Has The Architect Lost His Way - Essay Example

HAS THE ARCHITECT LOST HIS WAY? Architecture has been regarded over time as the art and science of designing buildings and structures. It holds within its wide scope the design of the total built environment - including town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture, and creating furniture. The term "Architecture" is also used for the profession of providing architectural services. Architectural design involves the manipulation of space, volume, texture, light, shadow, and abstract elements in order to achieve an aesethetic end. This distinguishes it from the applied science of engineering which usually concentrates on the functional and feasibility aspects of a design. Architectural works are also seen as cultural and political symbols and works. Architecture has come to denote the art and discipline of creating an actual, or inferring an implied or apparent plan of any complex object or system. Architecture as a profession is the practice of providing architectural services. The practice of architecture includes the planning, designing and oversight of a buildings construction by an architect. Architectural services typically address both feasibility and cost for the builder, as well as function and aesthetics for the user. The role of the architect, although constantly not evolving, has been central to the design and implementation of the environments in which people live. Architects must have the skills and knowledge to design, plan and oversee a diverse range of projects, from a small residence to a large stadium. The work of an architect is an interdisciplinary field, drawing upon mathematics, science, art, technology, social sciences, politics and history, and often governed by the architects personal approach or philosophy. Vitruvius, the earliest known architectural theorist, states: "Architecture is a science, arising out of many other sciences, and adorned with much and varied learning: by the help of which a judgement is formed of those works which are the result of other arts." According to Vitruvius a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitatis utilitatis venustatis, which translates as - durability - it should stand up robustly and remain in good condition. utility - it should be useful; and function well for the people using it. beauty - it should delight people, and raise their spirits. Alberti, who elaborates on the ideas of Vitruvius, saw beauty primarily as a matter of proportion, although ornament also played a part. For Alberti, the rules of proportion were those that governed the idealised human figure, the Golden Mean. The most important aspect of beauty was therefore an inherent part of an object, rather than something applied superficially; and was based on universal, recognisable truths. The notion of style in the arts was not developed until the 16th century, with the writing of Vasari. The 19th century English art critic, John Ruskin, in his Seven Lamps of Architecture, published 1849, stated that Architecture was the "art which so disposes and adorns the edifices raised by man … that the sight of them" contributes "to his mental health, power, and pleasure". For Ruskin, the aesthetic was of overriding significance. His work goes on to state that a building is not truly a work of architecture unless it is in some way "adorned". For Ruskin, a well-constructed, well-proportioned, functional building needed string courses or rustication, at the very least. On the difference between the ideals of "architecture" and mere "construction", the renowned 20th C. architect Le Corbusier wrote: "You employ stone, wood, and concrete, and with these materials you build houses and palaces: that is construction. Ingenuity is at work. But suddenly you touch my heart, you do me good. I am happy and I say: This is beautiful. That is Architecture". The great 19th century architect of skyscrapers, Louis Sullivan, promoted an overriding precept to architectural design: "Form follows function". While the notion that structural and aesthetic considerations should be entirely subject to functionality was met with both popularity and scepticism, it had the effect of introducing the concept of "function" in place of Vitruvius "utility". "Function" came to be seen as encompassing all criteria of the use, perception and enjoyment of a building, not only practical but also aesthetic, psychological and cultural. Nunzia Rondanini stated, “Through its aesthetic dimension architecture goes beyond the functional aspects that it has in common with other human sciences. Through its own particular way of expressing values, architecture can stimulate and influence social life without presuming that, in and of itself, it will promote social development. Ivar Holm points out that the values and attitudes which underly modern architecture differ both between the schools of thought which influence architecture and between individual practising architects. Among the philosophies that have influenced modern architects and their approach to building design are rationalism, empiricism, structuralism, poststructuralism, and phenomenology. In the late 20th century a new concept was added to those included in the compass of both structure and function, the consideration of sustainability. To satisfy the modern ethos a building should be constructed in a manner which is environmentally friendly in terms of the production of its materials, its impact upon the natural and built environment of its surrounding area and the demands that it makes upon non-sustainable power sources for heating, cooling, water and waste management and lighting. There is also a concept among architects that although architecture does not exist in a vacuum, architectural form cannot be merely a compilation of historical precedent, functional necessities, and socially aware concerns, but that to achieve significance, a work of architecture must be a transcendent synthesis of all of the former and a creation of worth in and of itself. Architecture first evolved out of the dynamics between needs (shelter, security, worship, etc.) and means (available building materials and attendant skills). As human cultures developed and knowledge began to be formalized through oral traditions and practices, architecture became a craft. With the Renaissance and its emphasis on the individual and humanity rather than religion, and with all its attendant progress and achievements, a new chapter began. Buildings were ascribed to specific architects – Brunelleschi, Alberti, Michelangelo, Palladio - and the cult of the individual had begun. But there was no dividing line between artist, architect and engineer, or any of the related vocations. At this stage, it was still possible for an artist to design a bridge as the level of structural calculations involved was within the scope of the generalist. With the consolidation of knowledge in scientific fields such as engineering and the rise of new materials and technology, the architect began to lose ground on the technical aspects of building. He therefore cornered for himself another playing field – that of aesthetics. There was the rise of the "gentleman architect" who usually dealt with wealthy clients and concentrated predominantly on visual qualities derived usually from historical prototypes, typified by the many country houses of Great Britain that were created in the Neo Gothic or Scottish Baronial styles. Formal architectural training, in the 19th century, gave much emphasis to the production of beautiful drawings and little to context and feasibility. Effective architects generally received their training in the offices of other architects, graduating to the role from draughtsmen or clerks. Meanwhile, the Industrial Revolution laid open the door for mass production and consumption. Aesthetics became a criterion for the middle class as ornamented products, once within the province of expensive craftsmanship, became cheaper under machine production. Vernacular architecture became increasingly ornamental. The dissatisfaction with such a general situation at the turn of the twentieth century gave rise to many new lines of thought that served as precursors to Modern Architecture. Notable among these is the Deutscher Werkbund, formed in 1907 to produce better quality machine made objects. The rise of the profession of industrial design is usually placed here. Following this lead, the Bauhaus school, founded in Germany in 1919, consciously rejected history and looked at architecture as a synthesis of art, craft, and technology. When Modern architecture was first practiced, it was an avant-garde movement with moral, philosophical, and aesthetic underpinnings. Immediately after World War I, pioneering modernist architects sought to develop a completely new style appropriate for a new post-war social and economic order, focused on meeting the needs of the middle and working classes. They rejected the architectural practice of the academic refinement of historical styles which served the rapidly declining aristocratic order. The approach of the Modernist architects was to reduce buildings to pure forms, removing historical references and ornament in favor of functionalist details. Buildings that displayed their construction and structure, exposing steel beams and concrete surfaces instead of hiding them behind traditional forms, were seen as beautiful in their own right. Architects such as Mies van der Rohe worked to create beauty based on the inherent qualities of building materials and modern construction techniques, trading traditional historic forms for simplified geometric forms, celebrating the new means and methods made possible by the Industrial Revolution. Many architects resisted Modernism, finding it devoid of the decorative richness of ornamented styles. As the founders of the International Style lost influence in the late 1970s, Postmodernism developed as a reaction against the austerity of Modernism. Robert Venturis contention that a "decorated shed" (an ordinary building which is functionally designed inside and embellished on the outside) was better than a "duck" (a building in which the whole form and its function are tied together) gives an idea of this approach. Part of the architectural profession, and also some non-architects, responded to Modernism and Postmodernism by going to what they considered the root of the problem. They felt that architecture was not a personal philosophical or aesthetic pursuit by individualists; rather it had to consider everyday needs of people and use technology to give a livable environment. The Design Methodology Movement involving people such as Christopher Alexander started searching for more people-oriented designs. Extensive studies on areas such as behavioural, environmental, and social sciences were done and started informing the design process. As many other concerns began to be recognised and complexity of buildings began to increase in terms of aspects such as services, architecture started becoming more multi-disciplinary than ever. Architecture now required a team of professionals in its making, an architect being one among the many, and sometimes the leader. This is the state of the profession today. However, individuality is still cherished and sought for in the design of buildings seen as cultural symbols - the museum or fine arts centre has become a showcase for new experiments in style: today one style, tomorrow maybe something else. In April, 2000, Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy published an article in Wired magazine entitled, "Why the future doesn’t need us ( architects)." Joy argues that emerging technologies such as robotics, nanoscience, and artificial intelligence threaten to spiral out of control and endanger humanity. As we slip deeper into dependence on machines, he says, we will rely on them to make every decision for us, and existence without them might become impossible. Eventually, machines may decide that existence with us is unnecessary. When we can’t live without them, and they can’t live with us, what will happen? Not everyone agrees with Joy’s fatalistic view in totality, but new technologies have already begun to redefine daily life at an astounding rate. The information age has ushered in a well-documented revolution in design and production over the past decade. So far these changes mostly have affected our ability to envision and illustrate new forms, but soon the entire artificial environment may be restructured. Our understandings of architecture may quickly become outdated. Experts anticipate that within the next few decades, large-scale objects, including buildings, could be fabricated using microscopic robots called assemblers, which would join to make a cybernetic glue, able to assume any shape and size. Such an instrument would eliminate traditional constraints of design and construction. For architects, nanoconstruction could finally accommodate the restless search for new forms, allowing varieties never before achieved or even imagined. It will be possible to construct anything we envision through a virtual wave of the wand. Buildings may be conceived and executed through computer programming by entering only a few parameters and requirements. But this assumes that designers will control the process. This naturally raises the next important question - whether architecture will require architects. Will expertise become unnecessary when anyone could punch her desires into a keyboard and produce her dream home? Such technology may both fully realize and ultimately subvert many of architecture’s most enduring paradigms. The notion of "organic architecture," which Frank Lloyd Wright defined as "building the way nature builds," will no longer be just a metaphor. Wright intended to establish a method through which designers could shape the entire visible environment at every scale: sites, structures, furnishings, and fixtures. While buildings may become literally organic, they may also become autonomous, free from the control of designers. Design itself may become an antiquated concept. Artificial creation will be pointless when all things organic and synthetic develop "naturally." Wright felt that architectural form should stem from the inherent "nature" of its materials: "Each material speaks a language of its own." In his mind, the proportions, heft and texture of brick logically translated into structures like the Robie House, which extends horizontally and hugs the land. Clay, shaped and laid by the hand, returns to the earth; craft transforms nature. But when the constituent parts of a building are too small to be seen with the naked eye, the relationships between form and materials will change. Because the character of a building may vary upon command—hard and opaque one minute, soft and transparent the next—the fabric of buildings may become fluid, fluctuating states from solid to liquid to gas and back. The notion of truth in materials will become irrelevant. In fact, the word material may go away. When the basic building blocks of architecture have no strict definition, structure and substance will separate. Matter won’t matter. Constructive Change was set up by the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1999 to lead the profession’s response to industry change and, in particular, the reform agenda driven by Egan’s Rethinking Construction. Some seven years after Rethinking Construction, the wider industry has made significant progress: by adopting Egan principles, client satisfaction, productivity, and time and cost predictability have all improved significantly. Today, new change agendas are emerging for the industry. Sustainability and the need to create real social and economic value for clients and society are imperatives for the built environment. The RIBA presents a vision of the future of the construction industry and the opportunities and challenges this future presents for the architectural profession. There are great opportunities for architects to contribute significantly to the future success of the industry. Technological innovations have enabled substantial industry change in the last decade. In addition to IT developments, particularly in the area of Building Information Object Modelling, in the future technological factors impacting the industry relate to greater industrialisation and standardisation of buildings. Increasingly demanding and powerful consumers will also form a significant driver for future change. By making proactive changes, the profession will increase its value in the built environment industry, however by responding reactively it risks further marginalisation. Like any profession or industry, architecture faces a changing future, however it does have choices over how it views and responds to his future. The success of the profession and its practitioners relies partly on their approach to the future: they are well placed to take advantage of future opportunities but must act proactively to do so. The core competency of the architectural profession is seen as its practitioners’ creativity and problem solving skills, as embodied in the design process. However, in reality, this valuable capability forms a minimal part of architects’ role in the project team, as management and regulatory issues become increasingly significant in the building process. The profession is perceived as having failed to capitalise on its core capability by not creating the range of skills needed to meet the demands of the modern construction industry. Professional education and training for architects is seen as a key area of weakness, discussed widely and frequently during the workshops. Architectural education initiates and enforces certain negative behaviours and attitudes amongst young architects: the profession’s introverted perspective is instigated during education; architects are not educated to meet industry and wider market needs; and the education system often lacks sufficient exposure to other built environment sectors. While the increasing quality and quantity of students entering the profession is seen as encouraging, the quality and quantity of graduates completing professional architectural education and entering practices appears to be falling. The wider shift in the construction industry from the Rethinking Construction change agenda to one driven by sustainability has the potential to increase architects’ industry contribution. While Rethinking Construction is focused on construction process improvement, sustainability embraces wider built environment and societal issues. The perspective of creating social value and design quality is already inherent in the architectural profession: it looks to serve not just one client but all clients and the wider society who all benefit from the design of our built environment. Sustainable development is at the heart of changes to the planning system, which is becoming performance based, dependent on the social, economic and environmental value created through developments. Architects, particularly those undertaking master planning activities, could potentially play a key future role and become instrumental in setting performance objectives for developments. There is an opportunity and need for architects to lead the process of establishing evidence-based design solutions that create demonstrable social, economic and environmental benefits. By articulating the value of design, in language easily understood by clients and the wider public, architecture should become more highly valued by clients and society. The theme of the changing role of built environment professions is a central concern of The Professional’s Choice (Foxell (Ed), 2004). The perception and performance of the architectural profession is indicative of the wider ‘crisis of confidence’ experienced amongst professionals (Schon, 1991). Today’s architect is a ‘virtually unrecognizable figure’ compared to an “older generation of practitioners familiar with a lofty gentlemanly and professional status” (xii, Allinson, 1993). Actions taken to deregulate the architectural profession – namely the abolition of protected fee scales in 1986 and the removal of the ban on advertising architectural services in 1983 – have driven today’s need to market architectural services and undertake fee competition. The resultant conflict between architecture as art and architecture as business is a defining concern for the profession, “that old chestnut of art versus commerce” (xi, Allinson, 1993). Innovations in IT have pushed industry change substantially in last decade. In the future, technological factors impacting the industry are likely to relate to increasing industrialisation and standardisation of buildings. Future skill needs and training are of particular importance in the future in the industry’s ability to meet the changing demands. The norms or culture of the profession are seen as increasingly at odds with the modern construction industry. For example, the profession is noted for its introverted perspective where architects are often driven by their own achievements and peer group recognition rather than responding to client and market needs. Consequently, architects are rarely seen as ‘team players’ interested in interdisciplinary working. The tradition of the architect as the ‘struggling artist’ is still evident - particularly amongst the profession’s many sole practitioners – creating tension with the role of architectural practices as businesses creating value and meeting their stakeholders’ needs. Architects are viewed as being risk-averse, unwilling to take responsibility and therefore the risk and reward for their work. Generally, the current university-based education system is seen as having failed to produce practitioners with the range of skill profiles required for today’s built environment industry. Both schools of architecture and practices are viewed as responsible for this situation. In particular, it was suggested that architectural practices may have abdicated their responsibilities in educating and training young architects. However, the ability of practices to contribute more to the education of architects is often restricted by many practices’ economic situation and the economic pressures of the current higher education system in the UK. New modern procurement methods such as PFI and prime contracting have served to marginalise the role of design and therefore the architect in the building process. By responding reactively, architects’ have furthered this disenfranchisement from the industry. Due to the way the procurement system is currently set up, PFI and PPP presents particular challenges and barriers for small and medium sized architectural practices. The lack of investment in research and development across the architectural profession is also a failing that is seen as both symptomatic and contributing to a lack of innovation and strategic thinking in the profession. This trend is reflected in some schools of architecture, many of who compete unsuccessfully to win Research Council funding. One cause of this may be the academic ‘marginalisation’ of architectural research and schools lack of engagement in wider research agendas. In particular, the lack of research evidence as to the value created by design, lies at the heart of architects’ inability to articulate their value-add. Evidence-based design offers significant opportunities in addressing this issue. Leadership is seen to be generally lacking in the construction industry at an industry level. While the notion that architects and other built environment professions should necessarily strive for the leading role in projects was dismissed as a “Victorian concept operating in the 21st century”, an opportunity exists for architects to take a leading industry role by starting and leading debates, championing causes and campaigning. The RIBA and other institutions should act collectively to increase their influence on government. In the past, the architectural profession should have led national debates that have been picked up by other organizations such as CABE. Existing opportunities for the profession to lead industry’s response to wider issues include the wider sustainability and value agenda, climate change and Sustainable Communities. Architects are seen to have lost their leadership role because they are unwilling to take responsibility. Architectural education and training should be altered It has to be completely overhauled: The following alterations should be considered. It should reflect market demand and opportunities by educating and training architects in a flexible and wide range of skills. This education should equip students with skills required for refurbishment and recycling of existing building stock. It should provide more business and management training for students and further strengthen links between students and the industry. It should encourage greater involvement from practitioners during education and provide more cross disciplinary (built environment professions) modules. Most importantly it should be able to identify, train and invest in the profession’s future leaders. The industry’s skill needs and training approaches will take on increasing importance in the future. The industry’s future success depends on its ability to match its ‘supply side’ - that is the quantity and quality of its people - with the future demands for products and services. Coinciding with significant industry change has been a widespread shift in the perception, treatment and role of the professions. Architects and other built environment professionals have found their claim on professional expertise challenged, their professional privileges questioned, their market hold eroded and their traditional leadership role in construction teams lost (Allinson, 1993). It is true that the impact of technology on the future of humanity will be more momentous than the fate of any particular discipline or profession. Nevertheless, profound changes in architecture are happening right now. Architects rarely consider ethics before aesthetics. In our love affair with technology, we often forget to question its use. All great buildings are a marriage of technique and purpose, but in much recent architecture, built and unbuilt, technique overshadows purpose. Today the facility with making form is unprecedented, yet the most sophisticated methods are irrelevant if intentions are misdirected. If the task of architecture is to create exotic forms, eventually tools will overtake architecture in this ability. But if the aim is to provide meaningful, humane places, the architect must be vigilant in pursuing this goal, or the future of architecture may not need them. Bibliography Allinson, K (1993). The Wild Card of Design. Butterworth Architecture. Oxford, UK. Altogether Stronger: a sector skills agreement for construction (2004). Construction Skills Altogether Stronger: Skills Needs analysis for construction executive summary (2004). Construction Skills. Constructing Excellence (2005). UK Construction 2010. Davis Langdon (2005). World Construction Review / Outlook Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (2003). Creative Industries Economic Estimates Statistical Bulletin. www.culture.gov.uk Department for Trade & Industry (2001). Creative Industries. www.dti.gov.uk Department for Trade & Industry (2004). Construction Statistics Annual. www.dti.gov.uk Department for Trade & Industry, 2002/3. State of the Industry Report. www.dti.gov.uk Egan (1998). Rethinking Construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions_ Foxell S (ed) (2003). The Professionals’ Choice. The future of the built environment professions. Building Futures, CABE / RIBA. Latham (1994). Constructing the Team. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. RIBA Constructive Change: a strategic industry study into the future of the Architects’ Profession December 2005 47 Mirza & Nacey (2004). Architects Markets: a survey of the markets in which architects operate. Mirza & Nacey Research. Schön D (1991). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Hants, UK. Pearce D (2003). The Social and Economic Value of Construction. NCRISP World Architecture (2003). Survey of top 300 architecture firms. The Builder Group, London. Read More