text:
As a devils advocate, I can sympathise with Schumacher in some ways. The architect is increasingly marginalized in the realization of a building…and there should be a serious consideration (now more than ever) of the difference between architecture and building. Not in academic terms as much as harsh realities of the economics and politics that shape what actually gets built as much (or more so) than a design charette. Architects do not build for themselves, it is the people with money , and often disparate interests, that ultimately foster revolutionary architecture – or not…usually not, as economies continue to mesh at a global scale and markets expand in agency and volatility fed by speed. Perhaps 'building' is no longer the most appropriate venue for the aspirations of 'architecture'. A questioning of education should at least include the consideration of leaving a stale profession for dead, one that is desperate and exploits young optimistic students until they break. It is should not include breaking away from the arts, but encroaching more on them, learning how to become artful, to find new venues to display the profound implications that architecture may have. These ideas (especially those written about on this blog) need to become real somehow to have any real impact as protest. If not through 'building' than how else? How to materialize and instrumentalize revolutionary ideas, to engage the polis, to destabilize?
# ARCHITECTURAL THEORIES /// Open-Letter to Mr. Patrik Schumacher: Yes, Architects are Legitimized and Competent to address the Political Debate
Truth, Power and Knowledge by Daniel Lauand
Dear Mr. Schumacher,
Today, I read the article that you wrote two days ago for The Architectural Review and I felt the urge, the necessity to send you a response as such rebuttal would almost constitute a manifesto since your discourse seems the exact opposite of the one I am defending on this platform. I won't insist too much on your heavy undelicateness as a professor to attack on a very specific level a certain amount of students' project, students who, I hope, are careless enough not to feel personally affected by your attacks. Orienting your discourse on your pairs, other professors would have been more diplomatic, but, once again that does not constitute the main reason of my reaction.
I will not take too much time either to underline the irony of having you complaining that the students' work is not oriented enough on the ordinary life, I think that everybody did not miss to smile when reading you while considering the work that you have been developing along the years in the various schools that you have been teaching for.
Before going truly to the argument that is important to me in my reaction to your article, I would like to say that, despite some problematic attitudes (nowhere is a perfect place), I believe that what breaks the ambition of many young architects in the United Kingdom is not their exploration and production of fictions but rather the hyper-reality of professional exploitation that the Behemoths firms practice on many of them when they leave the Academic world.
That leads me to the main argument of this letter, which goes far beyond from the architecture education. In fact, in your article you claim for a – self declared – subtle realism and write:
" I also doubt that architecture could be a site of radical political activism. I believe that architecture is a sui generis discipline (discourse and practice) with its own, unique societal responsibility and competency. As such it should be sharply demarcated against other competencies like art, science/engineering and politics. Architects are called upon to develop urban and architectural forms that are congenial to contemporary economic and political life. They are neither legitimised, nor competent to argue for a different politics or to 'disagree with the consensus of global politics' (as David Gloster suggests)."
By affirming that architects are not legitimized, nor competent to argue for a different politics, you are, in fact, calling yourself for a different regime, an aristocratic one, in which experts owning a sacred knowledge have the exclusive legitimacy to debate and rule cities and nations. Architects, to the very same extent of bakers, workers, bankers (sic), waiters, lawyers, unemployed people etc. are absolutely competent and legitimized to argue for a different politics for the good reason that they are concerned by it as citizens and share with other the res-publica (the public thing). Politics etymologically comes from the Greek word Polis (πόλις) which translate by city. Of course, city, here, signifies the immaterial society constituted by humans living together and sharing a somehow restraint territory, but I am not convinced that you would actually argue against the fact that the physical dimension of this city has an influence on the immaterial one.
As a matter of fact, I have been claiming often on this blog that architecture needs to be thought as being much more part of the problem of this polis than the solution. Architecture directs, oppress, hurts our bodies whether it has been conceived as such or not. You believe that architecture cannot be a site of radical political activism; I would argue, on the contrary, that each architecture is actually a site of radical political activism. Most of them are indeed a radical embodiment and a violent implementation of the dominant power. However, some of them manage to transgress the rules of this same power, not by liberating themselves from the system, but rather, by operating and creating in the folds of matter of this very same system. Architecture is indeed a political weapon and it is never as effective as such -in favor for the established relationships of power- as when it is not thought as such.
My conclusion would therefore be that I agree with you about the fact that Architectural education has to be questioned and re-questioned; however, your realism that declares architects as non legitimized nor competent to address the political debate is a direct invitation to inhibit any critical attitude towards the relationships of power and of production that structure our society. I would therefore argue for the perfect negative of your project, whether you call it irrealism, idealism, utopianism or any other 'isms' that we thought we got rid of in the past.
Sincerely (!),
Léopold Lambert
[following Patrik Schumacher's responses, this letter has a sequel that can be read by following this link]
58 Comments on "# ARCHITECTURAL THEORIES /// Open-Letter to Mr. Patrik Schumacher: Yes, Architects are Legitimized and Competent to address the Political Debate"
…"As such it should be sharply demarcated against other competencies like art, science/engineering and politics. Architects are called upon to develop urban and architectural forms that are congenial to contemporary economic and political life."
to me this means abandoning what he blankets with 'architecture', specifically 'building', as corporate art, as in: pop music, hotel room paintings, etc and encouraging a migration of students, passionate practitioners, and pedagogy towards a new mode of creative production and new ways to engage markets and policies…leaving the production of buildings to those who dont even care to read schumacher. Something mutant or hybrid. History certainly proves that the purification and reduction that he is proposing through this 'demarcation' is not what drives novelty…biologically speaking it is mutation – becoming impure, becoming hybrid and opportunistic by leaving traditional practice behind.
thanks for posting this, have been a follower of this blog for years
Well, as Léopold had already pointed out, Patrick's statement is totally hypocrite , once his own designs are not fit for the new economic status of an fast developing world.
I come from a Architectural School where we ONLY present projects for an "ordinary life processes of contemporary society", or ONLY project that don't have any proposals for "emancipated radicalism" that Léopold talked about in his previous articles. We here in Brazil, for decades, didn't bother about an architectural debate, and only focused on making the students design something that would stand up and copy the same old typologies, same solutions for old problems of the polis. (As you can see that we are only still famous for our modernism approach for buildings).
We lack this kinda of debate, and that's where I disagree when people said that if it's not going to be real, it doesn't have an impact as a protest. About 70% of my architectural knowledge is based on text books, or projects that I see on magazines and blogs such as this one. And they DO contribute for an exchange of ideas that may not materialize themselves right know, but their ideas will continue to echo and mature for further designs.
So where is the architecture of realism, that builds for people, i would just like to now. What concretes and glasses have made practitioners more important than theorists?
I think we should step back for architecture's sake and look what this 'field' of art or even science has achieved. Skyscrapers, malls and restaurants.
I was recently reading an article on the funambulist blog on a book called 'Pornotopia: Architecture and sexuality during Cold War'. It uncovers the truth. Architectural luxuries made for a specific type of life, aiming for money and only market.
Is that what architecture is about? Is it about teaching people how to make things stand? To become engineers, programmers and planners?
In a few words, what architecture schools in Britain are try to do is risky. It is a fact that we, as students, are let to debates and dialogues and theories on society and politics, but isn't that what architecture aims to achieve? A more complete view of what perceive as space?
some go to conservative schools that teach how to design and build comfortably within current traditions. Some go to these such schools that believe that an architect should be nothing short of a revolutionary…only new ideas allowed, only startling and provocative narratives of a dramatic future. In the case of the latter, shouldn't they take more seriously what it actually takes to become a destabilizing force? To BUILD outside of traditions and markets that foster nothing but mediocrity and that blindly carry on towards their own destruction. Unfortunately, this work must begin to exist materially, or culturally as buildings, policies, as actualized novelty in order to prove Schumacher wrong. Otherwise this work , interesting as it may be, just bounces around architecture blogs and the rare magazine. Is that really protest?
Is it not irresponsible to instill these ambitions in students without tempering, without training them how to negotiate harsh realities of the marketplace that allows for buildings/cities to exist, the politics that result in the current conditions that they are reacting so dramatically against with these proposals? If not then they are merely filmmakers, story tellers, and graphic artists with a concentration in architecture as a medium, not yet architects so much…but we know that fiction in film and literature certainly is capable of destabilizing as much as any building, so this work is certainly productive, it just doesnt reach much of an audience.
Accountants study to become accountants, lawyers train to practice the law, and architects train to colour in. A students first day in practice running a project is where the education begins. Design, planning, detailling, budget costs, valuations, contractual matters, that is the job that makes a difference. Dishing out chocolate coin awards for so called earth shattering, unbuildable designs doesn't do the students or the profession any good in the long run.
If people want to practice fine art, then study fine art, myself on the other hand, I relish putting buildings up from start to finish without the use of levitating bricks.
Schumacher I love you man. x
Pedro Alvarez
You speak as if these levatating ideas do not contribute to the greater whole of materialized ideas. Thought become actions and ideas materialize.
Get a grip Johns…..let me tell you a little story about a young architect. Once upon a time there was a young pragmatic whippersnapper student who loved architecture after many years in practice taking it up the rectal passage and a number of years absorbing pointless tripe not contributing on how to actually erect a building and earning ever worsening crap wages, the lad left architecture to graft for a contractor and doubled his salary along with a company car. Take it from me I've been around the block and I am 3 years post part 3. The ever increasing pointless role of the architect spurred me to leave the profession for a more worthy cause.
I fully agree with what Mr Shumacher has said regarding architectural profession and the alternate reality that is architectural education. Shame on all of YOU who live in a constant dream state and believe there is any place for the drivel produced by arch students with the only intention of winning presidents medals etc. It will be the students who suffer in the long run as they have been programmed (much like the robotic brixton terminators, probably) to buy into the type of nonsense lauded on them by architectural staff (not all).
Yes, education has to confront a slightly skewed reality to allow students to experiment, but honestly, robots of brixton!? there must be middle ground that allows a more professional experience and grounds a little reality into these jobless (not much call for specialists in urban sci-fi architecture these days), and underpaid potential architects lives.
Frankly, if a potential employee presented me a portfolio of work thats recently been awarded a presidents medal, I would hire them on the spot, provided my practice gets through to the next stage of the latest algae farm/robot workforce/supervillain funded competition.
p.s the person above who thinks he is taking crazy pills, probably is. I guarantee the research for the algae farm project he holds so closely was steered to suit the students/tutors/potentially the writers delusions of grandeur.
get out.
I have to say any office would be very lucky to have one of these students work for them. We (yes, I am also about to graduate from one of "these schools") are equipped with the latest 3d-2d program knowledge, enough technical knowledge to make a building stand and plus a critical look upon architecture history/theory. Most of us already work for several offices before graduation, so we are fully aware of the "jobless and underpaid architect life"
If you don't care about imagination, social/political awareness (which is an essential quality for an architect) you can at least look at that video and see amazing technical skills, crazy amount of work and the determination to finish it.
So shame on you for making fun of these people for being imaginative and analyzing different scenarios. These people are the ones that are most likely to come up with innovative results when faced with "real life restrictions"
I wish you had left out the personal jabs at Mr Schumacher. I don't see what his background has to do with the potential in/validity of his statements. There is simply not enough information to judge him as a character: perhaps he believes that such experimentation should take place alongside "standard" education? perhaps he things that such education is for private practice? Who knows, and, who cares? the article was not about him.
Moving on to the actual topic, a few remarks:
By affirming that architects are not legitimized, nor competent to argue for a different politics,
I would say that this is not the view presented. Nobody believes that somebody should be illegitimate to hold views simply because of their profession, but instead I think that the point is that architecture (the profession) is not the right tool for the job. Schumacher is suggesting that architects can do and think as they please, but that schools should teach them what the profession actually is.
Architecture directs, oppress, hurts our bodies whether it has been conceived as such or not. You believe that architecture cannot be a site of radical political activism; I would argue, on the contrary, that each architecture is actually a site of radical political activism.
Agreed, architecture is by definition violent and intrusive, and hence 'politics' is inescapable. However, again, I would suggest a more moderate reading of the situation. What is the role of schools? what should a student learn? Schumacher seems to believe that operating in the real world is a big part of it – and hence his rejection of designing the fantastical.
It seems to me that your reply to Mr Schumacher is a defense of architecture, but this is misguided. Mr Schumacher did not attack architecture, he attacked architectural education. You need to learn the alphabet before you can write, and Schumacher is saying that schools have stopped teaching students the basics.
what really bothers me is people who immerse themselves in narrative or social and political commentary (to the extent that they would create a project like the above mentioned) are usually the people who complete their Part II only to find themselves capable of working in a capacity that embraces their way of thinking i.e. tutoring back at the university that tuned their skills to begin with. circle begins, circle ends. Not really progressing the profession.
the creative universities are the ones that produce the most passive students – from the outside it looks amazing, on the inside it is a machine churning out replicants (all architects love blade runner don't they)
The most creative students are the ones who stand on their own two feet and don't allow themselves to be spoon-fed, I believe the soul crushing begins the moment a student accepts that to gain notoriety, he must accept his/her fate of being ordered by an architectural tutor to do as he/she is told, all in the name of being nominated by the aforementioned tutor for an award.
The above is very general which I apologise for, but I believe, and have witnessed, one dimensional architectural training that creates an art or nothing approach (and it is often 3d smoke and mirrors), and believe if architecture is to remain a profession, it must first accept that the world is changing.
Get a grip Greggs, its that obnoxious and arrogant attitude that makes the world hate architects, you should already know this as your self proclaimed resume appears to have endowed you with enough knowledge to stand toe to toe with any professional in the built environment, just like you are taught in university…
I would like to briefly generalise some of the assumptions made here, trying to see them from the perspective of a young practicioner architect.
It's true, Léopold, here we are not talking (only) about architectural education, but on the political consciousness of the individuals face at the violence this society inflicts, whether or not schools teach this.
I see that finally the separation between the role of the architect and the one of the engaged intellectual in our profession is being questioned again, after some thirty years of deliberate disengagement.
Yet a debate like the one we read in these platform, without keeping out any of its value, was quite common during the late 60's and 70's, when the machinic optimism of a Price and Archigram first gave place to the negative utopianism of Archizoom and Superstudio, and then was finally strucked by Rossi and Tafuri's teaching, namely that form and history were the only things worth thinking about.
In this (arguably too simplified) shift we see generalised all the positions: 1. embracing the opportunities of the present through slightly utopian optimistic projects, 2. representing (and criticise) the expansion of a formless city as a condition of capital pervasiveness; and 3. declaring that utopia/dystopia are inherently regressive, or better a product of a false architects consciousness.
"According to Tafuri, modern architecture and especially its avant-garde moments could have been described as ideological prefigurations of the upcoming effects of capitalist development. In so doing, modernist architectural culture had a precise role in naturalizing these effects and making them socially and culturally acceptable."
From: http://thecityasaproject.org/2011/03/pier-vittorio-aureli-manfredo-tafuri/
While I find there should be no debate around Léopold's main assumption, that architecture, namely the built one, is intrinsecally the product of the dominant power and violent "per sé", as a practicing young architect -(and I would like to mark: a practising architect, not an academian, a stricto sensu intellectual, or a paper architect), I'm still very far from finding a way (not-to overcome, obviously), but to at least to engage against this condition.
When I tried, working on the vocabulary of dystopia to narrate present conditions (pardon me for talking about my own production, but it's part of the discourse), I immediately after felt the failure of that approach, for any representation of a material situation, (in my case the exploitation of immaterial labor through the vehicle of flexible architecture) is stuck to the condition of narrative and symbolism.
How to "concretely" argue for a different politics without falling in a reactionary reformism, the new political and cultural form of capitalist power over society, the very form in which economic power is able today to persist and reproduce?
And how to do it without being obliged of participate to the mechanism David was referring to, of: students production / award winning / publicity / tutoring back / close circle of (mostly) private universities'?
Should we accept the inevitable condition of architecture as a superstructure and be confined to building zizekian "houses for doing nothing", while waiting for a new paradigmatic – hopefully better – society?
I apologise for the fuzzy superposition of thoughts, but I had liked to pose rather open questions than firm positions.
Before starting with the argument, I'd like to say that I have taught in different capacities in South America, the US and the UK. I studied at Columbia University under people like Kenneth Frampton and Joan Okman and have taught at the AA diploma school, and being invited to juries of DRL where Patrick teaches. After more than 10 years involved in Academia, and living in London, knowing about the players and hearing the gossip first hand I think I can give a valid point of view ( albeit a bit over simplified and cynical because of what I consider to be the puerile nature of Patrick's intentions with his article)
I have gone now through Patrick S's. article and the post and comments here. Its a great topic for argument, and I am really glad to see some disciussion…even though I have to admit I have seen much more worthy topics posted here which sadly attracted no comments. This just to say that Patrick S's article has a really obvious and sadly shallow motivation….that is as always, to showcase his approach to teaching / practice as the only viable option,…a goal that always forces him to discredit the rest.
As one of my last year's students was shortlisted for the Silver medal, i was present at the awards ceremony, and yes as Patrick I was disappointed at the winner for a couple of reasons.
1-the project didnt touch upon what for me constitutes de core of architectural design:
2-The project wasnt deep enough in showcasing the argument it was supposedly aiming at……it was basically trying to be revolutionary, but not really putting the work into it ( when i say work i dont mean work 24 hours doing fun anaimations…..i mean studying 'boring' writtings and succesful projects form the past)
3-the project choose purposefully to be lazy and not engage or study past historical and theoretical currents, it dindt situate itself within any of the discussons of our field…..basically it avoided all the substance and poured all effort over the style ( which wasn't that polished anyway)
4-it helped to perpetuate these set of boring recurring theme of british schools….apocalypse, decay, ALGAE FAMRS ( for fuck sake)…..all born out of the Bartlett and now infecting all schools (even the AA) in Britain. I am all up for projects that discuss dystopia, but please really discuss it….dont just add some rust, or growing lichens or moss…..or add robots. If you like robotics, go study robotics, don't lie to yourself….And I feel totally in position to say this because I HAVE DONE IT, I AS A TUTOR have told my students….hey all the people who end up short listed in the president's medals are either a robotic thing, an algae farm, some flooding thing, some dystopian future…or the classic and lamely named FUTURE SCENARIO. (the present is pretty interesting right now, no need to go to the future….just check maxkeiser.com or zerohedge.com)
5-tall the above points can be explained by a strategy almost all of us use in our daily lives, this is the KEY issue for me, and the deceitful practice which Patrick knowingly engages in the same way as all of those examples he pointed out in his article. This issue is ….PERTINENCY, or in their case ( 99% of us all) IMPERTINENCY…..or dumping loads of BULLSHIT into a discussion, just so you never have to face the real issues, I kind of obscurantism, but more of an obscuring of the real questions that should be asked. So lets give an example. Say am an average professional football player, but I surf on the weekends as well. I would beat Lionel Messi at surfing….but its obvious he will destroy me playing football, and on the same line, if I surf against Kelly Slater, he will undoubtedly whoop my ass. So, if I am a professional football player….who gives a fuck If I surf better than Messi? ( as long as my surfing doesn't provide me with a special set of abilities that would make me a better football player). So lets apply this to the presidents medal winner. He is an architecture student…..and he wins the medal because most other architecture students couldn't create an animation like his ( lets be honest….there was so little architecture, or for that matter purposeful, refined design in general that it is obvious he just won because of the animation)…..But what if we send his animation to compete against CGI students? Well….I am sure that it wouldn't be so amazing right? So you see, because we are a society driven by immediate reward ( win the award get the job, the money, the fame etc ) we forfeit on the journey, on the learning, on the education. So what we aim at creating are empty vessels…quick, all style no substance. But how do we make sure nobody recognize them as empty vessels….well we do what Patrick, the guy from robots of Brixton, 99% of students and tutors and all of us in general do….We divert the discussion into IMPERTINENT matters…..Be it robots, dystopia, future scenarios…..or in the case of Patrick 'parametrism'…..NONE of this issues have any structural effect on the core building block of architecture: form, space, tectonics, materiality and programme.
So in a nutshell Patrick just wrote this attack because:
-other schools IMPERTINENT theme has been awarded consistently over the years at the presidents medal, as opposed to his IMPERTINENT theme. ( basically and childishly DRL veneer over Bartlett-style veneer)
-he was not chosen as head of the Bartlett…so now its time to discredit their production and all production that carries their veneer ( both IMPERTINENT…his and theirs)
So all this IMPERTINENCE is sort of like the two party system in the US or, Communist VS capitalist…..all politician in the US no matter if they are republican or democrat are form the same party……the 'green $$$' party…….look at who pays them: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lokheed Martin…..And the US who was always the bastion of capitalism….now is a socialist state for the rich ( bailouts are the biggest antithesis to capitalism).
So there you go, Patrick says ( and am still laughing at this) that 'those' schools teach their students things that are outside the reality of the profession….well I;ve been to jury's of his DRL students and they have absolutely no idea of what a building is, what a person's relation to the built environment is etc etc….( don't you find interesting that they want to cover their deficiencies by building pavilions???……pavillions that cost more than a house but obviously don't have to deal with any day to day realities or uses or purpose)
Therefore its clear that this article by Patrick is just complaining to the fact that dirty looking, rusty projects are more popular here in the UK schools than his 'elegant' parametric IMPERTINENCE….both are wrong, and both keep us distracted from engaging in real discussions….As I wrote here in the funambulist before….AGORAE vs ARENAS…….yes the students work a lot, there is a lot of discussion, a lof of debate….but none of pertains or is relevant….because we have had a generation of tutors who are mediocre architects, and mediocre tutors. And to put the argument to rest…..please tell me if any of these current 'stars' if Patrick himself who is claiming to be in the process of inventing the next big movement can even be put in the same sentence as proper architects like Utzon, Wright, Corbu, Khan or Mies?…..they are absolutely different things….the former are just charlatans making a good living out of their rethoric and the later are architects.
I'd encourage all of you who are interested to listen to the POD cast on the AA website from Patrick's day long self-eulogy to his book the autopoiesis of architecture. Specially the eschanges with Eric Owen Moss and Zaha…..specially when you see the interaction with Zaha you will understand the psychological motivations of Patrick to have a voice of his own and not be under her….And Zaha ( a very smart cynical person) expresses very clearly her opinion on his IMPERTINENCE (i.e parametrism)
In regards to some of the comments and replies here in Leopold's article, I have to say that Patrick is also absolutely wrong from my point of view in saying that architects have no business in commenting or letting their work comment on socio-politico-economic issues. ( please read Kenneth Frampton on this). I'd like to just give and example to express the kind of PERTINENT architectural discussion that can arise from taking into account the constituent aspects of architecture and incorporating socio-economic issue into them.
The example is Khan's Indian Institute of Management. I discovered Khan's work sadly only recently and only after my office had won a competition to build a tower in India. Having to go there and thinking about building there and the logictics, made me think about Khan's building and the decisions he took. Decision which were all PERTINENT to an architectural tradition while simultaneously interweaving issues of a social and economic spectrum…..What am going to write might be absolutely wrong, but that's the great thing….that buildings that take into account not only parametric, but also tectonic, spatial, material, programmatic, formal and structural are so rich that all of us can engage and read things from it.
So basically, Khan had to build this thing in Ahmedabad. Usually he would have used concrete….but the refined finish of exposed concrete he could get in the west wasn't achievable in India…..so instead of 'importing the skill' ( what western architects like Patrick would do even if they build in a developing country….thats why the behemoths of dubai and abu dhabi are 'amazing' but have atrocious detailing and execution ) he looked for the most suitable material….but first from the point of view of the site technologies, the site materials production, and the skill of the labour force. So he choose brick….brick not only requires a less skilled labour force, it is also produced by smaller local factories which are directly linked to the community ( not like Portland cement produced by holcim whose end profit goes to Switzerland). So right there immediately there is a Marxist decision to use a material in which the workers did own the means of production…small community owned brick factories. Also no need to bring western skilled concrete labour. The building is can be built by the people who will use it….the people who will use it know how it was built, and feel proud of having built it themselves. Now you can say….oh yes brick building how boring……but here is an extra bit of discussion which is more interesting than any of the bullshit our current IMPERTINENT architects discuss….and its when Khan asks his famous question to brick: 'brick what do you want to be?' and brick says an arc, but arcs are expensive, so Khan asks back: 'what about a lintel?' and brick says what about an arc. I never understood this quote until I saw what he did on this project. He has arcs ( as properly as any brick building should have) but instead on relying on the mass on the sides of the building to hold the arc together like any traditional brick building does, he puts a concrete 'tensor' holding the arc together from the inside….which actually looks like a lintel!! So what is he doing here? He is not making the most efficient building….he is being radical and avant garde, but bringing to surface architectural issues….what is an arc, how does an arc work, is the arc shape anachronistic? How can we create a modern arc that doesn't offend brick but also is not constrained by the mass required by an arc?…..so to me this is discussion within a building…..a discussion about architectural history, about construction, about social realities, about image, space and form…..and this is revolutionary and this defends the rights of the oppressed….much more than doing projects that are just superficially or figuratively revolutionary
Now tell me, can we have a discussion like this that is linked to the quintessential constituent aspects of architecture with robots of Brixton or any of the recent student projects form around the world? No.
Can we have a discussion like this with Patrick's ( Zaha's) projects? Can we say the same for Guangzhou Opera house? For the Maxxi? No we cant, all we can do is discuss in a futile way if we like the 'form' of it or if parametrics influenced their appearance. And its not because as Patrick says, we have no business discussing politics, its because they are just not good enough architects, so they have to rely on smoke and mirrors to hide their deficiencies.
Beautifully written by Mr Mcintosh, without any knowledge of Mr Schumacher I cannot comment on this, but point 1 – 5 is on the button and I only wish I could have made the point as well.
look at past winners………
earthquake huts when there have been earthquakes in the news.
flood defences when flooding is in the news.
middle east relocation centres during the gulf war………..etc.
……..themed projects to pull on the heart strings.
I also work at a university and witness this on a regular basis. And also chuckle when an algae farm/seaweed powered building pops up.
As far as the UK is concerned the RIBA is the culprit with regard to the decrepid state of the English courses and the teaching they provide. I wholeheartedly agree with eduardo and david. The university that I attended for my part 1 and part 2 from the outset seemed like the place to be for a decent education. As is now stands I would have been better off learning to become pastry chef or become a dab hand at knitting. The course seemd to be a closed-loop system. The best students who produce these so called algae farms and cyborg sainburys end up teaching as lecturers on the very course they have just completed. Not ony that, they get paid 45k for a complete lack of knowledge of architecture. Architecture is not just about theory or politices, we are meant to be technologists, project managers, lawyers, health and safety savvy individuals. A whole synthesis of subjects that make up an individual that can produce a sketch on a piece of trace and then take that idea all the way through until it is out of the ground and then constructed. The course I attended and many more wouldn't even entertain teaching these fundamentals. I can't reel off a war and peace set of quotes from kostov, heidegger or calvino but I appreciate these texts as a backbone to architecture, but only one of many vertebrae.
The students leave the course after spending 20-odd K in fees only to be blunt instruments. The most ill prepared and 'blunt-instrument' students get a medal and a pat on the back for being essentially shit. What do I know, as an architect who is 3 years part 3 I have done my fair share of buildings because I had a desire to do so rather than remain overly content to churn out scribbles on the back of a napkin and call myself a cutting edge student/architect.
I look forward to next years presidents medal winner, most likely a cryo-prison in hackney.
Via con Dios
Thankfuly Leopold knows that I suffer from being too impulsive. And I think I was as pissed off as him and as Martin.…………..so had to go to the gym to cool down…first day of snow in London as well, so now that am chilled I can post back and try to be more balanced. I still stand by all I said, but the most important thing for our profession and our future as humans I think is that we manage to talk and listen and be balanced. And hey, weather Patrick is right or wrong at least he has caused us to dedicate some time to read and write our thoughts.
So, I think I was really partial towards discrediting Patrick and most of the rest of the London's / UK's schools, but for what I have seen in crits and Juries and gossip from students, Patrick is actually a great person in terms of supporting his students and motivating them to work. By the same token, The tutors and the student who produced robots of Brixton are undoubtedly quite dedicated to their agenda….but I think this is the key issue….what is their agenda, and how should we label it? I think if this student goes off for example and creates a great, creative, innovative architectural visualization and animation company, that would be cool ( look at joseph kosinsky director of Tron)…..but the time he has used to do that, will take away the time he needs to spend discovering and learning about architecture ( 20, 30 years of hard work after school)…..so what I ask for is clarity, as in any jury I go to, I always ask in the beginning….mr. student before you present, tell me what you want to be judged on?….architecture? Sustainability? Pure design? Render capabilities? Story telling? Solutions to social problems? ( ideally he would answer….ALL OF THEM….i had enough time to tackle everything! And everything is interconnected and tells the same story….the tectonics support the story, the structural solution supports the story, the formal qualities and nuances, the spatial sensations and materials chosen all support the story or agenda or message I want to convey). So just to add to robot's of Brixton…..my biggest disappointment is that after watching the animation after it first came out, and after looking at it with many different architect friends, all I could say was…..cool video. I wanst motivated to go and research about why we have this social inequalities, I wasn't pointed at any book or author or work of art that dealt with this and would expand the discussion ( to me the quintessential successful project should be like The Matrix….multilayered….'cool' to satisfy knuckleheads, but also political, philosophical and filled to the brim with references of cultural and historical nature…..so after watching the movie, if you are a knucklehead you say cool…but if you are a b it inquisitive you go and read the book Neo had in his room…..'simulacra and simulation'….and then you go down the rabbit hole)
Now this same comment can be of course applied to Patrick's students…and maybe in a greater manner. See the problem I have with his students / employees etc, is the indoctrination….the brainwashing that goes on unashamedly to try to persuade them and us all that 'their way' is the right and only way ( where did the unit spirit of diversity of the AA go?). As an anecdote, a group ov my colleagues were having an afterparty during xmas and a person who had studied at DRL and used to work at Zaha's started saying that Maya was the key to architecture ( by the way many times I had to teach this person certain things in Maya) this person said good architecture can only be achieved through Maya, and then went on ranting about it….and to be fair, they had indoctrinated this person so much with this discourse that she was convincing everyone else in the room. Now, maybe this person is right and Maya is the only way to do 'good' architecture…..but, surely you want some variety of approach….and surely you can stop ranting and listen to other arguments….and surely there are infinite number of architects who don't know what Maya is and do good work…..and finally again I have to ask….did this person pay an enormous fee to learn maya, or to learn architecture?……
Then I had another colleague from the same school….and this person is always eager to show that 'YES HE CAN' ……but he spends all his time learning grasshopper, and eco tec and kangaroo….( and he is actually a high ranking tutor at the moment) but once he had to design a building, and he started putting bathrooms and waste storage spaces in the centre of the plan, stairs that didn't go anywhere, and a myriad of ridiculous mistakes…..and to be honest and totally opinionated, he didn't have a clue about formal composition therefore his design looked like rubbish ( sorry to be so subjective)…..basically because he didn't have the knowledge to know past successful buildings, so he didn't learn this difficult language we architects should master….he didn't use tectonics, space, form, structure, materials and programme to his advantage….he thought grasshopper would solve it for him…..so again, I wanted to ask him….do you want to be an architect or a computer technician? ( both professions, I respect as much). If he wanted to be an architect then go study architectural matters……and here comes the thing about 'BUT I PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS'. Sure, but effort is not meant to be fun i.e. if you spend the whole night coming up with a grasshopper definition that is fun for you that is NOT effort. If you spent the whole night studying architectural references and cases and typologies and testing….THAT is effort. So yes my colleague and the guy who made robots of Brixton and all of Patrick's students put a lot or effort into their work…..and it might actually be great and rich but when you pin it up on the wall….jury member's cant talk about any coherent architectural topic…..But still the sad sight of these indoctrinated students continues….in the same way some people in the US think Iran is their enemy, or that everyone envies them for all the riches they have ( or used to have)…..so my colleague instead of spending his time studying what he claims he wants to be ( architecture) is still playing around with parametrics. Now this is actually understandable…..people want to acquire these 'black arts' this jargon so they can feel superior to other people talking about things other people don't know…..and that is the technique of every unit in these schools….come up with an obscure gimmick that leaves everyone out of the discussion so nobody can criticizes you. As an extra anecdote ….one I was helping out a Unit at one of London's finest the main tutor started the year asking the students to play with bubbles….for 3 months blowing bubbles…..then he got a warning from the school, cause this was just too much of a piss take. Then he told me, Ed teach them Maya dynamics….so 3 months of bubbles but now simulated in Maya with particles. By the end of the year, when nobody had anything resembling architecture he told me in front of everyone…Ed teach then the blur tool in Photoshop, because nobody has a project and if we blur everything and everything is left vague the jury cant criticize….so that is what am against. I am not against about experimentation or cross fertilization from other disciplines if the projects are engaged and presented and are judged architecturally ( just because it is called Architecture school)….all I say is that if you want to talk about emergence, chaos theory, fractals etc….go and study math., and if you want to blow soap bubbles, go and be a clown.
Maybe the problem is actually the educational structure and society in general and all the politics involved with it. Also we have to remember that for many of these tutors teaching is a source of income, especially during times like these. And there is always a pressure to deliver the flashy goods….so it ends up being more about getting the student to produce the flash in 9 months than to actually teach him anything. As I was explaining about my past experience leading a unit, I became very cynical and practical about it…..I knew 9 months were not enough to really change 4 previous years of non education, so I just cut to the chase and only tried to teach them how to create a compelling project in the most efficient manner….the only thing that sort of keeps my conscience at ease is that I made this approach explicitly clear to them, and I explained to them every day that what we were doing was not educating them in architecture, but merely giving them a course on how to pass the year they were in, and that if they loved architecture and were serious about it they would have to commit themselves to study it on their own, of course having my door open to any questions, suggestions or guidance they might encounter in the future if they decided to properly study.
Well to wrap it up, I think actually all the work coming from Patrick's students, and 'the other camp' ( even the algae farms and the floods) would have a lot of potential if they were a bit more honest and open about the motivations behind what they do ( specially form the side of the tutors and actually even more form the part of the schools). Also a big note to both Leopold and Martin….two people whose work I've followed for a while…..I think the way you guys tackle your work is actually NOT the way in which people like the guy form Robot's of Brixton operate…..i do understand why you took offence on Patrick attacking them ( again it was a hilarious case of the pot calling the kettle black) But I actually think a huge number of schools are not engaged enough and don't foster the types of discussions we have in forums like these…..its just a constant machine of creating hype with no substance. In a way is understandable as this is the same case for all walks of our current life.
Pingback: # MILITARIZED ARCHITECTURES /// Military Training Village of Marnehuizen on Socks Studio | The Funambulist
I was one of this years shortlist for Silver. I don't know how to feel now. In the environment in which I was taught I constantly struggled to do my best, and believed my shortlisting to be a very proud day. Now I find my efforts trivialised in the AR by a man (someone who conventionally I should respect) who didn't even make the effort to read the full scheme before he deemed it as having an 'unreal understanding of what constitutes a worthy brief.'
… I've deleted the rest of this message
David wrote:
look at past winners………
Earthquake huts when there have been earthquakes in the news.
flood defences when flooding is in the news.
middle east relocation centres during the gulf war………..etc.
……..themed projects to pull on the heart strings.
I couldn't agree more with this comment. The name of the game seems to be survival of the unfittest, well in my book you do it write or you get a crap mark. All of the best schemes seem to be a set of drawings that are very attractive as pieces of fine art or an abstract of some kind, but the schemes aren't buildings. They are over complex, unbuildable art forms that in reality, really wouldn't be constructed to cater for the needs of say, an earthquake. Like I say, as pieces of art, they look cool. We are supposed to put buildings up for clients on time and on budget, and in todays climate there is no space for star wars esq childs play buildings (if you could call them that). There should be a separate course called BA (Hons) in Architectural Pointless Timewasting Oversubscribed Bullshit. Exactly why I feel increasingly embarassed to call myself an architect.
whatever u all know he's "right" #architects #servants #machiavelli the only thing that he misses is that in certain markets being "critical" is a value. But I mean I'm sorry but those riba medal projects are horrendous. #reality #realism
ps watch megastructures episode on zahas thing lol
Lawyers , as a profession, have successfully embedded themselves into politics and thus in the crafting of public policy ; having a natural fit via their competency in the use of a "specific" language. There is no reason why , Architects, trained to solve complex problems, cannot effect public policy through the use of our own "specific" language. The issue is whether we as Architects can learn to operate comfortably without clients, as lawyers have done, to manipulate the systems of public policy to achieve change in our built social realms.
the debate is productive … unfortunately some of you misconstrued my point. We all might participate in the political process as citizens, voters, party members, demonstrators etc. … however, in our capacity as avant-garde architects we are called upon to adapt the thinking and design resources of the discipline to those socio-economic and political tendencies that emerge as legitimately victorious from the political process proper. We are not called upon to second guess or sabotage the results of the political process. Architectural discourse is not the arena for a sophisticated political discourse. As professional architects we are also not called upon to undermine prior decisions. Who could give us this right? Self-appointed?
What would give an architect the right to second guesss for instance the decision to invest in a public building with a particular programme and represented by a legitimately constituted client representative. The attempt to subvert such legitimate intentions would be arrogant, pompous, unjustifiable. The politics of the new building has been defined already. It is now our job to translate its political intentions in a congenial, effective, sensitive way … innovative in terms of its architectural translation. In a competition setting we might try to reinterpret the political agenda of the project, in an open discourse with the legitimate jury. Thats fair enough. If we go too far we might loose our chance. Perhaps thats a risk worth taking. That level of subtle activism within the institutional processes is welcome.
Those of you who – like some of you seem to – have no trust and respect for the political process and who thus think that the political system does not deliver, who think that politics presents the bottleneck of progress, those of you should exit architecture and enter the political process proper in full force … or at least seriously engage in a political debate, perhaps join a (radical) political party … and become true activists within the political arena proper. Architecture and architectural discourse cannot substitute itself for this real political discourse where you do not have to convince or charm other architects or architecture students with imagery but where you have to win arguments in debates with seasoned political activists. … And only in the political process proper you can legitimately and effectively influence and change the constitution of the clients of architecture, for instance by nationalizing real estate development if you e.g. think private interests should be excluded from development. However, to try to subvert or sabotage privare clients where they are granted to legitimate rights over a site would be ineffective, as well unacceptable, would violate democratically constituted and confirmed rights.
Realism: the realism I imply for student's creative work has nothing to do with banal dull pragmatism. I am looking for an original, skillful, sophistcated, creative engagement with contemporary design tasks that might become real briefs, perhaps high density, mixed use urbanism in urban brown field sites … interpreted in a progressive understanding of the dynamics of postfordist network society … where an intesification of relations and communicative interactions between the different programme components would be desired … The task here would be to device new repertoires that could facilitate the organisation and articulation of inceased communicative complexity, maintaining legibility in a dense, complex information rich scene. …
It is sad to see that most of the comments show that people are mistaking Politics for cheesy and naive imagery. Political folkrore!
Go back to the french beaux arts school and le corbusier, you will understand what real politics as.
To make sure you understand: it was not the beaux arts…
I would like to ask Leopold about his political position and outlook. Do you have a clear political position? Is it far off the mainstream? Is it a vague sense of unease or is it a well developed, comprehensive, systematic, articulate political position? If not yet the latter, are you aspiring to achieve full, articulate clarity of conviction? If so, how do you intend to achieve this? In which discursive arena?
Is all power and all political power a negative force? Power is an efficient way to achieve social synthesis (integrated action). Political power is necessary to order society. The build environment has its own unique ordering capacity – this is per se neither hurtful, nor violent, it facilitates the structuring of social relations. (The absence of social order is hurtful and violent. Social order is fragile and society might degenerate/regress in the absence of ordering mechanism. … I wonder if you would describe yourself as Anarchist? … I myself have sympathies in the direction of libertarianism or anarcho-capitalsm … but my architecture can only be based on the assumptions of mainstream politics, the political agenda that is in fact empowered. A practicing architect can only decide in this way.) The political question is not power yes or no – or architectural order yes or no – but where the decision making and control capacity in relation to architectural ordering initiatives is located. To enter a democratic political debate about this matter one would have to assess alternative institutions in terms of their overall rationality and chance to enhance global productivity/welfare/freedom. And after the political question is settled (in the political system) there remains the question of the most pertinent, effective architectural solution to the ordering agenda of the legitimate (political, economic, social) power. This question can no longer be answered in the political system, nor in the economic system. This question can only be answered in the architectural discourse, according to its specific categories and criteria of success, i.e. according to the double code of utility and beauty.
While I am not an architect, I have read through the original article, the Open Letter in reply and all replies on this page. I have tried to look upon this whole argument as put forth by Mr. Schuhmacher purely from a logical stand point and I must admit that I am shocked.
A sentence saying any profession is reduced to relevance only within it's own "theatre of operation" is so outdated, it seems to hail from mediaeval concepts of crafts.
Where is some reference to interconnectedness (Even Stafford Beer would count, if not Luhmann, whatever?), where is some reverence, however faint, to more contemporary sociological theory?
What brought me to reply at all and precisely at this point in the thread is the sentence "Political power is necessary to order society.". I simply cannot believe someone who has spent at least some time arguing about theoretical matters of the aforementioned "Polis" can let himself write such a simplistic sentence?
There should be a whole barrage of theories and historical analogies on one's mind, that prevent anyone from simplifying the concepts of power, society and order back to Hobbes. And even Hobbes deserves more differentiating thought.
Granted, all this might be about architecture and architectural theory might have it's folklore that I am unaware of. However, calling for award winning students to address more pragmatic societal challenges, while presuming an anachronistic and unreflected idea of society reminds me of the father and son dialogue about monsters under the bed in Rorty's "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity". By calling the projects of said students somewhat irrational in the face of "real-world" needs, Mr. Schuhmacher demonstrates an implicit belief in a "metaphysically salient and salutary" order.
That is a common belief shared by a good part of humanity (but obviously not by the host of this blog). It is also the right and probably the duty of graduates to disagree with existing concepts of order. On a personal note, they should not have to receive criticism on a level as shallow as this from a tutor on this account.
Good response based on seemingly unassailable etymological justification, but I wonder if the messy realities of intervening in the fabric of 'the city' thru architecture best any resemblance to the rhetoric you have espoused? I suspect that Schumacher is wondering the same thing. I suspect that Schu's point was that being architects does not give us a divine right to intervene in the city on our own terms, a point which is analogous to your argument and something that is bourne out by history.
Regarding the value of theory vis a vis practice, as a practitioner I feel that theorists have to be socio-economically relevant. There is a need to be involved with the kind of speculation that is geared to informing practice rather than only making waves or exciting students. A marked absence in the former type of speculation linked to a preponderance of the latter type, is responsible, as much as anything else, for the accelerating marginalization of the architect. Pure theorists should remember that this has not only lead to the development of forms of procurement (procurement, do pure theorists even understand what this means in the real world?) that are ever increasingly devoid of architectural input-leading to less work for architects and more developer lead shopping malls etc, but the marginalization of the architect also leads to the cutting back and even closure of schools of architecture. You only have to read the same issue of the AR to see examples of speculation at the ends of the spectrum of relevance. On the one hand we have the Smithsons, lionised by schools of architecture but resonsible for the 'treble' tragedy of Hunstanton school, Robin-Hood housing and the subsequent excommunication of architects from any substantive position in the development of schools and housing in the UK. Then you have Herman Hertzberger, a noted expert in theorising on and designing schools, and someone who has gained the trust of society thru the sympathy and success of his theory, and improved schools for millions of children as a result.
At least the Smithsons tried to be relevant, but the true culprits of excessive and corrosive largely irrelevant speculation are, it seems to me, the likes of CJ Lim, who has hardly realised a single built project despite running an architectural practice!
For my part, right now I'm largely in the business of the building of mosques. For the clients, with limited funds they are simply large spaces where important obligations can be carried out; for others they are an expression of there culture, their right to exist openly as part of the prevailing society, not as an invisible aspect of it; yet for others, mosques represent an erosion of a sacrosanct national identity; and for others, it is a way to show non-Muslims and remind Muslims, that Islam has historically never imported foreign culture into newly adopted lands, but has always sought to emphasise it's universality by Expessing it's values thru the new cultures that it meets; no where is this more evident in the culture of Islam than in it's architecture.
The mosque presents the most relevant and fertile ground for theorists to explore, but howany of them are interested in it?
Pingback: # ARCHITECTURAL THEORIES /// A Conversation with Patrik Schumacher | The Funambulist
I see architecture as a project itself. No one can define it, but he can declare a specific interest in it, exploring and raising awareness for his interest and the topic he approaches. I appreciate the part of architecture called 'buildings' , structures and materials, but i concern it as another medium of architecture; not the only one. If architecture concentrates and only aims in building (architecture as profession), it will soon become blind and sooner or later dead.
On the matter of what is taught in these schools, being subjective as part of this education, i would stay on the word experimentation. Architecture can't be seen as a 'lesson'. It can't be taught in the sense of a science. Comparing architecture and art to sciences, i hope we can all agree in the clear difference in their approach to theory; in science we define theory as linear, whereas in arts we define it as organic. If i'm not mistaken, this shows the overall creativity and experimentation, which constantly changes the conditions of people's approach to it.
I am aware of the risk that architecture schools ( mostly in the UK ) create. Students graduating, are on the edge of
But is this what architecture is all about? Being blind aiming to build. I have been asking tutors and critics this question since i started studying. I wonder if we aim to build good structures, steady and even those with low- budget.
If we want to talk about architecture that helps the world and the society when existing, taking form and being built, then we must look at Tyin Tegnestue projects for an architecture that follows necessity and not megastructures in Dubai, created by a G20 of architects, ruining the nature and making people relax in a pornotopia of capitalistic rules.
Let's go forward to 2500 and look at what architecture is making now.
Generally not specific, 'great' examples; the most common architectural space. It is luxury isn't it? And playboy gentlemen, smelling like those in advertisements, giving the keys to a woman, with the most beautiful, thin legs. It is a Monaco that architects in practice create. An elite of elegant structures that only few can approach. And maybe that's not the worst thing ever happening; but not in a global, full scale! The only politics that i see close to this architect, is Berlusconi's hyper sexuality and nothing else. Fly to Dubai one day and look at the people dying and crying in poverty. I am not a leftist, not a socialist. I am a humanist, with all the will to help people through my constant research and interest in them. In them and their existence as social beings.
Thank you.
I really appreciate the debate created above, as well as the response of that many architects with a clarified position on the topic.
sorry to comment again, but just to fill a small gap, i will continue a part that i left incomplete .
'I am aware of the risk that architecture schools ( mostly in the UK ) create. Students graduating, are on the edge of'
are on the edge of being thought as architects or not. Nevertheless, they have a strong argument and a undoubtedly stronger interest in architecture and it's matters, than other schools that follow the pathway of 'lesson learning'.
when I speak about political power I refer to the exercise of democratically empowered/legitimized power … that has nothing to do with Hobbes' absolut sovereign … I locate architecture's place in society within the framework of Luhmann's theory of society as modern, functionally differentiated society … and I do think that Luhmann's social systems theory and theory of society is the most compelling, comprehensive and coherent social theory since marxism … the differentiation of distinct discourses and domains of competency remains a fact of social life that is not going to dissolve through philosophical argument or wishful thinking … think about it: do you want business leaders, scientists, jurists, politicians and engineers dictate how urban and architectural spaces are to be designed???? what these protagonists from outside of our field deliver are demands/constraints. It is up to us and our creativity – supported by the accumulated/evolving wisdom of our own collective expert discourse – to decide how to interpret, translate, and integrate the various demands/constraints in the most elegant, innovative, satisfying and liberating way imaginable.
Lucid as ever Patrik,
But I ask you, what happens when, during the course of project stakeholder meetings, informal meetings, conversations etc. Polititians, administrators etc. as well as architects, remember at key moments that there are human beings, with vast experience of interacting with architecture. And when these people don't remember their humanity, those who have no stakeholder title, who are only human beings are excluded, and we end up with stuff that we will demolish in 20 or 30 years?
I can understand the point of not making architecture students able and skilled to propose buildings, in the sense of space, program and materiality ( as Ed. McIntosh already mentioned ), but my point is not on rejecting those who wish and research in order to materialize ( to make the actual research into a building ) . I would rather say, i appreciate several of them and their buildings, but what i was trying to say is that there is a satisfying attempt at the moment, not successfully always and risky as i mentioned, to concentrate on other mediums and aspects of architecture.
When i talk about politics, i consider important and vital this moment of power. Politics stigmatize through the arts and through architecture. I do not mean i agree with all forms it takes through this evolution, but there is an interesting point, even in the total art of stalinism. Drawings of architecture, talking about a Pantheon of the patriots and 'temple fantasies' of the soviet society. And i'm not mentioning only this part of history. I find surprising how in ancient China, buildings were made of wood, because of the fact that the kings would change continuously and quickly, resulting in the loss of culture, as we can't really know about it today.
To that extend, architecture is not an engineering aspect. I consider engineering, part of it when an architect tempts to build. It is a skill of the architect, ready to help him realize his ideas, but what i can see is that skill overtook him at a point. And if we leave out, the very 'avant-garde' schools of UK ( mostly London ), at least avant garde wanna-be, then we can see that architecture schools have an interest in realistic aspects, even though they don't win President Medal awards.
What RIBA showed for me, is that there is an insertion in architectural field at the moment, claiming the fact that architects can express ideas and compose in an alternative way, to talk about it with other elements. with that happening when they really support it. i am clearly not saying that students with 2 photographs and 1 drawing have gone into understanding of architecture and investigation, but there are rare exceptions of that way. And the difficulty in that theoretical approach is that it creates only a few successful people, while building and construction architects are more.
To the particular project that won, would like to say that Kibwe is not talking about robotics. If that's what you've understood, i feel really sorry for that fact. He is using the robots as an architect, not as a scientist that is involved with robots. He is aware of a whole condition-situation in Brixton and expresses it in a very powerful way, a narrative. He raises social awareness as a great thinker of political and social matters.
Because, in architecture there is a wider and deeper approach that can be explored. Let me go to a question: If this student hadn't done this project, who would? I find his project almost amazing; his approach is necessary and very significant for today's matters.
So who would it have been? An animation student? No. A script-writer? No. A sociologist? No.
Then we must think why it is so important. It talks about racism and social injustice today. It is not talking about tomorrow and i want to be clear about that. It is talking about today, through a fact of tomorrow. Through elements that will exist tomorrow and become real. There is nothing fake about it.
I have other examples in my mind if you want to ask me, but my text is going really long and i might be misunderstood.
I have to say in truth that i feel glad for being in the same generation with students like the above and also being aware of what is going on in schools of other 'fields', even the arts. Just not so interesting. Not interesting and important only for me, but for a whole society.
Being an RCA graduate, this discussion is not only touching on so many important aspects of what I perceive as the current state of our discourse, it also reminds me of my own experience. I cannot judge if the graduates that are the representatives of the educational system criticized here will be ill-equipped for meeting typical challenges later on in their career. I can only report that the rather open minded take on what still counts as architecture, has proven immensely valuable for my own architectural practice.
In reply to the more theoretical points in this discussion above, I have to say, that I have some doubts that the questions of order, power and politics as used here are really fit to describe the way power is really executed by the sovereign (people) today. The public is using all kinds of communication channels all the time thereby creating a densely knit network of interconnected senders and receivers. Network effects can quickly lead to massive accumulation of force that has sent states, companies but often also it's own children into the abyss (think of Iran). Every socially relevant profession and organization is facing the question of how to deal with this change and develops answers to it. It seems inevitable to me, that socially relevant architectural projects (and thus the profession per se) develops an answer to this change in the anatomy of power and political practice!
Such an answer must be fit to offer participation in the architectural design process to said public, rather than reducing it's concept of the circumstances to impersonal constraints and demand. What's more is that such an answer must be visible and effective in restoring confidence in architects to be apt and willing experts for harnessing and interpreting needs and wants into adaptive and socially relevant architecture. In my own humble attempt, I suggest to split the architectural practice into "evolvers" and "resolvers" in my "Minifesto", to signal a fundamental change that reaches beyond our professional discourse. A website with some more examples is to follow soon.
You find my text here: http://urbanistin.tumblr.com/evolver-resolver
Your thoughts are very much appreciated!
Thank you again for hosting this discussion Léopold Lambert!
Julia Hinderink
Interesting. However, i feel that your chatscterisation of the arena of architectural intervention as a 'complex spacial system' adds to the problems you are arguing against.
This description suggests that the total interactions of the creations of architects with everything else, can be apprehended if not controlled, in totality, but this is unrealistic and leads to the reductive models of practice and procurement that have hitherto been modernity's great problem.
The same issue of the AR in which Schumacher attacks the current UK education system takes as it's theme the ultimate failure of the 'scientific' paradigm, a paradigm on which the description of the built environment as 'a complex spacial system', is based. If the ARs new position is to be believed, then we need a different attitude. Architects need to find their place around a table at which other actors are sat; other stakeholders who have important inputs to contribute to the evolution of the places in which we live, work and play. Architects need to sit at these tables and they need to listen, as you say, but they also need to accept that they are contributing to a tapestry that they will never be able to control. In terms of design this is not about permanence versus ethereality, but rather about specificity versus non-specificity. It is about robustness; physical, programmatic and cultural. This is something that humanity has already been able to achieve in the past.
Also, in listening architects must feed what they here not only into the practice but also the theory and teaching of architecture (which would solve Schumacher's issue); not only into the conceptual stage of design but also into the implementation (which would solve your issue. If the 'chain' of design is broken in the way that you suggest, can you gurantee effective transmission of what is imbibed by the architect at the conceptual stage to later stages? This is something that is already a problem in procurement routes where design responsibility is split.
But there is another, I believe deeper implication of your proposal.
Your characterisation of the two aspects of practice, evolvers and resolvers, seems compelling, and actually reflects what organisations like Audacity.org have been calling for, and how architecture in Germany, for example ( as I understand it) is actually taught, but i feel there is a danger of such an approach perpetuating deeper underlying problems whilst fixing superficial ones. It is my belief that the increasing complexity of the world, of cities, of our lives is largely illusory, and is a construct vital to the sustaining of capitalism. Continual growth in economies, depends on the continual reinvention of products and systems of all kinds and your idea of dividing the profession into the two said groups could be seen as simply adding fuel to this fire. Indeed, as you have already intimated, such division is already practically occurring in our mature industrialised economies and your suggestion would seem a natural step in the current direction of things. However, going back to Leopold's open letter, is this the position that architects should be adopting? Should they not be commenting or even 'railing' against the capitalism that has lead to the inequalities that are responsible for the increasingly poor quality of the built environment for the general populace? For as real and debilitating as the self indulgence of theistic architect has been, it is only an aspect of the industrialised capitalism that is truly responsible for the malaise that both you and Schumacher have highlighted. In the recent past, 'expert' architects (however self-indulgent) were placed at the disposal of the working classes, today architects are for the rich only with the housing and hospitals of the poor being effectively designed by large and ruthless contracting firms who have cabals of 'experts'-lawyers, technocrats – in their pay, as well as politicians in their pockets.
So in summary, I feel that your proposal to divide architects up into resolvers and evolves would not only rubber-stamp a natural consequence of capitalism, but would emasculate the profession as a force for activism and criticism in one of the last genuine battlegrounds of urban politics.
However you have raised something that very much needed to be raised to make this discussion more complete, many thanks for that!
Pingback: Miroirs de la ville #6 Le capitalisme contre le droit à la ville. Néolibéralisme, urbanisation, résistances « Urbain, trop urbain
I would like to comment a little on the role of politics in architectural education by way of a couple of examples of political architects. I am referring now to architects who have been successful at conveying a political message through their work. I think the work of both Archigram and of Lebeus Woods is both political and architectural. By architectural I mean that it is grounded in a specific spatial structure and what is important about their work is that it is their spatial/architectural proposal that is able to produce a political meaning.
This has been said in these comments before, that the projects that are given as examples in Patrik's article use video, renderings, images and atmosphere to get their political view across. They lack an architectural argument to go along with their political view. If there had been one, then Patrik would not have ben able to make his point, because for him, as well as I can tell, if there is spatial innovation or research it can qualify as architecture. That is the realism he is searching for, not a formal one, since ZHA is clearly engaged in the expansion of architectural form to spaces that were considered fantasy not too long ago.
To return to Woods and Archigram, they were able to cross the boundary that Patrik claims exists by successfully making a tectonic argument that had political ramifications. It is true that this did not work in a direct manner, neither Archigram's nor Woods' designs became political talking points. But if we look at their influence we can trace a line that does lead to direct political influence. One only has to look as far as Richard Rodgers, a clear disciple of Archigram, who later became the city architect of London, where he clearly had a word in the political and economic discourse of the city.
So what about politics in architectural education? Here I want to use an personal experience to illustrate a point. While studying I had the fortune to be in a studio taught by Lebbeus Woods and Michael Webb (of Archigram). The design brief had nothing political in them, in fact it would difficult for me to imagine how this project could have been politicized. We were asked to design light boxes. The whole studio was organized around how light and space interact. To me this was much more useful in my architectural education than if they would have asked us to design portable relief housing for earthquake victims.
My point is that while I believe that architecture can have a political point to make, I do not think that it is the role of architecture schools to teach or promote politics, just as it is not the role of high schools to teach or promote "intelligent design". It is up to each of as architects then to decide whether or not to engage in the politics of architecture.
Patrik is right that we do not control what is built. Whether we choose to take a commission building settlements in Palestine, office towers in China, or museums in the UAE, those projects will get built. There are places where the political discourse of architecture can progress, be it in competitions, writing, or even subverting the traditional programs in the projects we choose. But in my opinion it is more important to teach students how to design good spaces than to celebrate their political views.
Pingback: Politics, the Presidents Medals, and Plato's Republic « Critical Itch
Pingback: Resilient Systems and the 'any-space-whatever' « dpr-barcelona
Pingback: # GUEST WRITER ESSAYS 22 /// The Mosque: Religion, Politics & Architecture in the 21st Century by Michael Badu | The Funambulist
Pingback: # THANK YOU FOR FOLLOWING THE FUNAMBULIST | The Funambulist
I think about it this way: politics is everything in our lives and therefore every field is political, and can be a tool for political change. To change the current situation is to make a revolution, and to make a revolution all kinds of skills and fields can be useful, but a revolution certainly cannot be achieved through architecture alone. Therefore, I do agree that architecture is very much political and can be a tool of change, but it is not the answer by itself.
To make change we should think of the bigger picture, and then see how each of our fields can contribute to this change. We should not however invert this perspective, and look at change solely from within architecture forgetting about all the other parts of the puzzle.
note: I hate the word "activism". it makes me think of worthless plays of no real effect and a part time hobby. change is revolution, and revolution is blood and sacrifice. otherwise its all bullshit.


text:
Students will make a simple mechanical hand with a trigger connected to a hinge. Once complete, students can test the ability of their hand by trying to pick up as many straws as possible. Extra class time (and there should be plenty!) can be devoted to further testing and redesigning to make the best mechanical hand possible!
Step 1: Materials
(and extra for redesigning)
15 Craft sticks
8 Craft cubes
4 Round cube beads
Part of 1 Straw
2 Skewers
2 Rubberbands
Hot glue
And a box of straws for the challenge!
Step 2: Build the hinge
The straw pieces act as spacers to prevent the fingers from colliding.
Step 3: Make the fingers
The two other fingers are built similarly on either side of the center finger. Make sure that the half-sticks on the outside fingers are glued on at an angle that is inverse to the center finger.
On the 'back' of the hand, glue a half-stick to the two outside fingers. These two fingers will be actuated at the same time.
Step 4: Make the arm
Once the arm length is determined, add a handle and a thumb rest at the end. The handle and thumb rest that are pictured are very minimal - there is a lot of room for innovation and customization.
fantastic idea...its quite helpful especially for the elderly people, so thumps up..!!
does this actually pick things up? Is it a lever?
It was great to do it, and I made one only enhacement, that I took a picture. Thank you... I have a lot of fun...
extremely awesome
Simply Wonderful.
Awesome! This would work great for a puppet hand :D thanks for sharing!
Good work! Maybe you could add a video.
So great!! Thanks for posting.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Phones & Telecom FAQ
Call Forwarding
Three Party Calls
UAlbany Conference Bridge (up to 16 callers)
Intercall Conference Bridge (17+ callers)
Local and Long Distance Calling
Internet and Internet2
Access from Off-Campus - Installing VPN
Connecting to the guest wireless network (XP, Vista, Windows 7 and Mac OS X)
Request Installation of a Wireless Access Point
Wireless Maps
Getting Connected - WiUAlbany
Still need help? Submit a Service Desk Request.
Return to the ITS website
Page: Call Forwarding Page: Local and Long Distance Calling Page: Phones and Features Page: Telecommunications FAQ Page: Three Party Calls Page: UAlbany Conference Bridge (up to 16 callers) Page: Voicemail


text:
So…why does lezzie me care about abortion? Other than all the news stories about it lately, what with the Republican House of Representatives attempting to pull all funding for Planned Parenthood, what with Phil Kline being on trial for unethical behavior as the Kansas Attorney General for interrogating doctors providing abortion and un-redacting redacted medical records by matching them with local hotel records (source: Rachel Maddow Show, February 23rd. Yes, I'm such a stereotypical queer.) Other than that…why should I care? I will most likely never have an unplanned pregnancy because I don't sleep with men. This is, of course, assuming I never am forced to sleep with a dude against my will (rape, my possums, happens and can happen to anyone.)
First, I'd like to re-publish an article that came out of Jersey (shocking!) My friend Liz tells it like it is and no one tells it better–the newspapers seem to agree (as far as I know, this ran in the Yale Daily News with some edits.)
On Friday the US House of representatives voted to strip Planned Parenthood of all federal funding. Why? Every year Planned Parenthood provides: 1 million cancer screenings, 830,000 breast exams, 4 million tests and treatments for STDs including HIV/AIDS, educational programs to 1.2 million young people, and contraception to 2.5 million people. Every year Planned Parenthood prevents 612,000 unintended pregnancies. For every dollar spent on family planning assistance, the government makes back 4 dollars in savings from Medicaid. Why then, would anyone want to cut this vital program? Does congress really care so much about abortions (which are NOT included in Title X funding and only represent 3% of Planned Parenthood's services, anyway) that is it willing to sacrifice the health of millions of Americans?
Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with abortion. Hell, pretty much any legislation limiting abortion or family planning or sex education has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with controlling women. A 2007 World Health Organization study found that the rate of abortion in countries where the procedure was illegal is almost identical to the abortion rate in countries where it is legal. Making abortion illegal does not stop it from occurring- it just drives it underground and makes it more dangerous. It is estimated that without family planning assistance the U.S. abortion rate would be two-thirds higher than it is today. Planned Parenthood saves lives and prevents abortions.
While there are many respectable people who honestly do not feel abortion is moral, and support policies known to actually have an effect on abortion rates (such as comprehensive sex ed and birth control) the anti-choicers in congress are not these people. They may hide behind rhetoric about the "sanctity of life" but do absolutely nothing to protect it. These are the men (and few women) who vote for unnecessary wars that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, who vote to prevent affordable health care, who favor the death penalty, who feel that your right to own a gun is more important than your right to own your own body. They cut funding for programs that feed poor children, while vetoing tax increases to the super rich. They don't give a shit about the "sanctity of life."
The men in congress would love to see things go back to the days before Roe v. Wade. They do not care that criminalizing abortion does not stop the procedure from being preformed. They do not care that women frequently died when trying to obtain illegal abortions. They want us to have to go search for shady back ally abortions. They want to punish us for being such dirty sluts to have sex in the first place. They are appalled that women take control of their own lives, own bodies and sexuality. They are angry that they are no longer the sole masters of the universe and will do anything they can to gain back that power.
I can't sleep thinking about this. It makes me sick to my stomach. We need to fight back. We need to scream and yell at the top of our lungs that we will not stand for this kind of attack. The women of this country will not go back. We have gotten our taste of freedom, and will not be going back to the kitchens, to forced pregnancy, and certainly not to back alleys.
I am not going to keep quiet on this. I will continue to bother you all until you're all so sick of it you have to take your own action. For those of you who think this is a non-issue because the amendment still has to go to the Senate and the President- think again. Do not trust that this will end with one House vote. This is all-out war on American Women. This is just one of many assaults on women's health and rights currently being introduced at both the federal and state level. Do not assume that the Senate and President will always vote in our favor. We need to take this into our own hands.
If you haven't already, please sign the open letter to congress being distributed by Planned Parenthood, share your Planned Parenthood stories, and consider making a donation (links at the bottom). There is also a large New York City rally being planned for February 26th, and many others across the country. So what else can we do? I'm open to suggestions. Let's discuss.
After writing this, Liz took a couple suggestions that showed up on her facebook…and started John Boehner's Women's Liberation Front (which can be found at ladyboehners.tumblr.com) encouraging people to donate to Planned Parenthood in Speaker of the House John Boehner's name. She also, as stated, encourages petition signing.
So why do we care? I'd like to highlight this once more, with feeling:
They want us to have to go search for shady back ally abortions. They want to punish us for being such dirty sluts to have sex in the first place. They are appalled that women take control of their own lives, own bodies and sexuality. They are angry that they are no longer the sole masters of the universe and will do anything they can to gain back that power.
I would assume that we all care about the agency of our bodies, whether we declare ourselves feminist or not. I would also venture a guess that, given the amount of sex positivity I see from all of my readers, taking control of our sexuality is probably high on the priority list as well. Even if you don't care to think of yourselves as feminists (though the concept is more about ending the oppression of gender expectation and gender roles for all people rather than burning bras and declaring men and masculinity the "enemy". All my gender fuckers…you are probably feminists…) taking control of your bodies is just a basic right. A right that has been legal in this country because each individual is free. But the Republican House wants to expand the government to be able to take control over each and every pregnancy. Not only that, but it wants to take control over every woman that has the possibility of carrying a child. As a woman, even as one that doesn't sleep with cisgender boys, that is still an attempt to control my body. It is still an attempt to shame women who fuck. And Liz puts it perfectly.
Think even further to intimidation. The murder of abortion provider Doctor Tiller and how no one has replaced him in Wichita, Kansas. How many of you have been intimidated at one time or another just for existing the way you exist? Can we stand up and say people who murder aren't allowed to win? Aren't allowed to drive a certain type of person out of an entire state? Where does that kind of thing stop if we do not stop it for others?
Or howabout Phil Kline's complete disrespect for private medical records and inquisition of those who have done nothing except see a doctor? Imagine for a second that your medical records wound up on Bill O'Reilly's talk show on Fox News. Trans-readers, that's your name and the doctor that's giving you hormones. Gay mommies, the doctor helping you conceive. HIV positive readers, your name and a list of fellow patients made public in a conservative, backwards-thinking community.
Standing on the same side as our brothers and sisters on this issue by standing with Planned Parenthood is a symbol–we will not tolerate the stripping of our agency.
This is our problem. Sign the petition, give five dollars, please. Do something.


text:
Viewers: in countries Watching now:
All animators must learn to walk before they can run. In 2D Character Animation, industry expert George Maestri teaches the basic principles every animator must know to build a foundation for more complex work. These principles are relevant regardless of software used or animation style. George explains how good animation depends on a firm knowledge of the laws of motion, which inform the principles of animation. He teaches the basics of creating characters, squash and stretch, pose-to-pose animation, walking and running, track reading, and dialogue animation. He also shows how to use After Effects and Flash to apply the tools learned in the course. Exercise files accompany this course.
Now let's go ahead and use anticipation in a real life situation. Here we have a character and we are going to make him stand up. Now, in order to stand up, he needs to get some momentum going. If all we did was lift him up, we wouldn't have any sort of sense of weight or momentum. So, for example, if I took this character and I just took his hips and I just stood him up like this, obviously that doesn't really seem all that realistic. He really needs to anticipate that, so we can get some momentum to get off of that box.
So, we are actually going to go ahead and go to say about frame 4 and let's go ahead and create an anticipation frame. So, what I am going to do is I am going to rotate him back. So, what he is going to do is lean back and then lean forward into the motion. So, I am actually going to move him like this, so he is actually going to go backwards, anticipate this move and then get into it and then actually stand up.
Something like this. So, just by giving that extra little sense of momentum, you can see how he already has a much more realistic motion. So, what we have is we have something like this. Now obviously, we are just moving the main weight of the body. If we animate the legs underneath, then we get something a little bit more like this. Now, this is actually pretty good animation. But you can see his arms and his head are also fairly stiff.
So, what we can do is give his arm some anticipation as well. So, he is going to put his arms ahead of himself and then as he moves back, he is going to push his arms back just like this and then straighten up. So, let's go ahead and take a look at that. So, with that sense of anticipation, you get much better sense of weight and motion in your character. So, before you make your character do a very large motion, go ahead and add in some anticipation.
Find answers to the most frequently asked questions about 2D Character Animation .
Here are the FAQs that matched your search "" :
Sorry, there are no matches for your search "" —to search again, type in another word or phrase and click search.
Access exercise files from a button right under the course name.
Search within course videos and transcripts, and jump right to the results.
Remove icons showing you already watched videos if you want to start over.
Make the video wide, narrow, full-screen, or pop the player out of the page into its own window.
Click on text in the transcript to jump to that spot in the video. As the video plays, the relevant spot in the transcript will be highlighted.


text:
Public buses
Just another big city of our world, Kashgar is already too modern to worry about 'no transportations'. Tourists can anytime walk to any agents to flash your money, if you want to go from somewhere to somewhere. Picture is taken from a local city bus, seats are still clean and new, a little surprise for me to still think Kashgar is all about camels and caravans.
- Budget Travel
- Road Trip
Train ,Plane ,Bus
Kashgar is about 280 km from Tashkurgan. It is a city out of another world. The city's relative inaccessibility has had a great influence on its character. This place feels, looks dramatically different from the rest of China, even from the rest of Xinjiang.
Kashgar is China's Muslim center. It used to be an important stop on the centuries-old Silk Road, and trade remains timeless still in this vibrant oasis, at least on Sundays, when the bustling markets are packed with uniquely dressed Uygurs, ambitious Central Asian traders and veiled Muslim women. Muslim features are visible throughout the city. Mosque towers high up above mud-thatched houses.
Kashgar was an important outfitting station on the Old Silk Road. The flourishing trade route was major factor of Kashgar's rise. The tired trade caravans plodding west on the northern and southern routes met up at Kashgar. Merchants from Central Asia thawed out after descending to Kashgar and exchanged their stolid yaks and exhaused packhorses for camles to convey their merchandese into Inner provinces of China.
Kashgar's importance in the history of Silk Road and its unique culture mean that the city has many sights of special interest to offer visitors. In and around Kashgar, travelers can find the Abakh Khoja Tomb, Idgar Mosque, Kashgar Old Town, Sunday Bazzar, Ancient Art Street and the Stone City.
it is good to walk around old city and also good to travel by bike
- Road Trip
Train from Kuqa
Contrary to popular belief, you can get soft sleeper from Kuqa to Kashgar... they are very limited, but you can get them. We got two, the last two, and one hard seat...
99 yuan for a hard seat, 297 yuan or so for soft sleeper (July 28, 2008). Try to buy the tickets in advance if possible- we got ours when we arrived in Kuqa, a day or two before leaving for Kashgar. Anyway, it's possible to do.
I noted there were also luxury sleepers as well- just two beds, but I don't know if there were any available. The staff on the train were notably unhelpful, especially compared with the Turpan-Kuqa train. Anyway... sorry, dzni... hard seat sucks...
By the way, one of the biggest problems with hard seat is that many people buy a single ticket, then spread out across three seats. I'm sure they'd grudgingly move if you woke them, but it's a bit hard to find a seat.
We wanted to sit together in soft sleeper for a while, but the helpful policeman told us that the hard seat ticket holder couldn't go with us because it was sleeping time. Ok. I understand that if there were no rules, you'd have one passenger buy a soft sleeper ticket and invite his extended family and donkey to come sit with him, but we're foreigners. There's just three of us. You can make exceptions. Rigid...
Kashgar exploration
If you have a little time in Kashgar, and don't mind walking, you can explore a lot of the city (e.g. the old neighbourhood, Id Kah mosque, the markets, the river) on foot. Might be a bit hot in summer though! If you are going to Apak Khoja mausoleum (worth the trip) then try the bus (easy) or perhaps rent a bike.
- Budget Travel
- Backpacking
- Architecture
Horse man
Most of the local here has horses and pony. The is kind of the property and they give to their new wife's family as present when get marrige.
Pony women
the most common street scene can be seen here in Xinjiang Area. A lady selling the cloth where she put the display on the pony cart.
- 1
Show Prices
Show Prices
Show Prices
Instant Answers: Kashgar
Get an instant answer from local experts and frequent travelers
- Great room rates
- Ctrip.com
- Great room rates
- Ctrip.com
Sponsored Links