This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
What the Heck are Universities teaching?
Comments
-
Hairdresser has clearly defined several points of difference.
And unfortunately Philip and Seasons have been unable to mount a counter argument (yet).
Universities are settings for enabling thinking - and no more.
Practice(s) are settings for elders to impart practical experience to the next generation - and no less.
My only concern in relation to academic life here in Australia is that it does not pay enough
And therefore does not attract or foster any form of competitive academic rigor in its candidates
A final year tutor at UMelb, USyd or UQ is paid around $20/hr
A bartender at any Crown casino is paid $30/hr - and required to not think -
<p>Dear Info</p>
<p>How very kind of you to give me room to mount a counter arguement. It is a very good point that the current reward for University teachers is woefully under par and it would be noted that TAFE teacher have recently gone on strike and voted for further strikes, to increase thier remuneration as well. It is a feature of the Australian education system to be under-paid compared to collegues the world over, but back to this thread.</p>
<p>I have never suggested and nor has Philip, that Universities currently teach what we suggest. I and others have only ever suggested that they SHOULD teach certain things in University curriculums. Hairdresser et al, has only informed us what they don't teach and we already know that. Our arguement is that they should do better and we have suggested only how they might do better. Hairdesser et al have not mounted an arguement of refutation, they have only given us the original raison d'ert of the thread in a garrulous and crude vocabulary. Yes, it is clearly defined and it is a a point of differance, but it has added nothing to the thread nor subtracted from the arguement. While they were getting in a lather, we were hunting for solutions to a percieved problem.</p>
<p>Your opinion that Universities enable thinking is 'right on the money'. However they could still do better because a good design education, one would think, includes not only what one could design, but how one could bring it into reality. Simply thinking design and not how to construct it is only ever half the job and when knowlege is lacking of how to construct, then the design is only ever a quarter of the job or worse, completely useless.</p>
<p>A university is supposed to enable thinking, yes, but a well rounded education is one and the same thing. Learning design and not learning how to actually bring it into realtity IS NOT a well rounded education.</p> -
No I haven't bothered to refute you herr ss.
how could i?
you are a one man course on everything.
as per info - I've just laid out a position.
I got taught to do that at the university of hair styling.
its an irrelevant skill that has nothing to do with shaving heads.
however.
it has occasional tactical application , in the lower courts,
when approaching expert witnesses in heritage construction. -
<p>"I have never suggested and nor has Philip, that Universities currently teach what we suggest. I and others have only ever suggested that they SHOULD teach certain things in University curriculums. Hairdresser et al, has only informed us what they don't teach and we already know that. Our arguement is that they should do better and we have suggested only how they might do better. Hairdesser et al have not mounted an arguement of refutation"...</p>
<p>i had thought that you, SS, were arguing that unis need to teach more, and the most of the rest of us were arguing that unis DON'T need to teach more, or that there are other avenues for learning and other skill sets required by architects. i thought we had put forth several points against your arguemnt, yet you obviously don't think so.</p>
<p>i think you just want someone to agree with you...</p> -
<p>For all I care, they can teach you how to change a tap washer. As long as they get a Plumbers' Registration not an Architects Registration 3 years out.</p>
<p>If they learn how to do great CAD models at Uni, they will have to learn all the other stuff elsewhere if the are to get Registration.</p>
<p>If they go in knowing 'everything' about construction and come out with design stamped in they still need to get the practise and contract sorted...............before Registration.</p>
<p>There are Architects out there that aren't. That is Philips' real concern is it not?</p> -
amusing as usual
lions and christians come to mind
my two bobs worth would simply be that the profession has a responsibility to teach as much as the university and the demand for graduates to be 'office ready' is unreasonable.
graduates have a completely different set of skills from 'old buggers' and those skills are useful (ie banging out a render in no time what so ever that they used to pay thousands for!)
so i would suggest the profession should appreciate that it has to contribute to the education of young architects. i would endorse all young architects who get a job early in their education and engage with the realities of the office (be that damp proof coursing or conducting yourself properly in a meeting OR a blog)
the academy can teach a student how to learn but the profession is the only place to learn how to be professional. -
<p>hear, hear.</p>
-
<p>Dav, I am argueing that Unis need to teach more, specifically the construction nouse with which to bring design into fruition, and non specifically, in the hope that sound principals of physics and enviromental ecology for instance will influence how well a designed structure is braced and water proofed. That is, that stylism take a back seat in University curriculums to sound and realisable design skills.</p>
<p>Yes I do think several points were put forward but ironically, right near the end, it is Miles who seems to have put them most eloquently and at least odds with what I am argueing for. ( I am sorry I didn't give any credit to hairdressers contributions but since they were couched in juvenile abuse and ridicule I thought why the heck should I?)</p>
<p>I think Miles' assesment of the situation is entirely correct, but I add again that I think the Unis could do better by ensuring that pie in the sky stylism is left out of the curricullum and left up to design offices, and that sound building and design fundamentals should be concentrated on with stylistic dogma banished at least for the first two years.</p>
<p>Picking up on one thing Miles said though that is a fundamental differance to what hairdresser et al seem to believe is that unis teach you how to learn. Exactly as they should. Pie in the sky design skills with no structural sense or background to them is teaching how to think. Teaching how to learn is far more important and understanding the differance is crucial to a well rounded individual who will be useful to the profession, as apposed to being a hinderance.</p> -
<p>so, how about if the unis teach you how to learn how to BUILD whilst on the job, not teach you how to learn to design whilst ont he job? and do you mean design offices as in product design/graphic design etc, or do you mean architectural office where they would now need to teach your graduates how to design instead of how to construct? i'm pretty sure all my employers (be it the supermarket, the bar, the restaurant, the builder, the arch office) had to teach me SOMETHING. so choose. it's either design or its construction.</p>
<p>the unis can't teach everything you will ever need to know. and the list is getting huge: design, theory, history, ESD, construction, new materaila, light and sound, legal, accounting, dealing with clients/builders/engineers/project managers, interior design, residential, commercial, industrial. you can't have push without pull, SS.</p>
<p>like i've said, my uni taught me a pretty huge curriculum and most of it has stacked up in the real world, but it was all rather light on. the best that you can hope for is that when you are on the job you can recognise what is happening around you because once it was shown to you in a lecture. i suggetsed it before and you took it as a funding thing, but if unis are goping to continue to teach/load whichever curricualums they see fit, then maybe its worthwhile the profession letting the prospective student know what that unis preference is. Eg. is it a design-focused school, a construction-focused school, do they give what the institute views to be rounded educattions etc. Not about grading, just informing, so the student, like you, who wants to go somewhere where he can learn about construction also can check the list and make an informed decision, rather than just lamenting the lack of knowledge 5 years later. and employers could employ from the schools they thought do the best job (hell, that happens anyway). if employers want the kids with construction knowledge then we would soon see.</p>
<p>there. i've made a suggestion as to how to change/better the situation...you're still moaning.</p> -
<p>oh, and limiting designs to what can only be built is the most hideously boring suggestion i have ever heard. at the very least, such projects become prototypes and ispiration for the future, at the most they inspire sopmeone to figure out how to build them. the world is built on imagination and pushing the boundaries. if the progress of the world relied on the lowest common denominator skills of your lowest common denominator tradie, then we would never have got to the wheel, cos a square is easier to fabricate.</p>
-
<p>and besides a square is no longer any easier to fabricate than a triangulated thingo thanks to non-standard machine production.</p>
<p>you need to stop seeing digital architecture as some sort of threat to your (SS) "hideously boring" overly pragmatistic approach, and start seeing it as another avenue of pushing the boundaries. in many cases digital architecture is driven by environmental performance criteria that outperrforms murcutt, and is built in a factory with laser cutters that ensure the minimum waste is produced etc.</p>
<p>SS: i'm beggining to question what you want to get out of uni apart from a piece of paper. you seem to know very well what unis offer, and you think they're crap.</p>
<p>Phillip will hire you and you wont need to go through 5 years of arguments with your tutors.</p> -
<p>uni's don't teach construction for the following reasons:</p>
<ul>
<li>it's not cool and does not fit in with the modern paradigam of "architecture".</li>
<li>it is not arbitrary and cannot readily be obfuscated like design.</li>
<li>student might actually get something right and be able to prove it</li>
<li>it is seen as "below" architecture, only plebs languish over how to actually "build" something</li>
</ul>
<p>all sad but true..</p> -
<p>kashmir, you got in at the wrong end of this discussion. they are not the reasons unis dont teach construction, and in any case it's a falsehood that they don't.</p>
<p>which are these design-only unis everyone is going on about anyway?</p> -
in my view, uts is going hard on the digi scene trying to catch up with rmit. the appointment of john fraser at qut suggests it is ramping up the digital engagement. uq refuses to acccept mcarthur can take them forward beyond that bloody pencil drawing thing, curtin and uwa are struggling to keep students and lack focus, sydney remains problematic while it remains under the spectre of building science, unsw is boring and lacks direction, unisa has a new building but no heart and adelaide has arm as a professor but is embarassing and needs help, tassie is doing ok with its timber ideals, deakin is ticking along and most critically unimelb is surely under stress with the 'melbourne model' despite its dean's rhetoric. i see a collection of paths in unis at the moment; digital, community focus (self build etc (youd like this lot mr seasons)), straight (ie practice lets build it focus) and finally the surface/theory crowd. personally i think its great that there are alternative ways that interested individuals might get an architectural education and get a different skill set. (hear hear dav.) for my money in victoria if i need a particular type of graduate i look closely at where they studied; a deakin grad can do different things from a melbourne uni grad or an rmit grad. this is good. mr seasons you should choose your draftie extension into an architectural education very carefully.
-
sorry reread the above and i need to clarify the fact that i meant to say adelaide is 'embarasssingly under resourced'. and my comments are directed entirely towards academic staff and teaching agendas NOT students. apologies to any young architects reading it that might get pissed by the comments.
-
<p>it should be interesting to see where Monash fits in to the little architect education web.. i'm a fan of some of their lecturers who left my uni for it</p>
-
ahh yes the 'practice' agenda. will be interesting to see how much construction they teach. they have the players but do they have the moves?
-
monash might have made a fatal error extracting dna from a limited gene pool.
the first couple of MD's normally get necked before a new enterprise finds its footing.
ARM moving into a burnt out school in a dead beat town is the classic formula for a rebuild.
doubt they would make it in their own image at their age.
a hard arsed recession helps the project.
be surprised if its not pulled off.
the rest are in baby boomer death spirals.
one way or another. -
I wonder which school might contemplate an alternative studio.
One where, like Baz Luhrmann, we refocus on an idea that is intrinsically Australian
Not in a Cronulla sense
But in a spatial way
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/08/advertising
Herein lies a way into an architecture for this Country -
Isn't Monash being headed up by a failed Curator of the 2006 Venice Biennale?
Some obvious Joh Bj like networks are beginning to surface now
Victorians - take a critical look (and correct me if I am wrong)
Back scratching has never seemed dumber
RMIT - digi scene - LeonVS - and pointless Masters by design certificates
Miles - why would any institution bother trying to emulate this kind of naval gazing?
Macarthur is tiring - UQ is stuck in the picturesque
And the 5th generation of inbred graduate cum teachers -
<p>Info, Your query as to why anyone would emulate the naval gazing digi scene is partly answered by my previous post in this thread ripping into that queen of stylism who used to edit the AIA magazine 'AA' for about ten years. She herself and a quick read of Robin Boyds 'The Australian Ugliness' answers the rest of the question. Fashionability and the travesty of featurism, which now gives us the modernist cement sheet clad timber framed box portico on the front of every new brick venereal revisit, is the problem whether its on a shed or an office tower.</p>
<p>The digi scene is the latest 'in' thing and it'll soon be as reduntant as all the rest of the those 'in' things that some schools think are so fabulous and essential. All bullshit really compared to the intrisically Australian architecture of, dare I say it in this company, Glenn Murcutt. What I go on and on about is that the reason his stuff is so sound and timeless and appreciated the world over (far more than here ?!?) is that his design method is instrinsically about constructability and definately not about stylism. The fact that it has a look is inescapeable, but the thing that seems to escape so many emulating architects or otherwise is that it does not begin with looks in mind. It starts in fundamentally practical considerations which is precisely what some Universities seem to lack in their curricullums, if some peoples experiances are to be gone by.</p>
<p>Not withstanding that some correspondants here seem to have recieved a reasonable degree of constructive tution, there are others who will testify that the opposite is the case. The graduate architect, whose job I am taking over, lacked design skills because he was more inclined to fiddle around with the 'look' for hours on end. Exactly the complaint that my friend had about RMIT which caused him to go to Deakin instead and probably the source of Philips original complaint. Yes sure an architects office is a great place to learn a lot of things, but surely a university is the place to learn the basics and not the place to ignore them and particularly if it can be accepted that the basics are universal and not specific to any style. That is, how is this going to be built and how will it work if it is built? That is not a question to ask a builder. That is a question for an architect whether you like it or not and in my opinion it is fundamental to being a half decent architect and it is not the role of an architect to find other people to answer the question for him. The question for the builder is how much money do you want to build it.</p>
<p>I can not accept that implies that a design I may come up with, via thinking of constructability, is there-fore a "boring" design. That is simply a meaningless critism that displays ignorance</p>
<p>An intrinsic Australian architecture will never be found by those who fiddle around with the look of a building. Intrisic means a good solid reason for existing, coupled with a good solid reason for standing up. To those who think constructability and design are two differant things, I suggest a good critical re-evaluation of Murcutts METHODS of designing. I put methods in capitals because it is not about Murcutt that I am going on, it is about the method that he uses to create an intrisic Australian architecture which for reasons of fashionability is so thouroughly rejected by quite a few Australians in the mistaken belief that his designs are passe or boring or whatever it is they may use to justify a sanctimonious appreciation of thier own tastes in 'style'.</p>
<p>The method belongs to all and anyone who cares to take it up and Murcutt would be the first to say that it is not his method at all either, so don't mistake my appreciation for mere fan club adulation. After all, a perfect Murcuttian pavilion is essentially a perfect Miesian pavilion in an Australian context, by an Australian hand. In any architects hand the 'look' would come out differantly in any part of the world, since it is the method used and not the 'style' copied that produces the 'space'</p>
<p>It is not about Style, as that is too shallow on its own. It is about substance, and a course of university that doesn't unify the two, with the substance taking precedence, is failing the student. And no I don't think universities are crap Andrew, I just think they could do better if they took more seriously info's desire for an intrinsic Australian architecture and moved away from the naval gazing digi scene which, again in my opinion, is more about egotistical barracking for a particular stylism, as if architectures fundamental raison d'ert was an endless attempt to maintain the youth of the designer of the curriculum.</p> -
@ SS
you should be the next head of RMIT.
you'd fit right in.
they have no interest in style.
you won't have long to wait.
Van Schaik is old - and ready to die. -
<p>Hate to tell you this Simon but GM is a stylist. He might understand building performance, construction and lots of other sensible stuff but he is just as concerned, if not more concerned about appearances than any architect. It's the reason why he is very good.</p>
-
mr seasons, murcutt is ultimately a politican. (and would you get a new frigging book!! go look at seidler or hugh burich or rick le plastrier all of whom are more interesting than the pritzker pretender) and as for venice 2008 mrs murcutt.....no glenn. failure? absolutely, ABUNDANT pigs ass, as empty as sydney harbour on a rainy day.
-
<p>Sorry Sod but Murcutt is not a Stylist. Yes his buildings have style and it is recognizably his but that is a result of his method of design and not the other way round. This is an important distinction that seems to elude a lot of people.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Here is the distinction. If you start with a style in mind then that is what you end up with. If you start with a function in mind and then the structure to enable it and then the climate and the site to influence it and then the budget of the client to keep in mind and then the regulations to abide by then you end up with a 'look'. That look may be 'stylish' (or it might not) but the important thing is that the designer did not begin with a style in mind, but they ended up with one in fact.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Please don't think I hate Ghery type design methods, but the limitations of that method are obvious when you consider that Murcutt has done 500 houses or there about and they are all mostly beautiful, and imagine what the 500<sup>th</sup> crumpled paper house would look like. Stylism can be done really well, but not very often. Empathetic design methods can be done well much more often because the final look is of no consequence to the initial considerations.</p>
<p>Murcutts method is there-fore not his method at all, but a universally applicable approach to design that sees stylistic imperatives as subordinate to functionality, suitability and constructability. By definition that is what is otherwise known as vernacular architecture. Info’s desire for a truly Australian way of design already exists but Murcutt proves that it is no more Australian than it is Greek or American or French. It is simply a respect for design fundamentals that belong to everyone who cares to learn them.</p>
<p>The basis of this thread, I believe, is that those fundamentals are not being taught either enough or at enough institutions, because Stylism or what Robin Boyd called Featurism and what could be called now be called Modernist Facadism has essentially divided architecture into two schools of belief that can no longer explain their ideals to each other and so scoff instead of attempting to understand.</p>
<p>Info's request as to "why would any institution bother emulating this type of naval gazing" <i>architecture</i> is explained by the fact that 'emulating Stylism' is a tautology. It is not about design as it is more about being a copyist of style. That is the differance between an artist and a decorator and it is the differance between a useful architecture graduate and someone who has to trained all over again.</p> -
ok give me a po box number and i'll send you a bloody new book or two! architext in melbourne has a sale on just buy something decent. ... a nice smithsons publication or even a bit of dry german stuff or a nice spanish modernist book, i know what about alvaro siza hes got a prickster too....
-
Sod is 99% correct.
I'd go further - Murcutt has his own style. If I'd been him I'd have wanted to punch some heads in when it started getting ripped off in the mid 80s.
I'm in no doubt the real reason that the word style is denigrated by aus architects and almost all staff draughtsmen (in a tone that says their shit doesn't stink), is so that the lazy f-----s and their business minded corporate bosses can rip some one elses off without moral issue. Thats where your argument against style goes SS - you'd be better off slicing style up into its various shades - its a pointless, unerudite, ill informed position you have - almost impossible to understand - like watching a child tossing a lollypop out of its pram.
@miles.
- re mrs murcutt the 2nd. and durbach's venice gift shop full of air - lets not forget that the co proprietor was Kerstin Thompson and that at least a 1/3 of the indistinguishable bric a brac in it came from melbourne.
melbourne needs to get its own house in order?
Which reminds me - on a recent trip I saw Minifie Nixon's building next to the new Recital Hall.
Its buildings like that that make me think that occasionally ranting foam at the mouth weep hole technicians have got a point. Hard to believe its only about 5 years old. It seemed to be dissolving in the rain. I hear that guy teaches. maybe thats good if it keeps him off the streets. -
If the AIA's Venice offering is anything to go by, there is definately an absence of a meaningful architectural position that can in any way be purported to have risen from these shores.
An Australian way of design is far from existing - and also an irrelevant pursuit. -
You never know the 500th crumpled piece of paper might look like a Murcutt house, but then so would the next Murcutt house.
The basis of this thread is not about an ill defined vernacular architecture but about students not being able to confidently walk in to an office and practice. This has more to do with the nature of learning and probably the fact that universities are not offices.
Philip may have got some duds, some of whom certainly shouldn't have got through uni, but Simon, at the end of your degree would you feel confident walking into Frank Os office and doing what was required? He couldnt find builders who could build his buildings so he started his own company with people who could.
I work and study(final year) on residential projects, I don't care much for Gehry, but I do like to dream, when I think about vernacular architecture, I think about Egypt and their pyramids, we still dont know how they built those.
Simon because youre fond of Boyd, an excerpt from a letter of his back to Grounds and Romberg in Melbourne, written whilst on sabbatical in America visiting W.W. Wurster in San Francisco: "the success of the Bay Region boys [is that] they accept the lack of craftsmanship and build up a woodsy set of mannerisms round bush carpentry."
definitely get some new books, but read the ones youve got more carefully. -
this thread has (had some traction). the most revealing point of which is that mr seasons has fessed up to being a draftie. this appears to have gone generally un-commented. may i release the lions?
Howdy, Stranger!