120411
ARCHITECTURE-- – TECHNICAL MARKSMANSHIP
By Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH
What it is, is architecture! Or is it?
Architecture has long been held, considered and defined as part artistic, and part engineering. The exact breakdown of these two attributes has never been established, and more than likely vacillate in the perspective of the individual. And in the project requirements and needs-- some simple; some most complex.
Is it possible for architecture to be handsomely conceived, but poorly constructed?
Is it possible for architecture to be wonderfully sensitive, aesthetically astute, but ugly in its drabness, and its dilapidation? Or aesthetically aplomb, but lost in the mind of the public who do not understand such criteria?
Is true architecture only that work which closely approaches perfection-- or that which is bizarre, revolutionary, extraordinary, well thought out, optimally designed, meticulously detailed, and constructed with artisan ability and concern?
Is true architecture only that miniscule number of published projects, which survive critical review by the most knowing minds, and attributable only to the upper echelon of signature architects [those who seemingly can do no wrong, and have a trove of hotly anticipatory clients anxiously awaiting their piece of the best the profession produces?
If Gehry, Graves, Johnson, Pei, Pelli, Koolhaus, and the other currently hot architects speak for the profession, what of the other tens of thousands of architects, world-wide who produce sound projects, within budget, on time, and to the satisfaction of their clients? Are they failures? Are they second-class practitioners? Are they unworthy of the title? Are they impoverished, on their last legs, prosecutable, unprofessionalwhat exactly should their adjective be?
Another approach, besides the obvious glitz and heavy PR, is to look at the inspiration to the individuals, their abilities, and the training they receive. It seems quite apparent, that success breeds successi.e., if you can get one commission to be a stretch, and extreme solution, you may just open a whole new aspect to your career. How do you best do that? Rhetoric seems a good approach; talk em into it, by making them believers. Like missing not only the bulls-eye, but the whole targetand still bragging about it!!
Is the seat of true architectural expertise in the vocal cords?
Fundamental to a discussion of architectural design is the recognition that architecture is a form of intricate and carefully prepared technological innovation as much as it is concerned with cultural expression , or with the pragmatics of construction. So no matter how logical software development may appear to be, what is required from the resulting software is more than a logical encoding of existing architectural practice-it extends to design tools that can help realize the expressive intentions of creative designers and can be a platform for future research. But a large portion of the documents produced are highly technical in nature. Therefore it is extremely hard to understand why a profession like architecture will simply choose to turn its back on the very heart of its work-- the technical. Bulls-eye!
It is almost pathetic that training and education are just words and not truly embraced as integral part of required professional skill, developed to a rather high level. Herein is the point where the quality of building construction is taken for granted and not a subject of intense effort. Yet this is the very future the profession is on-- producing new professionals with so little, if any, technical knowledge and know-how that the lack of same is inconsequential, and topic and situation not even worth discussion. But then none of the many agencies that impact[?] the profession is really in charge, making properly overviews of the profession [registration is really the only legal requirement] Oh, and these groups dont talk about the profession as a whole-- only their own narrow perspectives. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!!!