I'm thinking, Prix's not wrong here.

I was in architecture school near the height of deconstructivism. I've some vague familiarity with Prix's work (from photos and drawings, which barely counts, hence "vague"). I may just not be smart enough to understand how Coop Himmelblau has challenged what Prix wants to see challenged, versus simply being part of the same the-dominant-power-builds-what-it-wants dynamic.

Which maybe saying his approach is a way out wasn't the point of his article, but it sure adds to my general depression about it.

It's hard to contribute to the built environment without becoming part of the populist problem. But, I feel that the profession needs to stand up for itself more. I find the public is generally unaware of how the built realm comes to be, that too often great projects are diluted by political legacies and procurement methods, and other non-physical concerns.

It feels like a good day when even 5% of a project is motivated by physical concerns. I can't help but think that there's just not enough coherence in the profession anymore for it to be able to stand up for itself. What do you think of the notion that we need to instead "imagine that we wouldn’t stop being architects by taking jobs wherever we can influence decisions related to buildings," ie. that it's a waste of talent and influence for architecture grads to assume they should work in architecture offices?

manytomany.net

I confess I'm prone to the thinking that graduating from architecture school = working in an architecture office. I'm working in a *design* office, but don't consider design to be where my strengths lie. Applying architectural education to other positions in the work force should have as much respect as design work, especially since so much of an architect's daily work has nothing to do with design.

It seems that so much of our work is involved in how to counteract the negative effects of a particular procurement/contract model. Strategizing what parts of a project we spend time designing, and what parts we sacrifice so that a GC comes in under budget. "Under budget" -- the public's favourite type of building.

Ryan, thanks for including me in this topic. I can't help but notice the similarity between "architects [...] taking jobs wherever we can influence decisions related to buildings," and my own career choices.

I think that architecture should be an undergrad degree or college program that the masses of students take before they specialize, with only a few electing to proceed further into the profession of architecture. We would then have a much more interested and interesting dialogue as changes to our built environment are proposed and made.

With regards to Prix's criticism, there will always be those who want to challenge their audience and others who like to make pretty things. Given that neither is easy to achieve in the normal profession of architecture, it seems unimportant as to which tack an exhibit should take.

Yeah, I think we're getting to the nub of what I find irksome about this criticism coming from Prix.

I'm also in a (slightly less so) design office, and I also wouldn't consider design to be where my strengths lie. But to not be good at design studio in school, and/or work at one of the big corporate firms, and/or (heaven forbid) leave the main line of studio feels like it would provoke exactly the kind of dismissive I-guess-you're-not-good-enough Prix rant from designers'-designers who are--like Prix--also sinking fast into the canals.

I'm finally coming to the (thunderingly obvious) conclusion that architecture firms as a class of thing with a net positive effect on the built environment have been irreversibly neutralized.

Obviously there are many exceptional firms, but I find it safer to assume that the bulk of architects are a menace to the built environment.

I think you're pointing to architecture as a specific example of broader phenomena: 1. that there has been for some time a growing disconnect between how the world is presented, and how it actually is and 2. increasingly abstract and siloed disciplines (professional and otherwise).

I don't think we should be too critical towards architecture firms as they are fundamentally the agents of larger forces. Up against a disinterested client (beyond money) and a far-too-interested municipality, I don't know how any firm could manage a net positive effect. I think this view is consistent with Ian's silo observation.

Ok. Let's just assume I'm in a terrible mood. (And Ian: I'm only one chapter into "Dark Age Ahead." No spoilers).

en.wikipedia.org

That's okay. I'm only 4 pages into that super-thick book you loaned me 1,000 years ago.

Stephen,
I think that's close; to clarify: I do think architecture is fundamentally weak; and I think the instinct to become oracles is dangerous. I am for open-source information, not closed.

Just for completeness, here's the full text of the press release.

archnewsnow.com

And here's that and Chipperfield's response on one page. (Chipperfield's is behind the paywall over at The Architect's Journal).

archidose.blogspot.ca