DESIGN OR BUILDABILITY? STUDIO OR PRACTICE?

(BLTN…)

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.

this is in responds to the post made by KS

firstly, please dont treat this like a hate mail... it's just an opinion... i didnt respond to my previous posts cause some of you were getting hostile...@_@

anyway... moving on

well first thing first.. who are we to judge if a person is talented or not? and who are we to say that an untalented person will not make good architecture? cause then it will beg the question - what is good architecture?

what is good architecture? this question is debated thru history and is never resolved untill today.. it is like chasing the wind... a utopia that we architects always seek to achieve... but hey, even if u do achieve utopia and that 'good architecture', just because you are the one that conceived it, it's not good anymore... cos you yourself is not perfect... there will always be something negative about your approach.. always.. guarateed... so are you making bad architecture then? does it mean you are less talented? =)

as far as the way the system is structured...

i believe you do know that this problem is a worldwide problem in every architecture school.. it's relative.. subjective to whoever that beholds it. and it is the nature of our profession to be constantly under unfair scutiny. it is up to us to man up to the game, dust it off our shoulders and move on to the next challenge. if we can't take that, then well sorry dude, you're just not emotionally cut for it.

as far as i am concerned, we should always be mindful of the big picture. dont just focus on our little bubble of the architecture school. think about what will happen in the real world. think of your tutor as your client and your assignment as your multi-million dollar project. your ultimate goal is to get the building built and to satisfy your client.

in architectural practice (AP) you can't always hide from your client. you have to meet regularly with him. discuss ideas. get feedback. go back. work on it. come back. get screwed. go back and get unscrewed. come back and the process goes on. So, it IS our duty to see our tutors whether or not they say 'do whatever u want' or whether u think u are too talented and u dun need that lousy tutor. it IS the way it sud be. so if u get penalized for not showing up for tutorials, sorry la brother..

in AP you have timeline. a critical path that you have to stick to. coz if you dont follow it, your company loses money and your client gets cranky. so similarly, design is not an excuse. doesnt mean you have the most wonderful idea and talented idea then u have an excuse for not producing quality drawings and renderings and presentation. to me, that is the lamest excuse ever and most irresponsible excuse ever. we have been given a timeline, we should keep to it. yes i know it's hard. i struggle with it too. cos architects are perfectionist. but at some point we gotta say stop and move on to documentation (drawings)..

yes identity is important as a design school and SABD owes it to us to have a clear and consice vision. i agree. but it's not the school that defines u. it is U who defines yourself. it is YOU, thru study and research, find your niche and stick to it and brand yourself with it. again, big picture thinking.

yes external crits can be violent and hostile. but again, it is the nature of our course. we put up our best for the sleeziest people to chop. it is a sad fact but it is what makes us architects. it defines our character, builds our resolve, refines our approach and it causes us to rethink and reevaluate. well yea sure, it feels bitter. i understand. totally. but we need to learn to look at it in a holistic manner and take it in positively.

let me encourage us all to not be so affected by grades. tadao ando never entered architecture school. frank gehry was told by his architecture tutor to quit architecture cause it is 'not' for him... grades are not everything. what is more important is your identity

who u are as an architect is ultimately what makes or breaks u... it is ur brand.. ur bread and butter...it determines how you work.. and how your work defines you... it molds your company.. it directs it... your identity... find it

if you leave architecture school discovering yourself and believing in yourself and what you have become... i would say that SABD did a good job... entering architecture school is not about grades.. grades will not land you a job... but your identity.. your personality and your character will... no point getting good grades but without substance.... entering architecture school is about changing your mind... from a normal person's to an architect's mind.. that's what is important..=)

so yea, appeal all you want.. but if we are waiting for SABD to change.... why not ask how can we change first..? =)

Assessment Criteria? Policy? Spirit?

Hi Ian, I'm back with questions..

It's a thought that has bothered me for quite a while:
What exactly is the assessment criteria in our studios (or our school, in general) if given a choice between talent & hardwork?

Apparently four kinds of students (or more) can be found in the studios;
1. talented & hardworking
2. talented & less hardworking
3. less talented & hardworking
4. less talented & less hardworking
5. etc.
We all know how to grade the (1) and (4), quite naturally..

The Situation

Now, how about the (2) & (3)? I believe by looking at how they are graded comparatively, we'll be able to understand what the faculty's agenda really is..
From my point of view, however, there's not one perceivable, strong guideline that the tutors follow in assessing the students or their work.
I believe there has been quite some disatisfaction and wonder among the students.

So ,what does the SABD want to do? Don't tell me it's all about $$
What's the SABD's identity? Certainly not Sketchup-ish or such..
What kind of architects does the SABD really want to give to the industry/society?

In fact, I've seen some cases whereby one's graded high because of the obvious [stable & consistant progress], while the final work outcome does not show as much quality and content compared to those of the [more talented,less hardwork done, but quality outcome] students, which at times are graded lowly.
On the opposite end, what about those (if any) who worked their head off alone, without once consulting the tutor because the tutor always tells them to "do whatever you want" or gives some unhelpful advice (which indeed happens), and finally come out with good designs/work by themselves, but still get undergraded for the lack of perceivable step-by-step hardwork?


I Think

I personally believe hardwork is more important than talent and that everyone's ability will always improve if effort's made; but hardwork itself does not equal to ability, hardwork does not promise quality and excellence as much as ability.
Does the school want to produce architects that is able to make things right? Or architects that work hard but still not yet able to make things right? I thought we're always reminded to work clever first, then work hard..

Besides, it's stated in all SABD student handbooks that an 'A+' is granted for [Exceptional quality of work...bla bla... It may also be given to acknowledge originality in work.....bla bla....]. Does it not express that appreciation we should have towards individual talents?

Grading systems are imperfect and they don't always reflect one's accurate level of standing but grades, undoubtedly, encourage/discourage people. Why shouldn't we be more willing to encourage the talented by grading them more properly?
Is the grade given by external crits actually fairer than grade given by studio tutors, then, in an objective sense?


The Integrated Policy, Is It There?

The absense of clear agenda/vision in the SABD is also quite troubling. Just look at the common difficulty to cope with the non-conherence in tutors' expectations because each of them are So different! Sometimes there's no mutual agreement between some tutors and their respective units! Didn't mean it's bad to have unique characters, as a matter of fact tutors should have their individuality.. to enlighten us. But I wonder is there anything that binds the tutors and the whole studio together? It seems lacking.. where's the architectural policy of the school?
I believe it's better if the school holds one unified, consistent set of architectural policy and it be complied by every faculty staffs. By that, the SABD should be able to always develop upon itself rather than standing still, architecturally.


I'm not an academic, and I'm not at all familiar with architectural education despite my involvement in an arch.learning research quite some time ago.
Just voicing out an honest opinion that I hope the tutors would contemplate on, and hopefully the school gets a glimpse of it.
Being a Malaysian private institution is not an excuse, I don't care what Taylor's Education Group thinks, but the SABD should be a little bit more autonomous in spirit, a responsible attitude to architectural education..

Last but not least..
I hope to get not just Ian's personal view on the matter, but also what the school is all about, if you can answer me..
Thank you very much for the time ~!


**editted on 14JUL, 2.59pm. in Blue.

TO STUDY IN THE UK OR OZ?

Hi Nat, in response to your request… I’d better write this before it gets useless... haha!

To your question, “Is it better to get an architectural degree from the UK or from Australia?” I’d have to offer my thots from an absolutely non-pragmatic and highly personal level. I mean, it won’t be about

• Affordability
• Comparative costs
• Course alignments with PAM’s recognition
• The worth of repeating a year in the UK
• Comparative ‘course difficulties’
• And that sort of thing

For that…the students will be better served by student counsellors from our College and any number of private set ups here and there. They have the uptodate info.

How I can be helpful will be perhaps to relate how it feels like to have practised architecture as a British graduate for the last 20+ years, and, I suppose, generally what it (still) feels like to be a British trained person.

In the new days when I first came back, there was a general prejudice amongst employers that Brits were on average ‘more thoroughly’ trained for the profession than others. By that ‘they’ meant that we’d been very well-groomed in ‘how to put a building together’, and would be more readily aware of the practicalities of doing the job. We actually had subjects called ‘Professional Practice’ and ‘Building Regulations’ in 3rd or 4th Yr. And, as u know, our Malaysian building regulations and fire regulations are a kinda handmedown from colonial days. The fact of the matter—our actual training and the corresponding public perception—made us feel good. In contemporary parlance, we were cool, felt cool, too.

Of course, sure, sure, some of that has changed now. And in any case any bright young woman can easily pick up those rules and constructional skills in a jiffy even if she’s never eaten the original roast beef and Yorkshire pudding in her life.

It’s changed because of the near-virtual borderlessness of the architectural flow of information and flight of pollination. Take Datum, for example: We heard from Scandinavians, Americans, Brits, Japanese, Malaysians, etc. and we all, more or less, reverberated with the same wavelengths—which means that we could just as easily get a degree from Tokyo and feel at home practising in New York or Ho Chi Minh City, no?

And it will get increasingly that way, I’m sure you’d agree.

It’s the other things, then, those things that enrich the other, larger side of us that will be the criteria, in the end.

I remember getting cheap theatre tickets every summer and frittering away all my allowances at the West End in London. (The Student Union Card did wonders for getting discounts!) I saw the original Jesus Christ Superstar, Cats, Evita, Starlight Express, Rose, Duet for One, The Romans in Britain, amongst more other plays and musicals than I can remember, sitting so near the stage you could reach out and tickle the soprano.

And standing on THAT rock in the Yorkshire Moors that Richard Gere stood on in the film Yanks… yes, that, too. And, of course, the Lake District, the northern Welsh countryside, and dipping into the Scottish stream to test my resistance to cold… All that somehow changed our skin: I mean, our large osmosis membrane. Perceptive senses. Things didn’t feel the same after that, we didn’t feel the way we felt before, or for the same things. The landscapes of post-youth, it seemed, transformed the certainties of childhood.

We were a little ‘left-off-centre’ even if we, overseas students, weren’t particularly proactive. It was in the air, the attitudes and assumptions behind every expression, be it the newspapers, tv documentaries, or the visit by Sue Slipman, the National Students’ Union president, to working-class Leeds, where I was. We were ‘surprised’ that a representative for all university students could be Red. We all read ‘Where Monsoons Meet’, published by FUEMSSO which was based in London.

Pervading this relatively strange milieu was the wonderful British humour which I love to this day—from The Two Ronnies to Not the Nine O’clock News, and much more in between, and all around. Wonderful!

And then, of course, the irreplaceable music in its home country, in its myriad variation: you could never imagine that the same word or phrase could be inflected so differently depending on locale in that tiny country. You either hated it with postcolonial vengeance or embraced it as part of humanity. I listened to the English language then, its music and its nuances. Total immersion, they call that method.

Ok la, what’s all this got to do with our objective at onset?

Well, this ‘other’ education afforded by the place, I think, on reflection, moulded a certain pliability of task-approach, a certain egalitarian slant to world views, and a certain jolly quirkiness to circumstances; and made the subsequent practice of architecture creative in the broadest sense of the word.

And I think people saw that, even if they couldn’t put their proverbial finger on it.

And I wonder if it would have been the same if I had gone to Australia.

And what does it feel like now?

It’s one of those strange experiences. You attire yourself with a garment of everlasting beauty; but come a time you realise that there are many, many others, and that you perceive its beauty only because it is next to your skin. What might have been gloriously splendid may now appear a little dated, or at best must now take its place in the kaleidoscope of fashions parading the globe. And that’s ok, Babe, that’s ok.

The other little matter (well known to all) is interesting. Students who finish in December don’t ‘lose’ any time by going to Australia, and the same applies to those finishing in June for the UK. Mix that up and you hang around for 9 months or so. Well, what’s the hurry? I did Form 6, taught the Remove for a full year, and then messed about and loafed around for the 9 months before starting 1st Year Architecture in September. I ‘lost’ 1 year and 9 months. But it was a case of seized opportunities. That year’s teaching, at that age, and that once-in-a-lifetime bingo to be a 9-month samseng were priceless.

That’s the larger education.

About the specific education, I should say just one thing: Above every criterion stands one—the tutor. The chance to work with an inspiring tutor is reason enough to go even to Timbuktu.

Hehe… says the tutor, seriously.