my comment was meant to reflect that quoting philosophers 2000 years dead in regard to aesthetics doesnt make a whole hell of a lot of difference or sense.

the architect is the general contractor of the design side, cordinating all the design, theoretical, artistic pragmatic and technical.

The question should be "What should architecture schools be teaching?" When that question gets answered then we can define who should qualify. The more troubling thing for me is the cronyism in architecture academia ( not that it doesn't exist elsewhere), but i think that when schools lack clear goals, and have a somewhat ambiguous curriculum, the hiring process becomes much too subjective. When I was a student I doubt not the "qualification" ( they all look good on paper) , but if they had anything to say...it isn't about "doing" or "thinking", its just whether they have a clear idea at all that they truly believed in, and if they could articulate those...Sadly, with the exception of a few, most don't...

most of my teachers weren't pretty enough to teach me anything.

i am guessing that any accredited school has a very specific curriculum and set of topics that they are required to teach in order to be recognised as part of education towards beciming a professional...the question of what to teach has been answered, on a national level, and teachers are hired within that framework. it may not feel like it, but accreditation is a powerful tool for shaping content around North America.

in japanese situation there is no such things as a professional degree (any degree qualifies you to take exam, though an english major who didn't work in office for 7 years would not have a chance in hell of passing) and the professors teach what they are interested in. This works too, but then the profs have to be more careful about their curriculum...

we're specifically trained as organizers of information. sometimes that information involves beauty, sometimes flashing, sometimes dollars per square foot.... we don't have to know all that information, just be able to find it and be able to turn it into something meaningful to our clients. i love it when, in order to be meaningful to my clients, what i give them is something beautiful. but it doesn't always happen.

that was somewhat in answer to rehiggins questions above about the value of architects.

jump, if school "accreditation" were in fact, responsible for teaching content or skills necessary in professional pratice, then shouldn't all graduates be allowed to take the licensing exam without first having to slave away for 3 years or more ? I think accreditation is a fine concept, but to this day no one can give me a straight answer as to what NCAARB or whatever governing body look for when they evaluate a school..

Kantian aesthetics holds that beauty no longer had to satisfy the requirements of the good, the purposeful or the true, only that it needed to stimulate the perception of beauty in the individual. I learned that in Architecture school from a guy who had never built anything except for a program within an architecture school.

God help us for the day that practitioners, NCARB or crackpots or poets solely determines the curriculum of an architecture school. The best part of architectural education is the being able to go from a class on stormwater mitigation to one on transcendentalism.

what if you dont believe in Kantian aesthetics, transendentalismn, or any other "ism" really for that matter, just the reality that what you concieve must stand up and that in itself is more beutiful than any philosopher's prose could ever hope to be. Is there a school for that? If I could live in my dreams, I would always be asleep you know. Not to bash the acedemics too harshly but really subversive to to the beuty of just being.

Well, who do we build for? Are we building for other Architects with Kantian hard-ons or are we building for the user/passerby-->"other" that doesn't care about any "-ism", just how the thing feels or looks??

beauty is subjective and therefore irrelevant.

relevance is subjective and therefore irrelevant

irrelevance is absolute, and that's where this thread seems to be headed.

probably since you've joined in...

sorry...carry on

perhaps subjectivism is what's absolute, whether we believe in it or care about it or not.

well kant certainly din't believe that subjectivity was what was absolute. did he.

maybe we should ask him?

nonarchitect, accreditation is not the final thing that decides curriculum. however it does ensure a minimum standard of competency is taught at all universities that offer a professional degree. the manner in which this is done and all education beyond that is subject to change from school to school. however i can tell you first hand that acreditation is not taken lightly and it does very much drive the content of curriculum. and it is monitored, every 5 years (i believe)...certainly there is a certain amount of gaming involved as in any system, but i think everyone involved is pretty responsible...

as far as i know the intent of accreditation is not to ensure a student can take licenceing exam on graduation, only that they have met required standards for first part of their education... the second stage is to take place in professional setting. after that, passing the exam is the benchmark for having achieved minimal competency as architect in broad range of topics. but you have to work in office for a few years first. is part of the deal.

personally i am not a great advocate for the north american system...i have worked with lots of architects who got their licences upon graduation when i worked in london, and same with in tokyo...they were not any better educated or prepared for the real world (even the spanish architects and the german ones i worked with; in spite of their much more rigorous tech education compared to what i had in canada)...but they all caught up after a few years in an office. it evens things out quite fast.

that is not to say that a teacher needs to go through that same process to be a good teacher (for the first part of an architect's education, anyway)...

the pleasant the beautiful and the good. ... the case is quite differnet with the Beautiful. It would be laughable if a man who imagined anything to his own taste, thought to justify himself by sayin: "this object( the house we see, the caot that hte person wears, the concert we hear, the poem submitted to our judgement) is beautiful for me." for he must not call it beautiful if it merely pleases him. many things may have for him charm and pleasantness; no one troubles himself at that/ but if he gives out anything as beautiful if it merely pleases him. many things may have for him charm and pleasantness; no one troubles himself at that; but if he gives out anything as beautiful, he supposes in others the same satisfaction-he judges not merely for himself, but for every one, and speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things. hence he says "the thing is beautiful;" and he does not count on the agreement of others with this his judgement of satisfaction, because he has found this agreement several times before, but he demands it of them. he blames them if they judge otherwise he denies them taste, which he nevertheless requires from the. here then we cannot say that each man has his own particular taste. for this would be as much as to say that there is no taste whatsoever ie no aesthetical judgement, which can make a rightful claim upon everyone's assent...

if we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost. thus there can be no rull according to whic any one is to be forced to recognize anything as beautiful. we cannot press by the aid of any house, or a flower is beautiful. people wish to submit the object to their own eyes, as if the satisfaction in it depended on the sensation; and yet if we call the object beautiful, we believe that we speak with a universal voice, and we claim the assent of every one, although on the contrary all private sensations can only decide for the observer himself and his satisfaction.

we may see now that in the judgement of taste nothing is postulated but such a vuniversal voice, in respect of the satisfaction without the intervention of concepts and thus the possiblility of an aesthetical judgement that can, at the same time, be regarded as valid for every one. the judgement of taste itself does not postulate the agreement of every one (for that can only be done by logically universal judgment because it can adduce reason); it only imputes this agreement to every one, as a case of the rule in respect of which it expects, not confirmation by concepts, but assent from others...

jump, Mark is once again teaching studio. I know he said he took a long break, but he's taken on a small studio class (I think 8 people, but I could be wrong).

My prof is his partner, and I like them both quite a lot. She pushes hard, and I'm getting a lot out of it, although I do sputter from time to time. I overhear Mark's comments to students because his studio starts about 4 feet away from mine. He's able to communicate brilliant ideas with a clarity and ease that are lacking in many (most?) of the profs.

---------------------------------------------------

Licensed or not, I'll evaluate my profs on a case by case basis. The criteria? That has to remain flexible. At this point in my education, I want to be educated and not just trained. Isn't that the whole point?

I'm young and naive but there's room for all types of profs, as far as I'm concerned. Just stay away from the crazies.

but the crazies are the most FUN!