I. IT'S EASY TO TAKE ARCHITECTURE FOR GRANTED. i think we take architecture for granted. I think it's easy to. we are born and we grow up around the built environment, and it is so integral to our lives that we eventually just accept it as a constant
with that acceptance there comes an easy incuriosity
so I think this is all a process of undoing that, in a way
but also i understand where a lot of our skepticism comes from
i get it
at community college we had those feelings too
that feeling that you have no time for anything else but school
that feeling that you're barely getting everything done, if at all, in time
i suppose thats just universal in most american schools of architecture
a frustration
or just doubt
it seems what we do is vague
like we'd be sorely mistaken if we based off of what we do in our studios to imagine what an architect actually does
because the field is just so big and expansive
and, importantly to that point, multidisciplinary
stuck between worlds and professions, overlapping everything
hell this gets into the point that dr. gin is trying to make with that one assignment
thinking about the ways pop culture skews our impression of what architecture is about ... we think of the impressive works... both classical and contemporary (starchitecture)
I. IT'S EASY TO TAKE ARCHITECTURE FOR GRANTED: i think we take architecture for granted. I think it's easy to. we are born and we grow up around the built environment, and it is so.integral to our lives that we eventually just accept it as a constant. with that acceptance there comes an easy incuriosity. so I think this is all a process of undoing that, in a way .. but also i understand where a lot of our skepticism comes from.. i get it. at community college we had those feelings too. that feeling that you have no time for anything else but school. that feeling that you're barely getting everything done, if at all, in time. i suppose thats just universal in most american schools of architecture (that doesn't mean it's good). a frustration or just doubt ...
it seems what we do is vague. like we'd be sorely mistaken if we based off of what we do in our studios to imagine what an architect actually does, because the field is just so big and expansive. and, importantly to that point, multidisciplinary;;;; stuck between worlds and professions, overlapping everything
hell this gets into the point that dr. gin is trying to make with that one assignment: thinking about the ways pop culture skews our impression of what architecture is about ... we think of the impressive works... both classical and contemporary (starchitecture)
the cycle continues as we first enter architecture school ... again i know for a fact that not everything you do in a real firm is pure design .. there's plenty of monetary questions that we as students don't have to deal with .. on one hand those would be very frustrating to deal with (much as they are in real life, limiting design possibilities but also arguably creating innovations through constraint), but then on the other hand not having these constraints while in school opens up the possibilities for us to design, present, and propose basically anything under the sun