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.
Adam Weiss wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@blockspam.org:
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 microphone...
The "q" is too literate. To indicate the ignoranti, I think something more like "arkutekchur" would be more appropos =8-o
"o8TY" wrote in news:4347cd4d snipped-for-privacy@news.iprimus.com.au:
[ ... ]
Coming up with new words is no problem whatsoever. The problem is gaining acceptance for it that is widespread enough for the word to gain a real- world meaning.
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?
Adam Weiss wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@blockspam.org:
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.
IMO: 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 theory.
"zenboom" wrote in news:dibqsj$93u$ snipped-for-privacy@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:
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.
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.
"o8TY" wrote in news:434bef94 snipped-for-privacy@news.iprimus.com.au:
= 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 website 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.