This is in response to the vibrant discussion on Studio Vs Practice. I rather enjoyed the throw outs by everybody. And my excuse for the silence was the prep for start of sem.. hehe.
I don’t really want to broaden the discussion. Great points have odi been made. Just want to throw in my simple way of seeing things and then close the Fido Anecdote.
Conceivably, there are 3 types of buildings:
1. Buildable and Built Buildings
2. Buildable but Unbuilt Buildings, &
3. Unbuildable Buildings
Those of us from Melb and here who are pretty focused on Type 1 sound like ppl who’ve seen the light, or something, after moving on. And really, there is great wealth in that arena. I’m not trying to be punny: Wealth monetarily as well as in an epistemological sense. Carry on, I say, carry on---it’s a wonderfully exciting adventure. Most of the precedents that inform our education in architecture (as far as schools of architecture go, as opposed to liberal arts faculties) are Type 1 buildings. And it is not true that Built Buildings have no “design”.
There is a great deal of Type 2 buildings around, in the Studio and in Practice. Ask any architect. Yes, there are shelved schemes in the drawer (hardisk) that the economy, the fickle client or competition jury set aside. Brilliantly designed and detailed though they may be. No? Yes, most 5th Year Thesis projects belong to this category, too.
Those of us who feel attracted to Type 3 buildings need not apologize for it, nevertheless. That your colleagues may not share your access to something so esoteric and unfathomable, do not understand their value, should not deter us. Because they shed so much light on the murkiness that is the muddied attempts at design in Type 1 and 2 buildings. Pragmatically, you need to be astute as you analyse your educational programme for crevices or plateaus which allow you to explore and place your Type 3 buildings.
At the end of the process that is Architectural Education, it is more than likely that you will be unable to divorce the Buildable from our “Unbuildable”. You will somehow see all 3 types in each of the projects you have designed. And we all hope that we will carry the holistic thing into practice. Reality, I reckon, is friendlier to the messy than the pure.
Oca, with his wonderful wit, has a way with metrical writing. I’ll just piggy back on him.
studio is studio…and practice is practice?
Some reckon studio is the practising for practice
My classmate who told me the Fido story never said which sch it occurred in. I would personally grade the guy A+ for wit, for the simple act opens up a whole world of discussion on animal rights, recycling, economy of means, brief expansion, etc. But I reckon he would earn a D or E for deliverables, unless he had videoed and packaged the performance…
In any case my classmate said the guy failed the project.