org:
>
>
> To paraphrase the old saying:
> Those who can, do...those who can't, become critics...
>
> It's easy to be mean, and it's easy to tear down others. Bottom
dwellers -
> sinking is easy. And there is nothing a scumpig likes better than trying
> to splash everyone else with its own slime, so that it can then point and
> say, "See, you're just as dirty and the wurst of us!"
>
>
> And/or those who simply want to stick their pieholes in front of a
> microphone...
>
>
> The "q" is too literate. To indicate the ignoranti, I think something
more
> like "arkutekchur" would be more appropos =8-o
>
A totally new word is needed that does not rely upon the original Greek.
Of course this will also require a deep understanding of language.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-10-08, 1:21 pm |
| "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4347cd4d_1@news.iprimus.com.au:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <SickOfSpam@SickOfSp.am> wrote in message
> news:eWA1f.4631$4h2.3903@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[ ... ]
[color=darkred]
> more
>
> A totally new word is needed that does not rely upon the original
> Greek. Of course this will also require a deep understanding of
> language.
Coming up with new words is no problem whatsoever. The problem is gaining
acceptance for it that is widespread enough for the word to gain a real-
world meaning.
| |
| Adam Weiss 2005-10-08, 3:21 pm |
| Kris Krieger wrote:
> "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4347cd4d_1@news.iprimus.com.au:
>
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
>
> Coming up with new words is no problem whatsoever. The problem is gaining
> acceptance for it that is widespread enough for the word to gain a real-
> world meaning.
>
True.
In retrospect it is funny that I brought up language and a new word.
Linguistics and the study of language was a primary focus of
Deconstruction, whose architectural bastard-child (Deconstructivism) has
been so damaging to architecture schools.
But that said, the assonance of "architecture," "arquitektuur," and
"arkutekchur" are what I'm interested in. It falls in with my point
that architecture as it is practiced and what is taught in
"arquitektuur" schools is two very different things that are too often
not accepted as being so different.
The separation is what needs to be addressed in the field of
architecture and in the education for it. Why can't architecture
students learn the skills and sciences they will need to practice in
their field? Why do we instead make arquitektuur students who are
unprepared to work in the field and require a year or more of on the job
training to be of use to their employers?
| |
| zenboom 2005-10-09, 5:21 pm |
|
"Kris Krieger" <SickOfSpam@SickOfSp.am> wrote in message
news:eWA1f.4631$4h2.3903@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Adam Weiss <aw722@blockspam.org> wrote in
> news:4345E73A.9050109@blockspam.org:
>
>
> To paraphrase the old saying:
> Those who can, do...those who can't, become critics...
>
> It's easy to be mean, and it's easy to tear down others. Bottom
dwellers -
> sinking is easy. And there is nothing a scumpig likes better than trying
> to splash everyone else with its own slime, so that it can then point and
> say, "See, you're just as dirty and the wurst of us!"
>
>
> And/or those who simply want to stick their pieholes in front of a
> microphone...
>
>
> The "q" is too literate. To indicate the ignoranti, I think something
more
> like "arkutekchur" would be more appropos =8-
o >
I think his point is of 'over-literacy', quite. I do wonder about the
European implication, tho....
| |
|
| > their field? Why do we instead make arquitektuur students who are
> unprepared to work in the field and require a year or more of on the job
> training to be of use to their employers?
You'll gain insight if you don't limit the question to architecture.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-10-09, 8:21 pm |
| Adam Weiss <aw722@blockspam.org> wrote in
news:4348075D.3040502@blockspam.org:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> True.
>
> In retrospect it is funny that I brought up language and a new word.
> Linguistics and the study of language was a primary focus of
> Deconstruction, whose architectural bastard-child (Deconstructivism)
> has been so damaging to architecture schools.
In all honesty, "deconstruction" in its various forms is one of those
things I never paid any attnetion to because it mostly seemed/seems to me
to be nothing but hooey. Even the word doesn't make sense to me. SO I
can't really reply to your statement. "Comparative Analysis" is a phrase I
understand. And I can understand experiencing a work and recognizing its
references to other periods, genres, and/or styles/classes of works. but I
haven't got a clue as to what "deconstructivism" actually *means*...
> But that said, the assonance of "architecture," "arquitektuur," and
> "arkutekchur" are what I'm interested in. It falls in with my point
> that architecture as it is practiced and what is taught in
> "arquitektuur" schools is two very different things that are too often
> not accepted as being so different.
That statement makes total sense. It's like "color theory" and "art
history", versus creating a Work Of Art. You can have all the theory in
the world and yet never be able to produce Art; or you can have very little
theory, but the talent and the skill to consistently procude Art (or of
course fall somewhere in-between).
Theory is theory - doing is doing.
> The separation is what needs to be addressed in the field of
> architecture and in the education for it.
If it isn't, IMO that's just plain absurd.
> Why can't architecture
> students learn the skills and sciences they will need to practice in
> their field? Why do we instead make arquitektuur students who are
> unprepared to work in the field and require a year or more of on the
> job training to be of use to their employers?
Right, it makes no sense whatsoever.
IMO:
it only goes to show that the educational system as a whole is obsessed
with, because it has fetishized, far too much that is frivolous,
impractical, extraneous. Too many people have the *appearance* of
education, but have actually learned rather little that is practical or
that allows then to analyse and integrate information (in architecture,
that includes stylistic information as well as structural information). I
don't even dignify most of it with the word "theory", because so much
"theoreticla knowledge" is more belief or fantasy, than it is rational
theory.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-10-09, 8:21 pm |
| "zenboom" <?signal.ds?@?bluebottle.com?> wrote in
news:dibqsj$93u$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:
>
>
>
> "Kris Krieger" <SickOfSpam@SickOfSp.am> wrote in message
> news:eWA1f.4631$4h2.3903@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> dwellers -
> more
> o >
> I think his point is of 'over-literacy', quite. I do wonder about the
> European implication, tho....
I see what you're saying but I disagree with the phrase. Too much
knowledge is not over-literate so much as it's narrowly/obsessively
literate, as in, exposure to and/or thought about only one way of seeing
things. Sort of the equivalent of having read everything ever written by
Thomas Mann, but nothing at all by anyone else.
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <SickOfSpam@SickOfSp.am> wrote in message
news:Thh2f.8916$oc.2249@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Adam Weiss <aw722@blockspam.org> wrote in
> news:4348075D.3040502@blockspam.org:
>
=8-o????
[color=darkred]
Even funnier is that, despite their education, most architects simply do not
know understand ancient greek architecture, let alone the meaning of the
ancient word. Has anyone here heard of the Arkadians? Or of Polybios?
[color=darkred]
>
> In all honesty, "deconstruction" in its various forms is one of those
> things I never paid any attnetion to because it mostly seemed/seems to me
> to be nothing but hooey. Even the word doesn't make sense to me. SO I
> can't really reply to your statement. "Comparative Analysis" is a phrase
I
> understand. And I can understand experiencing a work and recognizing its
> references to other periods, genres, and/or styles/classes of works. but
I
> haven't got a clue as to what "deconstructivism" actually *means*...
>
>
But what is currently taught and practiced have very little in common with
ancient Greek architecture.
> That statement makes total sense. It's like "color theory" and "art
> history", versus creating a Work Of Art. You can have all the theory in
> the world and yet never be able to produce Art; or you can have very
little
> theory, but the talent and the skill to consistently procude Art (or of
> course fall somewhere in-between).
>
> Theory is theory - doing is doing.
And architecture is architecture.
>
>
> If it isn't, IMO that's just plain absurd.
>
>
> Right, it makes no sense whatsoever.
>
By definition students learn. If they fail to learn, that is their problem.
> IMO:
> it only goes to show that the educational system as a whole is obsessed
> with, because it has fetishized, far too much that is frivolous,
> impractical, extraneous. Too many people have the *appearance* of
> education, but have actually learned rather little that is practical or
> that allows then to analyse and integrate information (in architecture,
> that includes stylistic information as well as structural information). I
> don't even dignify most of it with the word "theory", because so much
> "theoreticla knowledge" is more belief or fantasy, than it is rational
> theory.
>
This hardly makes sense.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-10-11, 3:21 pm |
| "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote in news:434bef94_1@news.iprimus.com.au:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <SickOfSpam@SickOfSp.am> wrote in message
> news:Thh2f.8916$oc.2249@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[ ... ]
>
> =8-o????
= is hair standing on end (which mine usually seems to do...)
8 is wide-open eyeballs
- is nose
o or 0 or O are varying degree of "mouth open", as in, oooh, OH!, "EEEK!",
I usu. mean it in a theatrical/semi-sarcasting sense.
>
> Even funnier is that, despite their education, most architects simply
> do not know understand ancient greek architecture, let alone the
> meaning of the ancient word. Has anyone here heard of the Arkadians?
> Or of Polybios?
I'd think that the Greek Orders would be part of that education, but of
course that is merely a guess on my part. It seems logical but logic seems
to have less and less to do with real life... =:-o
>
> But what is currently taught and practiced have very little in common
> with ancient Greek architecture.
That wasn't the point here, though. The original post had to do with
finding some sort of terminology that would separate education in
"theoretical architecture" from education in "practical architecture",
because far too often (in the author's view, which I personally found
sensible), people come out of university Architecture programs with little
or no practical knowledge/skills. One idea (as I understand it) is to have
schools of architecture specify which branch they intend to emphasize, so
that applicants can know ahead of time.
The original poster also, as far as I understood it, seemed to opine that
the mandatory 1+-yr apprenticeship was too often a sort of "remedial
architecture" that wouldn't be necessary if schools taught practical
architecture primarily, and theoretical architecture secondarily
((especially given that many graduates still don't have a significant
conmprehension of style, and of how to utilize/balance differnt styles).
The Greek origins of the word were not the focus of the thread.
> little
>
> And architecture is architecture.
No, the whole point is that it isn't - there is theory, and there is
practice/practcality (i.e. actually building something and having it be
structurally sound and functional).
This theory:practice duality is true of a great many (and perhaps most, or
even all) human endeavors, except for the most simple.
>
> By definition students learn. If they fail to learn, that is their
> problem.
That is an entirely specious statement.
For one thing, the point of the original post, and the thread, is what's
taught and how is it taught. It has nothing at all to do with students'
capacity for learning. university courses are simply not all created equal
- there are prestigeous Universities that give out "gentleman's C"s, whicyh
make their degrees fairly meaningles; there are other Universities that are
OTOH well-known for turning out highly competent professionals, because
they give real grades and teach practical applications as well as theories.
Anyway, it's obvious students can learn, otherwise they'd never get into
university in the first place (aside from a few with very rich daddies of
course). What your statement does is exhonerate institutions from any
responsibility whatsoever to provide something resembling an education.
Personally, IMO, most things can be better learned by a conbination of
reading and tutoring or apprenticeship, because I personally learn better
that way - but the university education gives you the magic piece of paper
that employers require so that they don't have to actually find out much at
all about one's capabilities.
>
> This hardly makes sense.
In what way? Unless you provide an analysis, all you're stating is an
opinion that may or may not be unfounded.
| |
|
| "o8TY"> wrote
> Has anyone here heard of the Arkadians?
Its a small town about 40 miles NE of here, Arcadia.
The people that live there are Arcadians, you spelt it rong.
Seriously, pertaining to architecture, I came across that word just last
night as I was researching some of the details on greek revival style
buildings. Think I tried to cram too much info in in too small a time cause
right now I don't remember what the arkadian part was. Something in the
gable I believe, or maybe like a friese or something.
| |
| Adam Weiss 2005-10-12, 12:21 am |
| Kris Krieger wrote:
<<snipped>>
>
> That wasn't the point here, though. The original post had to do with
> finding some sort of terminology that would separate education in
> "theoretical architecture" from education in "practical architecture",
> because far too often (in the author's view, which I personally found
> sensible), people come out of university Architecture programs with little
> or no practical knowledge/skills.
Yes. That was my point.
But more than simply creating a word to different theoretical
architecture from practical architecture, I was seeking to comment on
the excess of theory in many architecture schools. Theory is just one
of the many facets of the profession, but at these architecture schools,
it's the be-all and end-all of the curriculum. Even though it's in
their name, these schools are barely teaching architecture. They're
teaching -arquitektuur- with a queer little 'q' in it and two 'u's that
it doesn't need.
> One idea (as I understand it) is to have
> schools of architecture specify which branch they intend to emphasize, so
> that applicants can know ahead of time.
That wasn't my idea. In fact, it runs counter to what I'm saying.
I'm suggesting that all schools teach both theoretical and practical
architecture, as well as the other things that practicing architects
need to know. Give them all their due weight.
>
> The original poster also, as far as I understood it, seemed to opine that
> the mandatory 1+-yr apprenticeship was too often a sort of "remedial
> architecture" that wouldn't be necessary if schools taught practical
> architecture primarily, and theoretical architecture secondarily
> ((especially given that many graduates still don't have a significant
> conmprehension of style, and of how to utilize/balance differnt styles).
>
Exactly.
The apprenticeship is too often remedial education.
Students should learn the skills they need to practice while they are in
school. This does not exclude theory from the education of
architecture, but it would not allow for the prevalence of theory in
archtiecture school.
>
> No, the whole point is that it isn't - there is theory, and there is
> practice/practcality (i.e. actually building something and having it be
> structurally sound and functional).
Yes.
Architecture is BOTH theory AND practice, and a slew of other things.
Leave out theory, and architects become contractor engineers. Leave out
practice and the rest, and architects become fine-artists.
To teach architecture is to teach theory and practice and all of the
other things. To teach theory alone is to teach "arquitektuur".
>
> This theory:practice duality is true of a great many (and perhaps most, or
> even all) human endeavors, except for the most simple.
>
You hit the nail on the head.
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:uwW2f.12469$vw6.7101@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "o8TY"> wrote
>
> Its a small town about 40 miles NE of here, Arcadia.
> The people that live there are Arcadians, you spelt it rong.
>
I recently went to a poetry recital where the most common theme was the
idyllic rustic landscape known as arcadian (sic). FWIW, there are probably
more towns in the world named Arcadia than any others sharing the same
ancient Greek name.
> Seriously, pertaining to architecture, I came across that word just last
> night as I was researching some of the details on greek revival style
> buildings. Think I tried to cram too much info in in too small a time
cause
> right now I don't remember what the arkadian part was. Something in the
> gable I believe, or maybe like a friese or something.
>
>
If ever you remember or rediscover what it was, please post it.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-10-12, 1:21 pm |
| Adam Weiss <aw722@blockspam.org> wrote in
news:434C78AD.4010801@blockspam.org:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
>
> Yes. That was my point.
>whew!< Glad I got it right <G!>
Seriously, tho', I know that I digress off onto tangents, but that one was
too far off even for me =:-o !
> But more than simply creating a word to different theoretical
> architecture from practical architecture, I was seeking to comment on
> the excess of theory in many architecture schools. Theory is just one
> of the many facets of the profession, but at these architecture
> schools, it's the be-all and end-all of the curriculum. Even though
> it's in their name, these schools are barely teaching architecture.
> They're teaching -arquitektuur- with a queer little 'q' in it and two
> 'u's that it doesn't need.
And it's part of a larger trend which pushes aside practicality and real
action, and in its place puts theory at best, and mere blither at worst.
This thread runs through all endeavors, not only architecture. I suspect
that the idea behind the blitherfests is the increasingly-common notion
that if one only yammers rather than acts then: (1) one cannot be
accountable because words don't make hurricanes, cause buildings to fall
down, and so on; and (2) words get your face on the news, ie.e. get the
attention of people and can make one a celebrity.
The problem is that "mre blither" *does* have consequences because, as the
philosopher noted, even inaction is a form of action, a decision. And IMO,
inaction if often more criminal than is a genuine mistake. Inaction can be
nothing more than lazyassedness and a concscious choice to not bother doing
thingsintelligentrly because it takes time away from one's play-time and/or
social life.
>
> That wasn't my idea. In fact, it runs counter to what I'm saying.
Oops...
> I'm suggesting that all schools teach both theoretical and practical
> architecture, as well as the other things that practicing architects
> need to know. Give them all their due weight.
Ah, I see - that seems logical.
And if someone wants only to study theory, I'd guess that technically could
be a branch of the "Liberal Arts" or "Art History", or get a BFA.
> Exactly.
>
> The apprenticeship is too often remedial education.
>
> Students should learn the skills they need to practice while they are
> in school. This does not exclude theory from the education of
> architecture, but it would not allow for the prevalence of theory in
> archtiecture school.
That makes sense.
>
> Yes.
>
> Architecture is BOTH theory AND practice, and a slew of other things.
> Leave out theory, and architects become contractor engineers. Leave
> out practice and the rest, and architects become fine-artists.
>
> To teach architecture is to teach theory and practice and all of the
> other things. To teach theory alone is to teach "arquitektuur".
Makes sense.
>
> You hit the nail on the head.
Cool, I like it when I have a clue ;) ! But seriously, I've gone through a
couple different potential and real career options, and whether it's music,
science, patient/health care, linguistics, info analysis, programming, or
3D, everything has three requirements for proficiency: 1) theory, 2)
practice, and 3) integration of the two with each other and with one's
innate and learned skills and abilities, whatever their level. We can't
all be geniuses but competence is an achievable goal, assuming one is
willing to take responsibility for one's work.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-10-12, 1:21 pm |
| "o8TY" <o8ty@hotmail.com> wrote in news:434d2124_1@news.iprimus.com.au:
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:uwW2f.12469$vw6.7101@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> I recently went to a poetry recital where the most common theme was
> the idyllic rustic landscape known as arcadian (sic). FWIW, there are
> probably more towns in the world named Arcadia than any others sharing
> the same ancient Greek name.
"Evangeline"? "This is the forest primeval" and so on?
Wordsworth if I remember correctly?
>
> cause
>
> If ever you remember or rediscover what it was, please post it.
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|