Anyone can draw a piece of shit building and put it up.
Anyone who went to college can write a few pages of bullshit, if they
went to arquitektuur* school they can expand that bullshit to 20 or 30
pages, add a bunch of pictures, and if they have the time edit it into a
book. (If they kiss enough ass, they can get a job teaching arquitektuur)
But only a few can actually design and build great buildings - really
great and unique designs actually constructed in brick and mortar,
steel, glass, wood....
This is what separates the "wanna-bes" and the "think they ares" from
the "really greats".
*See my other post defining "arquitektuur" versus architecture. I'm
still working on these terms, so your input is welcome.
To paraphrase the old saying:
Those who can, do...those who can't, become critics...
It's easy to be mean, and it's easy to tear down others. Bottom dwellers -
sinking is easy. And there is nothing a scumpig likes better than trying
to splash everyone else with its own slime, so that it can then point and
say, "See, you're just as dirty and the wurst of us!"
And/or those who simply want to stick their pieholes in front of a
The "q" is too literate. To indicate the ignoranti, I think something more
like "arkutekchur" would be more appropos =8-o
I see what you're saying but I disagree with the phrase. Too much
knowledge is not over-literate so much as it's narrowly/obsessively
literate, as in, exposure to and/or thought about only one way of seeing
things. Sort of the equivalent of having read everything ever written by
Thomas Mann, but nothing at all by anyone else.
In retrospect it is funny that I brought up language and a new word.
Linguistics and the study of language was a primary focus of
Deconstruction, whose architectural bastard-child (Deconstructivism) has
been so damaging to architecture schools.
But that said, the assonance of "architecture," "arquitektuur," and
"arkutekchur" are what I'm interested in. It falls in with my point
that architecture as it is practiced and what is taught in
"arquitektuur" schools is two very different things that are too often
not accepted as being so different.
The separation is what needs to be addressed in the field of
architecture and in the education for it. Why can't architecture
students learn the skills and sciences they will need to practice in
their field? Why do we instead make arquitektuur students who are
unprepared to work in the field and require a year or more of on the job
training to be of use to their employers?
In all honesty, "deconstruction" in its various forms is one of those
things I never paid any attnetion to because it mostly seemed/seems to me
to be nothing but hooey. Even the word doesn't make sense to me. SO I
can't really reply to your statement. "Comparative Analysis" is a phrase I
understand. And I can understand experiencing a work and recognizing its
references to other periods, genres, and/or styles/classes of works. but I
haven't got a clue as to what "deconstructivism" actually *means*...
That statement makes total sense. It's like "color theory" and "art
history", versus creating a Work Of Art. You can have all the theory in
the world and yet never be able to produce Art; or you can have very little
theory, but the talent and the skill to consistently procude Art (or of
course fall somewhere in-between).
Theory is theory - doing is doing.
If it isn't, IMO that's just plain absurd.
Right, it makes no sense whatsoever.
it only goes to show that the educational system as a whole is obsessed
with, because it has fetishized, far too much that is frivolous,
impractical, extraneous. Too many people have the *appearance* of
education, but have actually learned rather little that is practical or
that allows then to analyse and integrate information (in architecture,
that includes stylistic information as well as structural information). I
don't even dignify most of it with the word "theory", because so much
"theoreticla knowledge" is more belief or fantasy, than it is rational
Even funnier is that, despite their education, most architects simply do not
know understand ancient greek architecture, let alone the meaning of the
ancient word. Has anyone here heard of the Arkadians? Or of Polybios?
But what is currently taught and practiced have very little in common with
ancient Greek architecture.
And architecture is architecture.
By definition students learn. If they fail to learn, that is their problem.
= is hair standing on end (which mine usually seems to do...)
8 is wide-open eyeballs
- is nose
o or 0 or O are varying degree of "mouth open", as in, oooh, OH!, "EEEK!",
I usu. mean it in a theatrical/semi-sarcasting sense.
I'd think that the Greek Orders would be part of that education, but of
course that is merely a guess on my part. It seems logical but logic seems
to have less and less to do with real life... =:-o
That wasn't the point here, though. The original post had to do with
finding some sort of terminology that would separate education in
"theoretical architecture" from education in "practical architecture",
because far too often (in the author's view, which I personally found
sensible), people come out of university Architecture programs with little
or no practical knowledge/skills. One idea (as I understand it) is to have
schools of architecture specify which branch they intend to emphasize, so
that applicants can know ahead of time.
The original poster also, as far as I understood it, seemed to opine that
the mandatory 1+-yr apprenticeship was too often a sort of "remedial
architecture" that wouldn't be necessary if schools taught practical
architecture primarily, and theoretical architecture secondarily
((especially given that many graduates still don't have a significant
conmprehension of style, and of how to utilize/balance differnt styles).
The Greek origins of the word were not the focus of the thread.
No, the whole point is that it isn't - there is theory, and there is
practice/practcality (i.e. actually building something and having it be
structurally sound and functional).
This theory:practice duality is true of a great many (and perhaps most, or
even all) human endeavors, except for the most simple.
That is an entirely specious statement.
For one thing, the point of the original post, and the thread, is what's
taught and how is it taught. It has nothing at all to do with students'
capacity for learning. University courses are simply not all created equal
- there are prestigeous Universities that give out "gentleman's C"s, whicyh
make their degrees fairly meaningles; there are other Universities that are
OTOH well-known for turning out highly competent professionals, because
they give real grades and teach practical applications as well as theories.
Anyway, it's obvious students can learn, otherwise they'd never get into
university in the first place (aside from a few with very rich daddies of
course). What your statement does is exhonerate institutions from any
responsibility whatsoever to provide something resembling an education.
Personally, IMO, most things can be better learned by a conbination of
reading and tutoring or apprenticeship, because I personally learn better
that way - but the University education gives you the magic piece of paper
that employers require so that they don't have to actually find out much at
all about one's capabilities.
In what way? Unless you provide an analysis, all you're stating is an
opinion that may or may not be unfounded.
I recently went to a poetry recital where the most common theme was the
idyllic rustic landscape known as arcadian (sic). FWIW, there are probably
more towns in the world named Arcadia than any others sharing the same
ancient Greek name.
If ever you remember or rediscover what it was, please post it.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.