To all of us that have either started or completed an "Architectural Education" in the last thirty years, please take a look at this posting:
http://architectureboston.com/2010/11/10/why-modern-architectural-education-is-archaic/.
Can you find a reason to disagree? What shall we do about this? I have to give a plug to my partner for his efforts working on the fringe of reality in the measly backwaters of Community College here in Monmouth County. I think he has always based that beginning education in the reality of the built world. But why the hell can't that attitude be adopted throughout academia with the exception of a few "special" projects or programs? Whenever programs like Rural Studio or some Ivy League class actually building something make news we and the popular press or public television all join on those bandwagons, yet we are not willing to make that the standard versus the exception. Food for thought. And boy am I hungry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I get it. I have experienced this my entire career. In my opinion, it has to do with CHANGE. People don't like to change which means they are even less likely to ADOPT. I have two great books to recommend that help you build a case for yourself AND how to avoid the dreaded "NO" word. The first is called "Start With Why" by Simon Sinek and the other is "Selling to The VP of NO." by Dave Gray. The latter is simple and precise, but an excellent guide that really gets to the point quickly. And tactics you can put to use day one.
MY adopted position is to try to lead by constantly challenging the norm in design. Force clients to ask "why this?" Or better, tell them the benefits of "this", why it's better, more valuable or significant. Educate them. Embrace the things that are difficult and people will listen. It's more a matter of believing that people (clients) will adopt an idea if presented through a 'marketing' channel. For example, try using "value" as the marketing channel. Through "value" the user saves money, but still gets a great, e.g. logo design, house design, building design, office space layout--whatever.
The media is GREAT for doing this kind of thing. Perception is reality, thus it's important if it's published. It's valuable if it's published. So get it published or find parallels that are published for the purpose of illustrating YOUR point or YOUR value.
Interesting timing; I was on a 2nd year jury at Brookdale this week in which the bulk of questions might have been considered "archaic" in a currently "fashionable" architecture program- they dealt with such mundane considerations as context, ventilation, light, orientation, site, (dare I say it?) structure... Kudos to Ed for continuing to teach reality based architecture in a world in which fashion dominates. The emperor's new clothes comes to mind...
Post a Comment