and as a comment to the previous: the difference between all things and architecture is that we can't choose not to live with architecture. This, in my opinion, makes architecture political in the strongest sense. It's an inseparable part of our lives like language or economic systems.
As a sideline-thought (that somehow seems like a relevant reminder): The "commodification" of architecture is a trend that's more a surface- than deep- current. It's not a total illusion, but almost. The possibility to choose is still very very limited.
as i understand the authors' conclusions, Davy and Harris suggest three separate types of work that exist in firms like ours:
Technical Work -- the basic 'nuts and bolts' of design and putting together a building (this is the stuff that clients tend to commodify)
Collaborative Work -- a service delivery arrangement where the designer and the client work closely together to shape the final result, with the designer providing strong and powerful leadership
Transformative Work -- the work of the designer goes far beyond simply designing a facility ... the work of the designer helps guide the client (or the client's organization) through difficult, rapidly-changing environments and has a transformative effect
a main part of their premise seems to be that this is a continuum ... that you can't really undertake collaborative work successfully until you have mastered technical work ... and you can't really undertake transformative work successfully until you have mastered both technical and collaborative work ... each stage is preparatory to the next
given that so many of us want to jump directly to high-impact "transformative work", this is very thought provoking stuff in our world
the authors go on to suggest that there is a direct linkage between the fees that you are able to charge and the type of work you are doing
Steven -- we've veered off of the 'politics' topic -- sorry, kids... Well I definitely share your disdain for the SUPPOSEDLY timeless, and you make a good point. Last week I sat patiently while a perfectly nice client explained to me the almost higher-calling type benefits of going with the Spanish Revival Style. Wha? Where did she dream that one up? (BTW, she won't be getting any of that from me.) ...But I also know that you know the difference -- you've been in buildings to which the word applies.
"...i don't think you recognize the transcendent architecture through instinct but through conditioning, knowledge, and individual experience. if you could, we would all love the same things...." This quote is great here, because who could disagree with you? Well, I do disagree -- at least in one important way. Your quote efficiently boils it down to the "nature vs. nurture" kind of question -- and this is my interest in a nutshell. That is, quite opposite of your view, I think we DO all love the same things. To stand your logic on its head, and if this were not true, all architecture could only be judged as equal. Neither the sublime nor the shitty could exist. See where I'm going? Isn't a common experience an absolute necessity for architecture? Examples of the common experience may seem too basic to even be useful -- gravity, is an example -- but they have far-reaching impliciations, and I think that to tap into this shared condition is the path toward transendent architecture. At least I have that stuck in my head.
I was surprised by your temporal/trendy conclusion -- sounds like you're saying, in your best Krusty the Clown voice -- "Ahhh, fuckit".
not at all, rj! that was a serious sentiment clothed in casual collocation.
sure, we should aspire to lasting and solid work, but every project doesn't have to carry those same aspirations. i'm just as interested in the experimental or temporary or, yes, trendy. how else to discover new things for yourself except by messing around?
there's a fascinating book that i referenced while doing my graduate thesis called "cultural selection" that deals with some of these things we've discussed. basically it's a discussion of why some things last, their value is recognized, etc while other things fall away. (like natural selection, natch.) why shakespeare over marlowe, for example: two writers of similar stature, but marlowe was even considered a better writer by contemporaries. was shakespeare so revered because he was better, because of universal recognition of his work, or were their other more circumstantial factors at work?
You know, it would bother me greatly if, say, Shakespeare's work was not ACTUALLY better, but had instead garnered history's favor via circumstance......the odd hack sneaking through as an exception, sure, that 's inevitable, but much more generally common than that would keep me up nights.
I usually read all the posts before responding, but I'm just gonna say this: "Architects are pets of the rich." -Samuel "Sambo" Mockbee (i might have misquoted slightly, any Auburn students out there plese don't flame me).
responsible architecture vs. creative masturbation
Happy new year!
and as a comment to the previous: the difference between all things and architecture is that we can't choose not to live with architecture. This, in my opinion, makes architecture political in the strongest sense. It's an inseparable part of our lives like language or economic systems.
As a sideline-thought (that somehow seems like a relevant reminder): The "commodification" of architecture is a trend that's more a surface- than deep- current. It's not a total illusion, but almost. The possibility to choose is still very very limited.
regarding "commodification" ... there's some fairly recent research published in Value Redesigned: New Models for Professional Practice that makes for some interesting reading on this topic
as i understand the authors' conclusions, Davy and Harris suggest three separate types of work that exist in firms like ours:
Technical Work -- the basic 'nuts and bolts' of design and putting together a building (this is the stuff that clients tend to commodify)
Collaborative Work -- a service delivery arrangement where the designer and the client work closely together to shape the final result, with the designer providing strong and powerful leadership
Transformative Work -- the work of the designer goes far beyond simply designing a facility ... the work of the designer helps guide the client (or the client's organization) through difficult, rapidly-changing environments and has a transformative effect
a main part of their premise seems to be that this is a continuum ... that you can't really undertake collaborative work successfully until you have mastered technical work ... and you can't really undertake transformative work successfully until you have mastered both technical and collaborative work ... each stage is preparatory to the next
given that so many of us want to jump directly to high-impact "transformative work", this is very thought provoking stuff in our world
the authors go on to suggest that there is a direct linkage between the fees that you are able to charge and the type of work you are doing
makes sense to me ...
Same to you, Helsinki....
Steven -- we've veered off of the 'politics' topic -- sorry, kids... Well I definitely share your disdain for the SUPPOSEDLY timeless, and you make a good point. Last week I sat patiently while a perfectly nice client explained to me the almost higher-calling type benefits of going with the Spanish Revival Style. Wha? Where did she dream that one up? (BTW, she won't be getting any of that from me.) ...But I also know that you know the difference -- you've been in buildings to which the word applies.
"...i don't think you recognize the transcendent architecture through instinct but through conditioning, knowledge, and individual experience. if you could, we would all love the same things...." This quote is great here, because who could disagree with you? Well, I do disagree -- at least in one important way. Your quote efficiently boils it down to the "nature vs. nurture" kind of question -- and this is my interest in a nutshell. That is, quite opposite of your view, I think we DO all love the same things. To stand your logic on its head, and if this were not true, all architecture could only be judged as equal. Neither the sublime nor the shitty could exist. See where I'm going? Isn't a common experience an absolute necessity for architecture? Examples of the common experience may seem too basic to even be useful -- gravity, is an example -- but they have far-reaching impliciations, and I think that to tap into this shared condition is the path toward transendent architecture. At least I have that stuck in my head.
I was surprised by your temporal/trendy conclusion -- sounds like you're saying, in your best Krusty the Clown voice -- "Ahhh, fuckit".
not at all, rj! that was a serious sentiment clothed in casual collocation.
sure, we should aspire to lasting and solid work, but every project doesn't have to carry those same aspirations. i'm just as interested in the experimental or temporary or, yes, trendy. how else to discover new things for yourself except by messing around?
there's a fascinating book that i referenced while doing my graduate thesis called "cultural selection" that deals with some of these things we've discussed. basically it's a discussion of why some things last, their value is recognized, etc while other things fall away. (like natural selection, natch.) why shakespeare over marlowe, for example: two writers of similar stature, but marlowe was even considered a better writer by contemporaries. was shakespeare so revered because he was better, because of universal recognition of his work, or were their other more circumstantial factors at work?
Cultural Selection? I'll check it out.
You know, it would bother me greatly if, say, Shakespeare's work was not ACTUALLY better, but had instead garnered history's favor via circumstance......the odd hack sneaking through as an exception, sure, that 's inevitable, but much more generally common than that would keep me up nights.
sorry...it's by gary taylor. hardcover is 1996 basic books, but i think i saw a new issue paperback recently.
I usually read all the posts before responding, but I'm just gonna say this: "Architects are pets of the rich." -Samuel "Sambo" Mockbee (i might have misquoted slightly, any Auburn students out there plese don't flame me).
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.