makeshift

Must be a global issue that Architects don't have a defined place in society nowadays. Markets have done the work for us. Many of us have sold our social responsability for having gorgeous works spread all over the city... are we trendy or are we implicated?

Posted by: Xavier Rudd on Jun,12 | 0.38

It is deeply ironic that what we are actually studying is, in fact, entirely vocational. At the most fundamental level, we spend 5 years in education to become architects to then end up under the rigid conformity of RIBA's plan of work. I agree with the notion that generalism is what architecture could (or should) engage with. However, is this something which is exclusive to the study of architecture? Perhaps we should consider the broader context of higher education as a whole? Take philosophy or politics degrees. They still have relatively inflexible syllabuses (apart from some optional modules no doubt) and they deal with issues which encompass the entire developed world as we know it. How many philosophy/politics graduates go on to become "philosophers" or "politicians"?

Posted by: Ed Headley on Nov,11 | 0.18

Bryan, I think this is a very sharp distinction, and I think I'm inclined to agree with you. It may simply be a matter of physical articulation, whether it be other subjects coming into a building which has 'architecture' over the door or architecture students going out and into other buildings with other things written above their doors. Ultimately it should be both. Architecture is, inevitably, a form of applied generalism, but - you're right - not a microcosm. As such, even though it must take on and synthesise knowledge from every other angle, it does bring a different lens to that knowledge – that's what makes it useful. What schools definitely must not do is retreat into a falsely-defined mantra of 'specialism' (i.e specialising in the narrow business of construction) which some might attempt to do under a delusion of 'pragmatism' or autonomy.

Posted by: AP on Nov,11 | 0.48

Hi Alistair. Your thoughtful wording and clear analysis of the existing situation in Architecture schools leads me to largely agree with most the points you have made in the poster and at the SUAS debate in Sheffield. However there is I think an element of your proposition that seems to be attempting to bring the world into the architecture department, to create a kind of contained micro climate. Surely part the problem is the isolationist position of students themselves, e.g. the world already exists, lets not recreate it, why not just go out and be part of it, instead of spending 5 years in the studio. Cant the student take responsibility for their own self imposed isolation from the local neighborhood, other disciplines, and use an architectural school for what it is, but as part of a diverse palette of contexts in which to engage, including community involvement, paid technical work, gardening , attending court, business seminars, family, art exhibiting, going to economics lectures etc. This would mean the school could in fact become more specialised as opposed to your move towards broadening out.

Posted by: bryan davies on Oct,11 | 22.00

Similar question being asked over here - sydney Australia. Similar answers too!

Posted by: Nik Scott on Oct,11 | 12.40