Dear agfa8x

I guess the graphs you have seen is the index/contents register of the site. If you click on say, "How to create theory of design”, it will take you to another page with the information.

Routio describes two research methods, Descriptive and Normative. Roughly, descriptive research aims to gather information on a subject to explain how and why it works, and in many ways are retrospective.

Normative research, on the other hand, aims at improving existing or informing complete new creations by referring to history and then speculating on how the future should be. Once a truth is distilled, example; Corb's - Towards a New Architecture, the mainstream core of architecture is enriched. Each new design you and I make becomes a study to improve on earlier models with this as ultimate aim.

If you look at the section "Architecture", he further divides normative theory in architecture into the theory of synthesis that mainly deals with program and practical planning issues. The second is theory of thematics and it deals with, well theme. It gives interesting insight into the works of say, Gehry, Hadid, Woods, etc.

Maybe you call this something else, in which case we are dealing with semantics? Please let me know!

Regards

Here is the wikipedia link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

Thank you Chris!

You might find this link on Eisenman interesting, but rather skeptical - http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/eisenman.html . I think you will find the thread running from Corb to Venturi to Derrida to Eisenman.

My main quest is to be able to say why I/we/you did what we did. At the very least to ourselves, and that would be enough for me.

If I understand the main thrust and theme of normative research correctly, a lot of mainstream architects seem to have made great use of its principles over the millennia. They either knew about it intuitively or they have been introduced by it in someone.

You and I use its principles every day to make sense of a lot of ordinary things. The author of Arteology (not that it is his invention) just explains how it formally works.

Thank you for Deleuze. I haven't had a look at him yet.

chris, i wouldn't categorize eisenman's students quite so definitively.

examples?! here's one from me: http://re4a.com/

yeah, i wouldn't equate ribbons/blobs with theoretical b.s. it's a b.s. all it's own that has more to do with computational ability and post-rationalization than any particular theoretical position.

the thing about eisenman is that his design - like it or not - always seems to be the result of a very specific and rigorous search for a form that matches up with the talk. not vice versa.

--

separate topic: chris, if you ever had the inclination to make a thread on the topic of translating kwinter, that would be very interesting for me. he's one of the few writers for whom i have NO patience. top b.s.er of the b.s.ers, imo. most obscurant language user out there. a shame, too, since he seems to be writing about issues that excite me...

Chris, do you find NFoster's architecture to be very interesting or creatively stimulating? Is the 'level' he has attained one of craft/precision in deploying various building systems, or something more, in your opinion?

Trickswithbricks-

In my very first architectural history class, at age 19, my prof asked us to write an essay on

"What is the best style of architecture?"

My first thought was, "You're asking ME? I'm 19! You're a tenured prof at famous school! How should I know?"

I scratched my head for a week and wrote a very bad essay.

"There is no best style of architecture. People are living happy, healthy and productive lives in all styles of buildings." There was more, but not much more.

The prof only commented on one paper. Mind you, I was a sophomore in a big lecture class filled with grad students. That paper was mine, and his comments were very cryptic. I didn't know whether he was complimenting me or informing the class that there was a bona fide idiot among them.

About a week later, the prof offered me a ride home after a field trip and started asking me about my essay. He was very animated.

"So, do you really think there is no 'best style' or architecture?"

I didn't know what to say, but I felt very uncomfortable. He was staring at my legs (it was spring and I was wearing shorts) and acting way too friendly for a teacher and student. I was kind of shy, and I preferred girls.

I dropped out after that, because it seemed like I was wasting my parents' money. What a great gig it must have been teaching architecture - nubile young men eager to spend an afternoon with a famous prof....

Ahem.

So. To answer your question. Do whatever you want, but make sure that the architecture DOES SOMETHING! You can defend *anything* that way.

Example: "This twirly doo-dad is a rain drip. Water collects up here and then exits through the twirly doodad."

Or: "This 10th story balcony is not accessible from the inside in order to save money for the clients. Otherwise, people in all of the offices on the same floor would want balconies, too, and that would cost too much. This balcony is a place for the window washing guys to stop and eat lunch and have a smoke and set up their equipment. They should enjoy the architecture, too.

Or: "This is a new invention. It is called an opaque window. It opens like a window, to let in fresh air, but functions more like a shutter, to keep out the light and views. I can't tell you any more under advice from my patent attorney."

Or: "This is called a 'flying bathroom.' It's like a flying buttress only better. You see, the building will stand up without a flying buttress, but without the 'flying bathroom' there's no place to take a crap on the 19th floor."

See how it works? It's called bullshit, and the sooner you learn how to bullshit your profs, the sooner you will be able to convince your clients to pay you a lot of money by bullshitting them into building something that will look good in the magazines and that the client can't afford until after construction starts. Then it's too late.

that's cynical and untrue.

agfa8x:

You are claiming that I am a liar? The first part - about my first experience as a student - is absolutely true.

And why do you think architects become cynical, anyway?

So please enlighten me. What is the best style of architecture? What is the best color to paint a building? What are the best shapes to use? I'd really like to know.

eje: "I was kind of shy, and I preferred girls."

i think thats the sweetest thing i've read in an archinect post.

not your story, eje, but your conclusions. if you practice BS in school, you'll do BS in practice, and do BS architecture.

agfa8x

At some level, all architecture is BS and architects who disagree are BS'ing themselves. How does one justify good looks in the face of an economic argument?

A building has a ziz-zag wall configuration. The zig-zag looks cool, but it also helps stabilize the structure and provides some extra storage space. An entry is rotated off axis or given an odd shape. Why? It can be justified for all kinds of reasons. It gives more room here, it directs the occupants there, etc. That's the whole process of design.

Look at the work of the world's top architects. You think they don't BS their clients? And you think that teachers don't BS their students?

there is value beyond monetary value, eje. or is anything that can't be given a non-monetary metric automatically "BS"?

are light and air BS? is making a positive experience for a user BS? is allowing someone to connect with something in the distance that they may not notice otherwise - challenging them to recognize a larger context - BS? these are all things that go beyond an economic argument.

i ask because these are things users have told me - not things i have claimed for a project. so, if it comes back to me as feedback, is it BS?

i posit that limiting everything to an economic argument is BS, indicating how completely many of us have been fleeced by a quantitative rather than a qualitative view of what constitutes a good life.

right on, Steven.

eje, your comment shows your deep ignorance what "the whole process of design" is all about. but thanks for attempting to sum it up in one sentence. one cannot imagine how revolutionary the outcome of your intellectual inquiry could have been- if you had succeeded. a valiant effort, nonethless.

...er...qualitative over quantitative...uh...are there two Steven Wards?

same me, different situation.

And yet one might posit not.

Steven Ward and noci

So that is what you tell clients when you design buildings that have useless balconies? Or rooftop canopies that serve no useful purpose other than to look cool? That there is "value" in them? The client still has to fork out a couple of hundred grand for them for the useless doo-dads. And you charge her for your time, too. But you have her by the balls (so to speak) at that point, don't you?

What is most offensive and insulting about your attitudes, Mr. Ward, is the idea that YOU, Mr. ArrogantArchitect, claim the authority to decide what *I* am supposed to value. That your values are the "right" values.

"I am the architect, and you have bad taste. Spend more money and I can fix that."

"WE decide what YOU should value. It's not about the money, so pay up."

These attitudes are offensive, yet they sum up the attitudes of many architects - especially those who are held up as role models. The big names. The Award winners.

Have you *ever* worked for a client and put yourself in the shoes of the users whose experience you claim to enhance?

No architect would ever give my neighbors a design award for their house. They would say, "Ewww!" and point out all of the visual defects that contribute to its less-than-positive user experience.

But the architects are not the users or the owners!

My neighbors, for example, worked hard and sacrificed their lives to be able to afford the houses they have, but it is not my place to point the finger of bad design at them, regardless of my occupation. The level of insult you heap on others by claiming to represent their interests or the public interest - in those circumstances where you do not - is appalling. It is disgusting. And yes, it is why people spew invective at members of the AIA.

noci

I am most definitely not ignorant of "the design process", and your comment is an insult. And no, I did not attempt to sum it up in one sentence, as you misrepresent.

My original comment was to TRICKSWITHBRICKS, not anyone else. If he or she doesn't like my answer, that is one thing. But your responses prove my point.

I'm starting to think Eje is not all that happy with the house you designed for him, Steven.

i have no idea what he/she's talking about, either, kurt. useless balconies? "pay up?" that's just not how this business works. eje's seems to have concocted a fantasy monster architect to shoot arrows at, but that isn't who most of us are.

as i noted in my comment, i like to hear a client's comments, especially when they tell me what they value.

anyway, kurt, i was hardly arguing a quantitative argument for the mercer island house, just a rules-based one. in most cases, these rules are put in place in an attempt to guarantee a certain quality outcome.

mr cobb designed a house exhibiting certain qualities that many of us agreed were pretty great. you were trying to suggest that there were certain universal qualities that should have been recognized and honored by mr cobb but were not. as someone else mentioned, this would be similar to 'being polite'. maybe politeness was not among the qualities to which mr cobb and his client aspired...

are they free to exercise their right to build what they want? apparently.

would love to stick around to try to understand where eje's coming from but i have to go to a school board meeting so they can tell me what THEY want. (hint: they like natural daylighting, geothermal hvac, and want to celebrate/announce the entry in a better way than their current building does).

eje, I am a teacher, and I do my best not to BS my students. imho, you fail entirely to recognise what architecture is - you seem to think it is just a decorative art, a matter of taste.

good luck in your architecture career.

Steven subcontracted the balcony design to me, actually. I also tried to add a useless rooftop canopy just for kicks, but eje told the owners about it and that was it, then.

If that was your takeaway, Steven, man I got nowhere.

imho, this comment is 100% right on.

eje, I had a course in my undergraduate 5-year BArch education wherein we did post-occupancy evaluations and designed buildings based on information we learned from directly from users about how to make their working lives better. That one class has informed every project on which I've worked for the last 25 years.

So don't you dare go and accuse me of never having "worked for a client and put yourself in the shoes of the users whose experience you claim to enhance"

I do it, professionally, every single moment.

We're all architects, eje -- course we all think it makes sense... :-)

I agree with your last post, Liberty Bell...

And if it were all just BS, it would have died out long ago.

But you know, I really don't take too much offense at eje's position, or at anyone asking the "Oh, really -- WHY?" type questions. Eje also brings up some really good points.

one thing that this whole conversation makes me realize is that in architecture schools we spend way too much time looking at the starchitects. some one buying a starchitect's design is like someone buying $200+ jeans. they just have to grin an bear it and everyone tells them it is great so they begin to believe it.
the fountainhead is not the real world!

i think that is where the disconnect lies. eje, i should go find an architect and shadow her. watch how things actually get done.

this is why the stories of my practice are some of the more important stories i tell my students. they are consequently the ones that affected me most in school.

LB, i think post-occ studies are a great way to really understand buildings! i will have to think about how i can add more of them into my classes.

BS:
Our strategy was to insert a dynamic fluid-based waste-management technology that would act as an on-demand interface between the body of the occupant and the public infrastructure of the urban environment.

not BS:
Every beautiful piece of architecture has survived its original appearance, purpose, and function, and many have served many functions successively. The right of an architectural work to last – and finally, its right to be – lies only in its beauty and not in its function. For it assumes a new function – beauty. Beauty is the most resistant structure and the most resistant material. – Gio Ponti

also not BS, though not without exception:
What students (of architecture) fail to realize is that they are being trained for a career that does not exist in any practical context. One might as well go to rock star school or lottery winner school. The chance of actually practicing architecture is just as slim. The industry that architects actually work in is the building construction industry. It has little in common with architecture. [Architecture students:] Please update your future[plans] accordingly. – web site comment from ‘Architecture Hate Page’, circa 2003.

liberty bell

Have you ever worked for a client who hired a superstar architect? That is, have you ever had to defend or represent the interests of clients when confronted with the interests of a superstar architect? This is very, very different from being the designer of a building whose goal is to fulfill the client's needs and desires.

There seems to be a difference of opinion here. On the one hand, Steven Ward is arguing that architecture is beauty, right?

On the other hand, agfa8x seems to think that I am mistaken when I claim that architecture is about style.

agf8x:

There is a great-looking power plant near where I live. It has really cool looking smokestacks and ducts and pipe rails - it's fantastic, especially at night. It was designed by engineers.

Is that architecture? Or will it only be architecture when someone decides to turn it into a nightclub or restaurant? Or neither?

eje,

You have crafted an elaborate argument to support your decision to drop out of architecture school. Thats fine. Like most arguments, it is flawed in a number of areas. In other areas, you might have a point. But overall, your premise is based upon a monumental lack of knowledge and therefore of little value. Not all great architecture is produced by starchitects. Witness the Name that Architect and Building thread, or the work of Samuel Mockbee and rural Studio.

Try town planning or accountancy.

I think Meta/Teeter/Braga brought the bullshit manifesto. Bravo.

diabase:

After dropping out, I spent ten years in the construction trades, worked my way through architecture school, got a degree and license. I have a few small projects built under my name, and I do not believe that I am the idiot you seem to take me for. But thank you for the negative assumption.

And I did very well in studio. Concept development was my forte - I kicked ass. I also discovered that some instructors do not have the interests of their students in mind. They teach in order to make names for themselves, to steal the ideas of their students and to recruit the good ones for their own offices. For a while. Or to get laid, as a perk.

Am I cynical now? Yeah, you better believe it.

In this thread, what I have done is offer TRICKSWITHBRICKS a way through his paralysis.

First, get through school. How? Continue path C), and justify aesthetic decisions with utilitarian arguments.

Stainless steel looks cool, but it's also more durable than zinc phosphate plated steel. Green glass looks good next to the CorTen, but the green coating also absorbs UV rays. Etc.

That is a perfectly valid design methodology - at least in part - even after he gets out, wouldn't you agree?

no, because it assumes preconceived notions for every project. while you may have learned an approach consisting of design cool first/ rationalize later, many of us learned while still in school that this was not a professional or ethical path from which to build a satisfying career in architecture. each project has its own agenda, established by all of the participants in its development. thus every project has its own learning curve.

the star architect is really a different situation altogether. it's a different business, really, if the original hire is based on the architect's recognition as a star. in that case, the client has said that they want to prioritize the architect's notoriety, whether to make a landmark, to sell stuff, whatever. if you're buying a brand, it's that architect's responsibility to protect the brand.

that's totally different from what most of us do.

and remember that it often happens that even the stars get fired. remember herzog & demeuron in texas? if the client's not happy, the job is over.

'justify aesthetic decisions with utilitarian arguments.'

'are light and air BS? is making a positive experience for a user BS? is allowing someone to connect with something in the distance that they may not notice otherwise - challenging them to recognize a larger context - BS?'

Really, what's the difference?

had eje not used a specific 'cool material justified by function' as his example, but instead proposed going into a project wanting to somehow justify say "the drama of large windows / because they provide light", no one would probably have faulted him for preconception.

Besides, we all have preconceptions going into any project. They don't necessarily point to close-mindedness, but are themselves in fact part of a learning curve.

Eje, I'm kind of liking your posts. Jabbing the sometimes self-righteous...myself INCLUDED...is never all bad. That alone doesn't make you an idiot...you probably achieve that in other ways :-)

This thread appears to have become an attack upon me. I think this criticism is misdirected, as my goal was to offer some assistance to a student who reports that they are suffering mental paralysis at the hands of a teacher.

No educator should be abusing their students. Physically, sexually, or mentally - it is an abuse of a position of trust.

No teacher should make their students feel like crap. To encourage and challenge is not the same as to belittle or humiliate.

The original poster's immediate problem appears to have less to do with architecture or design than it has to to with a relationship that should be mentor/disciple, not master/slave.

After I returned to architecture school, I had some terrific teachers - none was a starchitect. But there was one jackass who showed up at the school and began throwing his weight around and many of the terrific teachers left.

In an especially memorable series called "Faculty Forum", this instructor would engage in so-called 'critical dialogue' with other faculty members. He would let them present their work, and then take their own words and tie them around the presenter's neck and slowly strangle them. He seemed to enjoy watching them turn red and twitch, then would just leave them twisting and dangling, gasping for air. He made sure that every faculty presenter left the room knowing "You're my bitch. I own you." And the students knew it, too.

One woman - a wonderful teacher and human being - was involved with the design of spaces that would nurture children's development. With a partner, she had also designed a facility for physically and mentally handicapped. But Mr. M didn't like the colors she used. He questioned her choice of shapes. He wasn't thrilled with her literary pedigree. He had nothing positive to say about her life's work. When he thanked her, the insincerity was palpable, like, "Yes, I'm a complete asshole. What are you going to do about it?"

Ms. C made it out of the room without breaking down, but was a pile of rubble by the time she made it to her car. Helping children was the essence of her being, and Mr. M made her feel as though her work and her life had no value. That she, as a human being, was unimportant and irrelevant.

What did I take from that and similar conversations? That Mr. M was someone to be feared. I became terrified of the man because he had no compunction about ridiculing, belittling and humiliating people who should have been treasured and appreciated. That he played dirty and was out for himself. His purpose in teaching was not about educating others. It was, and still is, about acquiring power and extending his authority.

He has been with the school for over 25 years, is now the Director. He has won many awards for his work, and has been invited to lecture at top schools around the world. He has written books and been extensively published. His office has major commissions. And he appears to have extended his power throughout the city, acting as a kind of godfather and overlord, deciding who works and who does not - and who "will never work in this town again".

But what did he really teach? Not respect. Not appreciation. Not gratitude. He taught hatred. Fear. Loathing. Contempt. Disgust. That's what he taught me, and it sounds like that is a lesson that is being taught to the original poster.

It will only be years later - when he is on parity with his current teacher - that the student will fully grasp how he has been fucked.

So I am suggesting that if a student is being forced to swallow a bunch of crap handed to him by his teachers, I suggest that he dish it back. In their face.

"Try to enjoy it" is, I think, not the best advice.

My opinion.

it's much more clear now where you're coming from. and i'll agree... to a point.

architecture school is and should be challenging. not to the point of mental anguish, but certainly some personal angst is in order every now and then. it's part of making a journey.

i've not seen a situation in a school quite like the one you've described, eje, but i can see how it would be demoralizing. all schools have their political wrangling, and it can also be damaging to the student experience, but it has more to do with academia than architecture, imo.

thanks for sticking with us, e.

eje,

I appologise for suggesting you take up accountancy or townplanning. Perhaps you should have mentioned your experience along the way [from your language I expected you to be quite fresh].

However, as you rightly note you are cynical and do have a chip on your shoulder. Perhaps you might consider the fact that architects are in fact people and a range of personality types are present. You have obviously had some bad experiences. The guy mentioned above is a piece of work, but he is only 1 individual.

My advice to anyone facing a personality conflict or a difference of opinion with an instructor is to back yourself with strong work, strong argument, and forget about marks. Architectural education is long enough that you can take a hit on a studio or two. You cant afford to take a hit on your own ethics or reputation.

eje, and Tricks with Bricks, I'm embarrassed at how sort of cliched this response seems, but honestly it's a story that has been helping me lately when someone else's actions are really making me nutty. It's a zen parable. Which is why it's embarrassing, like this suburban white American thinks she can "achieve enlightenment" through one story or whatever, but anyway, it's a nice story with a nice concept behind it:

Two monks are walking along a country path. They soon are met by a caravan, a group of attendants carrying their wealthy and not-so-kindly mistress and her possessions. They come to a muddy river, and cannot cross with both mistress and packages - they must put one down and cannot figure out how to do so. So the elder monk volunteers to carry the woman across the river, on his back, allowing the attendants to carry her things, and then all can go on their way. The woman does not thank him, and rudely pushes him aside to get back to her caravan.

After traveling some way on their own, the younger monk turns to his master, and says, "I cannot believe that old woman! You kindly carried her across the muddy river, on your very own back, and not only did she not offer thanks, but she actually was quite rude to you!" The master calmly and quietly turned to his student, and offered this observation: "I put the women down hours ago. Why are you still carrying her?"

Put down those bad professors - carrying them around just gives them more influence over you than they deserve.

"Masters - it's all bullshit, but it was fun!"

i prefer eje's covertly tender wrath. i also agree, words can be a verbal noose but only if you acquiesce so they need not be. you had a hungry professor; you could either spit or show him how scary, to his ravenous rabid appetite, a void you can be. yes, the zen thing again.

but you can look at it differently; this professor had an appetite to serve up verbal morsels of himself, wanting to bloat you with his regurgitating exuberence. force feed you himself. and this can only happen to a person who is restless, discontent with the limits of her/his individuality. you can rest assure, if this goes to satisfy your desire for revenge, that this person suffers everytime they do it. and if they aren't aware of their siffering, they skipped a stage of maturity (the zen thing I borrow from lb again). must be a bile thing.

how can you stand to work on something you don't believe in, arthur?