Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Theory Chapter - The Ethical Architect
I'd like to encourage you all to participate in this discussion. Consider the following and respond based on your opinions of the reading: 1) how do you define a 'good architect'? 2) which 'branch of theory' do you subscribe to, or is yours different - and if so, how: The Plural Values, Unity of Values or Withdrawal. Let's try to keep this discussion going for the next week or so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I ultimately define a 'good architect' as being one who is skilled in the field and possesses a wealth of knowledge in areas in, and directly outside of architecture (i.e. construction, graphics, etc.). He/she must also possess an adaptable personality to conform to collaborate with clients of all backgrounds and personality types. As for my branch of theory, I tend to subscribe to the Postmodernist idea of 'plural values'. However, where I part with their thinking, is in the allocation of the values. I happen to personally side more with modernists in that utility should be a focal point to lead beauty in design.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eddie. A good architect is an architect that accounts for every single part of the building in terms of its aspects of beauty, functionality and structure. This goes hand in hand with attention to the clients needs instead of your own, which works directly with ethics. Accordingly, these parts are all evident in the plural value perspective that I "subscribe" to. However, even though these values are all very important and necessary for good design, it is not at all possible for all three values to be equally present at once. Therefore, one will always take priority over the others, which is decided by the architect.
ReplyDeleteBoth Eddie and Dr. Phil have made some good comments on what makes a good architect especially that he/she needs to meet the needs of the client. An architect could know everything there is to know on the topic, could make the most amazing renderings, and construct the whole structure by hand but if he/she is not meeting the client’s wants and needs he/she is a bad architect. Including everything that was already said, I think a good architect is an architect who puts the client’s needs, wants, and wishes before his/her ego.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how I would classify my “branch of theory” because I believe that I still have much to learn despite this being my last semester of grad school. Every project I have worked on in school has asked for different things, has been approached with different angles and has produced many different results. I do not believe I will really know how my branch of theory develops until I am out in the field working with real clients and making real world decisions. I agree with Vitruvius that architecture must be built with durability, convenience, and beauty. That is a set of rules that I believe can be easily agreeable with. Dr. Phil makes a point that it is impossible for all three values to be equally present at once. I somewhat agree with that, but is it always up to the architect to decide which branch takes priority? I think a nurse who works a 24 hour shift is more concerned with convenience, while the maintenance man wants the hospital to be durable, and finally the marketing department wants the building to be beautiful so that more investors will put their money into it. Does the architect get to pick who they listen to more? Or does the person who writes the check to the architect get the most say? At what point is the compromise met?
Firstly, I like the shift from ethical and moral discussions to those of reason based thinking. Although I do not undermine the importance of ethics, I think that most of the issues presented to us as architects can be thought through rather than 'felt out'.
ReplyDeleteAddressing the P. Smuda's comments, I like the comparison of school projects to professional. As most of us make the move from our collegiate carriers to our professional endeavors there is a lot to be said for the similarities in values. I think most of what we do in our studios is a huge indicator for what we hold dear or what we might be able to do without when going through the design process. Its gives us a nice untainted look at our values. As we move forward it will be interesting to see what changes occur, whether it be a pure design theory to something of a diluted version impacted by the budget and time constraints of the real world or an initial practical view of design that held strong throughout the transition, rewarding a grounded response in design solutions.
Just as there lies a metaphysical debate between Platonic and Kantian theories, there also exists an inherent debate regarding the aesthetical and successfulness of an architect’s design. Spector’s suggests that a “pluralism” must exist in modern architecture movements that insist on equality within an architect’s values. However, this does not appear to be analogous to equality, yet he continues to insist that it is such. He claims that a modern value system must find compromise in order to eliminate any conflict that may arise during the design process. He then chastises some for their emphasis on diversity as “an odd measure of design excellence.”
ReplyDeletePersonally, I cannot concede to a premise that states how equality or diversity (pluralism) alone can instigate good design. I believe a hierarchy of variables, a competition of sorts between these variables is the equation for good. Additionally, the subjectivity and inter-correlations between the defined terms are too numerous to be summed in this comment. For example, aesthetic function vs. cognition, commodity vs. delight, art vs. ethics, etc. The subjectivity that goes into the use of each of these terms is as vast as the languages and dialects to which they can be translated.
However, my goal is not to say that life, ethics, and morality should not be given meaning and be left to anarchic reigns. Rather, I argue that a solid, denominating premise should not be articulated that implies a sort of negative rights to the architect and his/her design.
I think an Architect is not defined as a good Architect by just his buildings but by his knowledge and his morals. Also to be able to say a building is good would have to be aesthetically beautiful,function as a building and have a structurally good design.I don’t think Just by meeting the requirements of building that makes you a good Architect or that a beautiful design would come of it. I think it has a lot to do with having a knowledgable Architect with good morals design it.
ReplyDeleteIn a sentence, to me a good architect is one that never forgets who he is designing for (health, safety and welfare for the people) and one who can incorporate durability, convenience and beauty into every project.
ReplyDeleteMy branch of other would be plural values because i believe that the task of an architect is to make something practical, useful and functional into something beautiful and that when utility and structure are adequately addressed, beauty was an almost inevitable result.
It is hard for me to define what makes a 'good architect' because there are a vast amount of factors and variables that go into determining whether an architect is good. Rather, I believe that two of the most important qualities that a 'good architect' must have are the values of adaptability and consistency.
ReplyDeleteA good architect must be able to adapt to changes in numerous aspects of his work, from differing job types to differing clients, as well as being able to adapt in a profession that is changing at a rate nearly constant to the exponential rate of rapid technology development.
Further, what defines success to me is not one or two great projects, rather consistently developing work that is superior to the field and consistently meeting clients needs, wants and desires while consistently creating a work environment that is satisfactory to his/her employees.
Branch of Theory -
“Another result of endorsing pluralism is that one form of monism – the modernist emphasis on function - is replaced by another – the postmodernist emphasis on diversity. The propensity of a design solution to promote diversity becomes the ultimate criterion of its goodness 0 an odd measure of design excellence. Before postmodernism burst on the scene, we would have been more likely to judge a design excellent by how well it combined beauty, functionality, and structural integrity, rather than by how many different interpretations we could wring out of it.” (Spector, 41)
In the modern profession function is still an essential ideal to creating a structure that is deemed ‘successful’, however, with recent changes in our global environmental situation multiplied by a poor economy and the need to cut cost, I believe that more importantly than strictly function is a buildings ability to adapt to a various amount (diversity, as stated in the reading) of functions. With adaptability there is a sense of a lack of permanence, creating a design that is impeding less on the environment in a negative manner. Having a building that can serve multiple functions saves in energy costs, construction costs, and reduces the need for an unnecessary amount of buildings to be constructed. Building life-cycle is another important issue in the modern profession, and if a building is going to be erect for a long amount of time, allowing for the adaptation of its function once it no longer needed for its original function is a very important aspect as well.
Their ability to adapt to changing technologies, economies, and needs of society through continued education within the field suggests their thirst for knowledge of architecture to encourage a positive outcome in their work habits. In reference to the "branch of theory" in which I believe I belong to it would be the plural values because I to believe if the practicality and functionality of a structure are addressed accordingly then the beauty will be an inevitable result.
ReplyDeleteThe debate of whether one sees architecture as a form created out of needed function or whether, simply the desire for an esthetically pleasing shape is then regarded as “good” architecture to me is a debate of politics and individual choice. Personally, I do not see it formed or classified through separate entities but agree with Vitruvius that, “Architecture is a focus where three separate purposes have converged (commodity, firmness, and delight)”and Plato, “beautiful must be good.” I see one forming out of the other though personally not giving preference or bias as to which comes first as long as each is considered equally in the end.
ReplyDeleteI thought it also interesting that the passage regarded art and architecture as being much one and the same. I do believe that “beautiful” architecture is composed equally of functional parts and esthetics and would go as far to say that creating that balance is a work of art; however, I do not know if you can always exchange the words equally. In all obviousness for example, a painting is not architecture, at least in my definition of the word and profession. As the passage points out, there must be a certain functionality to say the “object” before it could be considered architecture.