worlds collide
last night i attended a discussion about two architecture school programs that currently exist in portland. one is a eugene based program that has been established for years, and the other is my alma mater, which has just recently been granted a professional graduate program. the difference between the two schools is simple:
school one is very literal, technical, and pushes to train their students to be prepared as cad-monkey professionals.
school two is more artistically based, values poetics, aesthetics, and architecture as meaning. this is the program that shaped me. this program teaches a person to think. unfortunately, it hardly prepares the individual for the cruel reality of the working world.
the discussion was held at what is usually a jazz lounge/bar. as the question/answer portion of the conversation gained momentum, i watched the faces of the waitresses collecting empty plates, glasses, arranging for checks to be paid, filling glasses. rhetoric such as, 'we must continue to ask questions that challenge, and teach in a way that gets students to explore these questions. explore what it means 'to be' and ask 'where am i?' not just literally, but temporally, mentally, relative to our culture.' and 'architecture is a means of communication, expression, in response to the answers of these questions.'
as i look at the faces of these waitresses, i can read their thoughts on this particular speaking. they are working hard. moving through an annoying pretentious crowd. this speech is meaningless to them. a handful of bullshit. they do not care if a building is square or round, or expressive. they just want to get home with a decent pile of tips. to them, the poetics of space is a pile of bullshit.
and although mostly, i tend to lean towards the poetic process of architecture, sometimes, just sometimes, i agree with the waitresses.
school one is very literal, technical, and pushes to train their students to be prepared as cad-monkey professionals.
school two is more artistically based, values poetics, aesthetics, and architecture as meaning. this is the program that shaped me. this program teaches a person to think. unfortunately, it hardly prepares the individual for the cruel reality of the working world.
the discussion was held at what is usually a jazz lounge/bar. as the question/answer portion of the conversation gained momentum, i watched the faces of the waitresses collecting empty plates, glasses, arranging for checks to be paid, filling glasses. rhetoric such as, 'we must continue to ask questions that challenge, and teach in a way that gets students to explore these questions. explore what it means 'to be' and ask 'where am i?' not just literally, but temporally, mentally, relative to our culture.' and 'architecture is a means of communication, expression, in response to the answers of these questions.'
as i look at the faces of these waitresses, i can read their thoughts on this particular speaking. they are working hard. moving through an annoying pretentious crowd. this speech is meaningless to them. a handful of bullshit. they do not care if a building is square or round, or expressive. they just want to get home with a decent pile of tips. to them, the poetics of space is a pile of bullshit.
and although mostly, i tend to lean towards the poetic process of architecture, sometimes, just sometimes, i agree with the waitresses.