The Soul And Mind of Man Through Architecture

[Dreamer]

I have decided to start this thread as a running blog of sorts. But not a personal blog in the traditional sense. I wish this place be devoted towards the arts and beauty, the intellect and grace, that architecture inhibits. What you see all around you, the built environment and natural, is an embodiment of the mind and soul as seen through the physical environment. Man can only create what they understand to be true. One can say that this limits the potential as to what can be done, yet time and time again, new buildings and structures are created around the world that are awe inspiring and seek to move and to transform the places within the structure, as well as the minds of those that enter them. Great design invokes great contemplation and thought. Not any architect can create such monuments that touch the soul, but those that are able, find a place deep within the mind and and heart and bring forth new hope and optimism for those that partake in the dance that is spatial form and material balance in play of light and shadow.

Architecture then, in its highest form, is an homage to what man can create and what can become.

This thread then, will be devoted to the arts of Architecture. Anyone is welcome to post an entry. I would like to post my first entry shortly if time permits, before the end of this week. Stay tuned!

 

[Dreamer]

The Beauty of The Line

To begin this "series" I will present something so basic, yet so powerful to architecture. The professor of my first elective class outside of studio, named Material Representation, started off the class with his first lecture on, the line. What about a "line" is so moving and powerful. It is something so simple, you see it everywhere in language, in the physical environment, perceived order and composition of objects in thought and in the physical world. But for architecture, the line, is the first stroke taken down on paper that translates an architect's thought, to reality. From then on, more lines converge to create intersections. Parallel lines create zones, and varying levels of weight and thickness add texture to a drawing.

What else does a line do? A line is a division between two entities. Between two materials. But you may ask, well in reality, a line is perceived as there exists no such boundary. In drawing class, teachers often say one way to create a lifelike drawing is to break apart a scene into shapes, form, and light. No lines are allowed as the only perceived lines are those created between transitions in light and form.

This perceived boundary, is where I find great fascination. To take a side step for a brief moment, this is the sort of analogy I will think of when describing the way I think. There is no boundary between thoughts and realities, only gray areas and boundaries one creates for themselves, thus, anything is possible.

To bring this back to architecture, anything is possible within this unknown, indescribable place, between two materials. Between two spheres of being. What truly, isarchitecture? Does it have to be a built environment? Can it simply be a construct that your mind creates between you and the environment around you?

Our first assignment for this class was to create a physical representation of this boundary. The meeting of two materials. What happens in this zone? How do we represent the meeting, the unity of these two materials as if the two are seamlessly merged and without force? How can we represent two planes that come together so coherently and without authorship? I took these questions, understood it, and ran with it. I am presenting the artwork that I created from this class, which I also presented in the Typology Central Art Gallery, so if you'd like to read a little more about it, head on over there.

So what can be said about a line? A line is the first step towards realizing an architect's vision and to greater extent, a line is not a division between entities, but encourages exploration of that boundary, of the unknown. What happens when one surface meets another? What happens when one material meets another. How is the force of one material reciprocated by the other? What is the dialogue between the two. Ultimately, I leave you with more questions than answers. But this is precisely what this first class outside of studio taught me, in beginning to open my mind and to question everything I knew of architecture and what space was. What truly, is physical space? To me, space is the external representation of the internal space of the creator. Though, it is also abstract enough where other people that explore this space, is able to draw their own individual connections and at once, feel harmonious or disgust with the space. How one creates space, once more, stems from the care and craft taken to shape that first line on a blank sheet of trace.

The line is powerful in its application, in its autonomy and strength, yet useless without the artist to wield its ability and definition.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

The Beauty of The Line

To begin this "series" I will present something so basic, yet so powerful to architecture. The professor of my first elective class outside of studio, named Material Representation, started off the class with his first lecture on, the line. What about a "line" is so moving and powerful. It is something so simple, you see it everywhere in language, in the physical environment, perceived order and composition of objects in thought and in the physical world. But for architecture, the line, is the first stroke taken down on paper that translates an architect's thought, to reality. From then on, more lines converge to create intersections. Parallel lines create zones, and varying levels of weight and thickness add texture to a drawing.

What else does a line do? A line is a division between two entities. Between two materials. But you may ask, well in reality, a line is perceived as there exists no such boundary. In drawing class, teachers often say one way to create a lifelike drawing is to break apart a scene into shapes, form, and light. No lines are allowed as the only perceived lines are those created between transitions in light and form.

This perceived boundary, is where I find great fascination. To take a side step for a brief moment, this is the sort of analogy I will think of when describing the way I think. There is no boundary between thoughts and realities, only gray areas and boundaries one creates for themselves, thus, anything is possible.

To bring this back to architecture, anything is possible within this unknown, indescribable place, between two materials. Between two spheres of being. What truly, isarchitecture? Does it have to be a built environment? Can it simply be a construct that your mind creates between you and the environment around you?

Our first assignment for this class was to create a physical representation of this boundary. The meeting of two materials. What happens in this zone? How do we represent the meeting, the unity of these two materials as if the two are seamlessly merged and without force? How can we represent two planes that come together so coherently and without authorship? I took these questions, understood it, and ran with it. I am presenting the artwork that I created from this class, which I also presented in the Typology Central Art Gallery, so if you'd like to read a little more about it, head on over there.

So what can be said about a line? A line is the first step towards realizing an architect's vision and to greater extent, a line is not a division between entities, but encourages exploration of that boundary, of the unknown. What happens when one surface meets another? What happens when one material meets another. How is the force of one material reciprocated by the other? What is the dialogue between the two. Ultimately, I leave you with more questions than answers. But this is precisely what this first class outside of studio taught me, in beginning to open my mind and to question everything I knew of architecture and what space was. What truly, is physical space? To me, space is the external representation of the internal space of the creator. Though, it is also abstract enough where other people that explore this space, is able to draw their own individual connections and at once, feel harmonious or disgust with the space. How one creates space, once more, stems from the care and craft taken to shape that first line on a blank sheet of trace.

The line is powerful in its application, in its autonomy and strength, yet useless without the artist to wield its ability and definition.

View attachment 16192

Powerful stuff.

Sometimes when I am about to start a drawing, I feel paralyzed from the thought of putting that one initial line down on paper. It seems momentous!

Your talk of perceived boundaries put me in mind of the ocean. It's always amazing to be out or in the ocean and have it roiling strongly about. Then, to return to shore and sit while the same immense waves break against the shore. The massive, powerful force heaving toward sand and then stopping gracefully to be pulled back out.

When there are weather complications and the tide overcomes land - like in a tsunami - that boundary becomes ever so clear in it's significance.

 

[Dreamer]

The Studio Culture Within an Architecture School

Short documentary film that just so happened to take place while I was finishing up my last year at Pratt. This follows some undergrads though, and the graduate students mostly reside on another end of the building. Nonetheless, it's a cool peak inside what it's like to be an architecture student and some of the ideas that are commonly shared among students and professors. I miss studio

Enjoy!

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Discussion of a line is best understood geometrically. Euclid in "Elements" believes

A line is a length without breadth

The notion of Euclidean line may only be imaginable, but in practice it will never be attainable. When we try to draw a line with a pen, will the drawing become a line just like what Euclid says: a length without breadth? The length may be obvious but is it really without any breadth at all? Try drawing a line on a paper and pay close attention to the thickness of your drawing pen nib that leaves the mark of the drawn line. Would you agree if I said that it is actually a breadth? Smaller the nib size, smaller the breadth, vice versa. We actually draw a breadth to a line we may not notice.
---------------------------
A single line by itself doesn't seem beautiful to me. It would be, only when it was drawn in numbers in a way that they become other thing. I drew an Alhambra pattern using only ruler and compass, pencil and drawing pen, but too lazy to erase some pencil marks. The pattern made is as a result of combination of lines and circles. I particularly like the small stars on the arcs of the circles. Do you notice?. They are obtained not on purpose. You can see the result.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Architecture School Criticized
I heard that Architecture education especially in the U.S is being critisized. The critic is Peter Zellner, an Architect.

Architectural education is broken—here's how to fix ittu
By Peter Zellner • September 16, 2016 • Architecture, Professional Practice
Alvin Boyarsky on elephant outside the AA in 1978. (Courtesy Nicholas Boyarsky)
SHARE
Todd Gannon, cultural studies coordinator at SCI-Arc, issued a response to the following article that can be found here.

In an interview1 by art critic Christopher Knight at John Baldessari’s studio in Santa Monica, the seminal Los Angeles artist had much to say about the state of art education in L.A. in the early 1970s and his efforts at the then-nascent CalArts program. At the time, the dominant pedagogical model in most art academies, as in many architecture schools, was founded on the inviolable relationship between master and disciple within the studio environment. This tradition—mostly established in medieval artisan guilds and professionalized in the 19th-century academy—relied on a few well-worn shibboleths:

Creative or technical knowledge can only be passed on through direction supervision.
The hand and eye of the disciple can only be cultivated, monitored, and authenticated by an appointed authority, typically a master or a master’s apprentice.
The authority of the master’s opinion is evidenced by the caerful replication of the academy’s official style(s) and through the copying of known works by the master.
Until sanctioned by the master or the academy itself, the disciple remains a novice and therefore an intellectual and creative subordinate.
Any challenges to this (mostly) patriarchal order are considered heretical. (To wit: The Salon des Refusés of 1863.)
Baldessari and other notable L.A. art educators like Michael Asher upended these traditions by teaching what is now known as post-studio art practice. Post-studio art teaching was conceived of as a model of art-academics that inverted the relationship between what is taught, if it is taught at all, and what is practiced. It leveraged intensive group critiques between students and students, students and faculty, and faculty and faculty to attack what was practiced by artists in an effort to create space for new forms of art to emerge. Baldessari and others at CalArts shifted the onus of responsibility from the teacher to the student, moving art teaching from a master-disciple model to a communal and relational notion of education. This new model of art education was founded around open conversation, relentless critique, and a demand for a radical autonomy put to and assumed by each individual student. Baldessari explains:

Well, the whole idea was to raise the question what do you do in an art school? And you say, “Well, what courses are necessary to teach?” and that is question begging in a way, because you can say, “Well, can art be taught at all?” And, you know, I prefer to say, “No, it can’t. It can’t be taught.” You can set up a situation where art might happen, but I think that’s the closest you get. Then I can jump from there into saying, “Well, if art can’t be taught, maybe it would be a good idea to have people that call themselves artists around. And something, some chemistry, might happen.” And then the third thing would be that to be as non-tradition-bound as possible, and just be very pragmatic, whatever works. You know, and if one thing doesn’t work, try another thing. My idea was always you haven’t taught until you see the light in their eyes. I mean, whatever. Extend your hand, that’s what you do. Otherwise, you’re like a missionary, delivering the gospel and leaving. [laughs]”2

Architectural education today, perhaps not surprisingly, finds itself at a similar juncture some 50 years after institutions such as the IAUS, the Cooper Union, SCI-Arc, and the Architectural Association challenged accepted architectural academic orthodoxies, much like CalArts did in the arts. Many of the very schools of architecture that modeled new and innovative forms of teaching and pedagogy in the 1970s and 1980s now find themselves mired in various forms of academic cult worship: Digital traditionalisms, faux-art fetishisms, silly mannerist dead-ends, philosopher-shaman worship, and other neoconservative returns. The outcomes of this neoliberal and cultish return to a seemingly 19th century Beaux Arts models of architectural education have been devastating: Several generations of students were robbed of their voices and their right to grow potent individual practices; the architecture school falsely made into an imprimatur-machine for its academics, superseding the idea of a school as a space for free conversation, debate and critique; and most worryingly, the importance of the architectural school as an autonomous intellectual and cultural institution has been trolled and traded in, cheaply, for the bad faith business-innovation-two-point-oh-idea of education as an enterprise, student and teacher masquerading as entrepreneur and investor.


Freeing architectural education now seems imperative and necessary. If we have reached the end of the current road, perhaps this is a golden opportunity to challenge these tired orthodoxies and to create a space for new forms of education, perhaps in post-studio and post-digital formats. This will require a challenge to these cults, and of them, the cult of the digital must be confronted and interrogated ruthlessly. Technology and its misuse and abuse, in particular, must be wrestled with now. As Peter Eisenman recently noted, “Technology is a cruel tool, because what it does is defer the possibility of the student being creative. The student can take an algorithm, produce 50 alternatives to the same problem… It takes away from you the possibility of value judgment.” Beyond the problem of too much technology, which might have an easy fix—namely turning off the screen once in a while in studio to read and think for an hour or two—one imagines that an inversion of the aforementioned and blindly accepted new academic traditions might produce a post-studio model of architectural education that could be constructed along these lines:

Creative or technical knowledge can be shared through engaged debate, critique, and conversation.
The relatively high value placed on the approved hand and eye of the student as an expression of the notion of individual genius should be challenged.
The fast paced reproduction of official styles and the copying of contemporary professional works should be exchanged for awkward experimentation and slow growth.
The student and the teacher must be seen as intellectual and creative colleagues whose conversations followed shared but not parallel paths.
Intelligent challenges to accepted academic concepts by students and teachers alike should be celebrated and not extinguished.
Without placing more radical expectations on our current models of architectural education, our schools will forfeit their ability to fulfill their cultural and academic missions. Without freeing up a zone for architectural education to explore the space between vocations and ideas, the profession and the discipline will wither. Without a return to the value of an architecture of ideas and not an architecture of marketing concepts then the purpose and need for the very a school of architecture may be on the table.

As these are not acceptable outcomes, the new goal of post-studio and post-digital architectural education must be to promote genuine intellectual change through a radical questioning of the very purpose of teaching, of the academy and, by extension, of architecture itself.

The question one might ask now of architectural education, after Baldessari, is this: “Can architecture be taught at all?” And, the answer might be, “No, it can’t. It can’t be taught. You can set up a situation where architecture might happen, but I think that’s the closest you get.”

Peter Zellner is a longtime contributor to The Architect’s Newspaper and teaches in the Graduate Architecture program at the University of Southern California, School of Architecture.
Architectural Education is broken—here's how to fix it

A response to Zellner.

Of prophets and professionals: a response to Peter Zellner
By Todd Gannon • September 21, 2016 • Architecture, Professional Practice
SCI-Arc student presentations, c. 1974. (Photo by Morton Neikrug, Courtesy of SCI-Arc)
SHARE
Though I share some of his concerns about the state of contemporary architectural education, I was taken aback by comments from my friend and colleague Peter Zellner in a recent editorial in this paper.

In “Architectural Education Is Broken—Here’s How to Fix It,” Peter offers a five-point critique of contemporary education and a matching five-point prescription for a “post-studio and post-digital architectural education.”

The criticism, gleaned from twenty-five-year-old comments by John Baldessari about the artist’s development of a “post-studio” course at CalArts nearly 50 years ago, takes aim at hierarchical master-disciple relationships between teachers and students, at the proliferation of academic styles that often result from them, and at the suppression of dissenting opinions such situations often entail. His prescription for change unfolds along a familiar, if vague, trajectory that valorizes shared knowledge, free experimentation, and egalitarian exchange among students and teachers.

Some of Peter’s criticisms are justified, if a bit overblown. “Various forms of academic cult worship” indeed exist in architecture schools today, and this “pied-piperism,” to borrow a term from Eric Moss, has led many a promising student into unproductive territory. In my experience, though, most of those lost sheep eventually find their way home, and more often than not they return primed to parlay experience gained in foreign fields into significant contributions within the disciplinary fold.

Peter’s complaints about the nefarious forces of digital technology, on the other hand, lack both specificity and substance. He merely states, rather than argues, his contention that digital tools foreclose creativity, and dismisses without comment not only the obvious achievements of several decades of innovative work at schools around the globe but also of his own students. Worse, the statement is not his own, but rather a quote from Peter Eisenman, which adds to an air of older generations kvetching about newfangled habits and, like his invocation of Baldessari, undermines his admonition against undue authority invested in the pronouncements of elder statesmen.


However problematic, Peter’s criticisms are for the most part innocuous. I have more serious concerns about his proposals for change. His recipe for post-studio education rests on a specious, if common, elision of art and architecture and a ludicrous, if equally common, contention that architecture “can’t be taught.” Such arguments brush aside significant differences between art and architecture and perpetuate damaging mystifications about the nature of architectural practice and education.

I agree with Peter’s assertion that architecture is an art form. But unlike painting, literature, music, and other modes of artistic production, it is also a profession with significant ethical and legal responsibilities, and a discipline with cultural ambitions to advance the public imagination. The latter aspect distinguishes the practice of architecture from the craft of building. The former distinguishes it from the production of fine art.

Peter and I share a deep commitment to architecture understood as a cultural practice with professional responsibilities, as opposed to a design profession with cultural ambitions. Nonetheless, I take issue with his proposals, which, in spite of his criticism of a supposedly style-obsessed status quo, continue to portray architecture almost exclusively in aesthetic terms, pay only passing lip service to “technical knowledge,” overemphasize issues of style and individual expression, and disregard questions of professional competence. Any serious proposal about architectural education must take the full gamut of architecture’s professional and disciplinary responsibilities into account.

More damaging is Peter’s proposition, also borrowed from Baldessari, that architecture cannot be taught. Apparently, the best we can do is to “set up a situation where [architecture] might happen.” This is a bizarre idea to be put forward by such an intelligent and effective teacher as Peter Zellner.

Peter proposes that we can’t teach architecture because he conceives of architecture, as Baldassari apparently conceives of art, as a mystical quality, a transubstantiation of physical matter into some higher form of existence. This is the sort of stuff that routinely pours from the mouths of those academic shamans Peter rails against in his essay. It can be seductive, to be sure, but it is nonsense.


Architecture doesn’t just happen. Architecture is made. Architecture can be made, and its methods taught, because “architecture” refers not to a specific object but rather to evidence that an object—usually but not always a building—has been produced in terms of a specific way of working. Just as literature cannot be reduced to books, architecture cannot be reduced to buildings. Neither can it be reduced to drawings, models, or digital animations. Architecture is method all the way down. The Oxford English Dictionary defines architecture not as a kind of building but rather as “the art or science of building.” Another Peter, the historian better known as Reyner Banham, put it better: “What distinguishes architecture is not what is done… but how it is done.”

Understanding architecture as having to do with how rather than what makes it easier to see that architecture is, like all academic disciplines, a cultural construct. Its techniques and methods, its history and theory, the habits and conventions of those who practice it, can and routinely are taught and learned, as evidenced by the surfeit of students who quickly master the tactics of their teachers that Peter laments in his essay. Of course, those techniques, histories, habits, and conventions also can be developed, transformed, thrown out, and replaced as needed. Such activities rank among the most important work that takes place in architecture schools.

Understanding architecture this way also makes it easier to see that the field’s value system, its internal methods for identifying what constitutes good and bad work, is always a work in progress. Architectural quality, like architecture itself, is determined not by the presence or absence of some quasi-spiritual attribute in an object but rather by consensus. Constituencies in support of any architectural work must be constructed long before the project can be built, and even if constructed buildings are not one’s aim, it is an ability to assemble such constituencies, and little else, that transforms individual interests into relevant contributions and, in some cases, canonical achievements.

In other words, architecture’s aesthetic ambitions are deeply political. And the disciplinary politics of architectural education, as Peter intimates in his essay, can make for some pretty ugly situations. Luckily, contemporary architecture can and does support a wide range of coexisting genres and associated value systems. In the best schools, a handful of them vie for dominance, motivating proponents of each to hone their political as well as their aesthetic and technical chops as they make their respective cases and build their respective constituencies. In the worst ones, well-meaning but misguided faculty utter empty pronouncements like “you can’t teach architecture.”

There are plenty of issues with contemporary architectural education today, and I commend Peter for having put some of them on the table. But at the top of any list of things to fix in architecture schools must surely be the abdication of so many faculty of their responsibility to teach it.
source

Peter Zellner later establish Free school of Architecture (FSA) as a follow up action to it. Antonio Pachecho, Archpaper Journalist discussed it.

Peter Zellner to launch Free School of Architecture
By Antonio Pacheco • September 29, 2016 • Architecture, National, Professional Practice
Boyarsky on elephant outside the AA in 1978. (Courtesy Nicholas Boyarsky)
SHARE
In a recent article, Los Angeles—based architect and educator Peter Zellner called for a reassessment of the contemporary state of architectural education. His article, part cri de coeur, part manifesto, launched a great deal of debate, including a response by Todd Gannon, cultural studies coordinator at SCI-Arc.

As a result, Zellner is now in the process of launching a new educational endeavor to hopefully carry out some of the changes he’d like to see made. His new project, the Free School of Architecture (FSA), will launch in the summer of 2017 as a “tuition and salary free” school seeking to “explore the edges of architectural education.” The Architect’s Newspaper talked to Zellner about FSA as he prepares for its inaugural semester.

The Architect’s Newspaper: Can you describe what FSA is (or will be) and why you decided to start a school?

Peter Zellner: The Free School of Architecture (FSA) was started partially as a direct follow up to the concerns I outlined in my article.

While the idea for FSA is still gestating, I can describe what it won’t be. The Free School of Architecture will not be accredited, will not offer professional degrees, will not create a need or an opportunity to teach for salary, will not provide course credit or reciprocity with traditional institutions and will not have a permanent home.


FSA is a stand alone and autonomous organization and its primary goal is to absolve both students and teachers of conforming to established models of thinking.

We will see what emerges in 2017 but my hope is that over the course of a few years new, independent and diverse voices emerge from the school. Conversations originating at the Free School of Architecture may eventually be captured and published out by a sister organization being established next year, the Free Architecture Press (FAP).

What are the central tenants of FSA?

FSA’s central tenants are:

1. To promote free and critical thinking in architecture;


2. To encourage a diverse community of students and teachers to explore the edges of the profession and the discipline;

3. To create a free and safe zone for debate and new ideas to emerge;

4. To question the need to ratify or sanctify official architectural positions and doctrines;

And most importantly:

5. To create an academic milieu in which young, diverse and independent architectural voices can emerge organically.


What role does the fact that FSA is “tuition and salary free” play in the political objectives of the school?

I think the point of creating a “not tuition-driven, not-over-salaried-educator friendly architecture school” is pretty simple: Students and teachers will be no longer forced into their usual roles and ideas can be literally exchanged for free. That doesn’t release or excuse either the students or teachers at FSA from having to argue for the value of their ideas. In fact, it elevates the need for real debate and exchange.

Your article for AN focused on the need to revisit the current conditions of so-called radical school from the prior generation. In this vein, how does FSA relate to Baudrillard’s notion of the dialectical utopia?

Well, I am no expert on Baudrillard but my understanding of his concept is that essentially utopias are “indissociable” from active social processes and therefore are in a continuous and dialectical, often “unharmonious,” relationship with the present or present situations. So I guess his point is that utopias exist now, not in the future, and they rub up against existing orders.

That said, I do believe that the present is built on the past (specifically, in several avant-garde architecture school cases—the works conducted in the 1970s and 1980s in London, Los Angeles and New York), so I am not at all naive about how we have arrived here or unabashed about referring the past to create a new present-future. By this I mean to radically re-open—without any nostalgia—the legacy of the Architectural Association in London under Alvin Boyarsky, SCI-Arc under Ray Kappe, as well as the academic and intellectual leadership of John Hejduk at the Cooper Union and Peter Eisenman at the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies.


Old and good ideas are absolutely fair game, no one owns them and we all need to feel free to re-frame those academic moments and mine them for new approaches. Anyone who tells you otherwise or claims those ideas as their own or that they must belong to this clan or that school is being disingenuous. Architecture advances without hegemonies and FSA will not promote the usual academic hierarchies, it intends to upend them.

In your first year, how many students do you aim to have? How many courses do you aim to teach?

12 students will join 10 teachers in June and July of 2017 for 6 weeks.

12 courses will be taught of which I will teach two classes, to open and close the year. The remaining 10 will be taught in 30, 60, and 120 minute blocks by the FSA’s 10 teachers.
source

This is an overview of FSA.

Free School of Architecture questions the edges of architectural education and explores practice in the context of architecture's expanded field. FSA facilitates dialogue through peer-to-peer learning, participant directed programming and an ever changing network of affiliations and collaborations.

FSA is run by its four organizers, Karina Andreeva, Lili Carr, Elisha Cohen and Tessa Forde, and supported by the FSA advisors.*

FSA is on an indefinite hiatus.

*The Free School of Architecture was originally founded in 2016 in Los Angeles by architect and educator Peter Zellner, who is no longer involved.

Free School of Architecture questions the edges of architectural education and explores practice in the context of architecture's expanded field. FSA facilitates dialogue through peer-to-peer learning, participant directed programming and an ever changing network of affiliations and collaborations.

FSA is run by its four organizers, Karina Andreeva, Lili Carr, Elisha Cohen and Tessa Forde, and supported by the FSA advisors.*

FSA is on an indefinite hiatus.

*The Free School of Architecture was originally founded in 2016 in Los Angeles by architect and educator Peter Zellner, who is no longer involved.

and this one
Starting Free School of Architecture by Teresa Forde

What is Zellner and his followers aim to study by debating between students? Because in FSA they don't have strict teacher - student status like in architecture traditional school, What I get in Zellner and his followers ideal is by doing so, Every student can teach one another and they can also learn from one another. It is not like A teacher gets an authoritative status in architecture that every student must learn from him or her only, hence he might become a cult leader. To learn that it may be rejected for many reason by other peer by engaging in a debate where they will present argument against or for to a design presented. This is a great ideal. This follows from the standpoint that Baldessari and Zellner seems to agree with one another that any art including Architecture can't be taught. But they have to explain in detail what do they mean by it can't be taught.
However, Since they don't hire teacher, FSA student won't enjoy what teacher traditionally do. Traditional university lecturer work that I know is to deliver lecture, and assessing student academic achievement by examination. It is a kind of service that usually is given financial compensation as a professional, since student enjoy lecture and evaluation and of course an academic record issued by the university and later become a formal document that communicates that a person has learnt this and that from a school. In FSA, we can expect no lecture will be delivered also, hence follows no tuition fee will be charged.

FSA status, unfortunately now is on indefinite hiatus as stated on their webpage. The organizer are perhaps occupied doing something else rather than continue volunteering to realize their architectural education concept. Well, Zellner and his follower school concept is probably not feasibly run financially speaking. One of My suggestion for them is that They should try online class so that they should not worry of renting a place to gather and since it can be accessible from everywhere, they can expect student from everywhere can join.

I imagine the ideal of Architecture school. It was more or less like Art internship. Student would work in a real architecture studio run by a practicing architect. When they got client they got a real project. They would learn by doing; instead of attending lecture. They would be engaged in day to day life business of Architecture. I learnt from the videos that students make some models in school. But does it become a real building? Probably not. Perhaps The models are only assessed by teacher or other students and they are graded. Student in this academic environment will never learn that their model might not become real building for many reasons which probably be the case in real architecture studio. Every design would not be directly accepted and proceed to the next phase.
In architectural education intern I imagine that student' design could only be assessed by pass or fail. Pass if the design proposed is accepted by client, fail if it is rejected. Practicing architect got help in hiring an intern, since they could assign some of his firm work to the student. Student-intern got the opportunity to learn by watching how architectural work in actual practice.

I like this idea also because another reason. When applying for an internship position in a real firm, the selection process will be somewhat like hiring decision. The intern might get paid and the intern don't pay, unlike becoming a student that it is student that have to pay the school tuition.

Another critique: Entrepreneurship must be incorporated in Architectural Education Curriculum.

Why Entrepreneurship Needs a Place in Architectural Education
December 30, 2015 | by Lidija Grozdanic
In the history of architecture, the gap between architectural education and practice has never been as evident and problematic as it is today. A volatile global economy and the emergence of new technologies have had both educators and young professionals in the A/E/C industry re-evaluate their options, and more and more are turning to entrepreneurship. So are schools able to catch up with this new movement?

There is a reason why the term “architecture” is no longer only associated with designing and building physical spaces. The architecture of applications, websites, software and networks all illustrate the manifold nature of what it means to practice architecture today.

Architecture has broadened as a field, merging various disciplines, technologies and products. This expansion requires a new educational model to teach students how to innovate and compete in an industry that is increasingly outward facing.

When we say there is a gap between academia and practice, we don’t only mean that architecture schools are failing to prepare students for entering the workforce. The bigger problem seems to be that, while schools may teach students to be innovative in terms of design, there is an overwhelming lack of similarly pioneering content for the business side of architecture.

This disconnect becomes even more alarming when we compare the industry 10 years ago with the industry today, where entrepreneurship has emerged as the most compelling economic force the world has experienced in the last decades.

It is true that architectural education needs to strike a balance between the theoretical and practical aspects of the profession. But more importantly, architectural courses need to teach students to take a proactive role in building their careers.

RIBA’s recent research found that 80 percent of UK-based employers and 75 percent of students think that architectural schools fail to provide students with the practical tools necessary to enter the workforce. In June 2014, RIBA Appointments carried out two complementary surveys.

One was sent to employers in the architectural industry and the other to architectural students and recent graduates. The surveys show that over 80 percent of employers and 74 percent of students think that architectural schools put theoretical knowledge above practical capability.

More than 50 percent of employers and students think that architectural course content doesn’t accurately reflect the field of architecture today.

Even more importantly, architecture degrees also appear to overlook the teaching of soft (transferable) skills. Over 50 percent of employers feel that students/graduates lack the soft skills needed to practice architecture. The profession’s age distribution is at its peak between the ages of 40 and 44, with only one third of the profession being younger than 40.

This proves that architecture schools are failing to connect architecture with entrepreneurship because older staff members are more likely to stick to conventional approaches in their careers. In addition, the age distribution means that existing businesses tend to operate by way of old models, which often fail to adjust to global trends.

Marketing, management, finance and business plan development are some of the concepts that students need to be familiar with in order to find their own, individual and perhaps unconventional ways of engaging with design. Preparing students for an entrepreneurial career and equipping them with the necessary skills and competencies to compete in a rapidly changing economy is a must.

Teaching the same methods and approaches to architecture will generate graduates armed with tools that are already outdated by the time they enter the workplace. Teaching enterprise-oriented professional development in architecture will bring forth a generation of out-of-the-box thinkers and job creators.

“Educationists should build the capacities of the spirit of inquiry, creativity, entrepreneurial and moral leadership among students and become their role model.” P. J. Abdul Kalam

An encouraging example of entrepreneurial thinking in schools is the Penn State sponsored business accelerator program, Lion Launch Pad (LionLP), which aims to help student entrepreneurs realize their innovative projects and transform service concepts into viable startups.

Students Aaron Wertman and Josh Kesler were selected to design the program so that they could develop Apparatus X, an adaptable tool trailer that doubles up as a micro-living unit. The team behind Apparatus X plans to take the trailer to New Orleans, where it will help with the recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Another student, Mike Zaengle, designed a project that simulates self-contained ecosystems, to allow people to grow food almost anywhere. The project, called GreenTowers, includes various products that help cultivate urban farming, including tables with aquaponic gardens.

Kevin Pu, a 22-year-old student at Ryerson, is making a splash in the Canadian architecture industry with his research into augmented reality. His Augmented Reality in Development Design (ARIDD) is a piece of software that creates live interactive building models in real time and can be used on an iPad.

Using computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data, users can create and simulate designs in real-world environments. Although there are several examples of this technology being developed by startups all over the world, the interesting angle in this story is that Pu has entered the industry while still a student.

It is important that architects no longer frame their professional identity through the buildings that they design. Venturing from these conventional notions of architecture requires a level of initiative and preparedness to confront uncertainty and obstacles.

The profession in general needs to learn to become more entrepreneurial in its approach and so expand its opportunities beyond the confines of the industry. Lateral thinking and problem solving are soft skills that are considered the innate marks of architects, but these need to be nurtured in order to effectively combine design with entrepreneurship.

It is high time for architecture schools to incorporate lessons into their programs that focus on recognizing opportunities, testing feasibility, analyzing the competition and developing effective business plans.

Designing apps and software, learning about areas peripheral to the discipline of architecture, and understanding how to develop unique designs by him or herself are some of the many ways a student can take advantage of unexplored opportunities within the A/E/C industry. If these skills were to be taught at school, they would empower students to become archipreneurs.

How do you think architecture degrees and programs can be improved to facilitate a more entrepreneurial mindset in students?
source

Both being hired as an employee in architect position and hiring an architect with employment status is potentially problematic to both of employee and employer. Becoming burned out because of repeated design process they have to undergo is the risk bore by architect with employement status.
I remember that a story told by my sister that A mining company that she worked for hired a recent architecture graduate in an employment program that somewhat like management trainee. He was tasked to design , but after he submitted the design to his boss, his boss rejected it and instructed him to re design. What happened next was He later resigned. My sister said that it was unfortunate since being accepted in the program, he was going to be offered a permanent position, which would have secured a position for him in the company until he retired.
When architecture graduate accepted a job as architect with employment status, that will happen. When design is rejected, He will be instructed to re design, that as an employee, cannot be refused, since if he did, he wouldn't have something to exchange with the salary paid to him. However, Repeating a design process was probably too tiring for him and the manager might not have known nor cared to know. in the case of the MT, My sister told me that He didn't have enough sleep for his initial design. But he had to repeat it that would have made him not to sleep for the n[SUP]th[/SUP] night. It would be different if He worked as an entrepreneur. If his design gets rejected, he doesn't have to resign since no one employs him, no one pays salary to him and hence he is not obliged to repeat the design process. But he has to realize that he won't make revenue because of that and his archipreneurial career won't last long if rejection keeps happening. This mentality would be best taught at school before they enter the job market so that they are more prepared.
For employer, hiring architect has a risk not having the design although corporate budget has been spent on salary of the architect hired. Instead of hiring one and expect the hired personnel can deliver the desired design, The correct way is to choose the most-suitable-to-client one among many proposed designs and only pay for it. With this digitalized era, I have inspected the internet and found out that digitalized marketplace for architecture design, that enable it are already available.
These are two of them that I have found:
https://archibrix.com/en
Introduction to Archibrix

Archibrix – the online marketplace for architectural designs

ALEKS GAVRIC
Hello world, we are archibrix, the virtual architect
Archibrix is an online platform that offers a new home to architectural living concepts, ideas, and designs. We see ourselves as digital bridge builders and mediate between architects, property developers, master builders, and project developers. In the beginning, was the idea. The idea to offer a platform for plans, concepts, and designs of architects that were thought to be lost.

We are talking about designs that saw the light of day but could not prevail in the countless tenders and competitions. What ultimately remains is the leading of a dreary existence in the dark archives of various architects’ hard drives. But it is also obvious that not every design can make it to the top of the podium in every context. This does not mean, however, that these submissions do not match other properties, tastes, or ideas. What we can say with certainty is that the right lid can be found for every pot, and we at archibrix are convinced that every design, even if with some adaptation, can find its buyers. Thus, these architectural designs can not only be monetized but also given new life.

We are archibrix, and we are the marketing platform for your ideas
Although we do not digitize the process of building in the conventional sense, we offer all architects the opportunity to upload their designs, which have so far only been developed on “paper”, to archibrix with just a few clicks and offer them to a global audience.

How can you imagine this? The concept can be compared to website template platforms, with the small but significant difference that not websites, but perfectly developed and thought-out architectural designs, construction plans, and housing concepts shine in new splendour. Besides, we network the entire world and bring together all participants on one platform.

3D models in the construction industry: archibrix relies on BIM and thus guarantees the highest quality standard
The two-dimensional paper drawing on the construction site has had its day. More and more often, construction projects are planned digitally. This leads to greater efficiency – and better adherence to schedules. Archibrix relies on the so-called BIM method (Building Information Modeling): In this method, all project participants access the same data pool, which they update continuously. However, BIM is more than just a 3D model to which everyone has simultaneous access. In addition to building data, a project’s database also contains – depending on the planning dimension – information about the materials and components used, their service life or regulatory requirements for fire protection – as well as a list of the costs incurred, which can be checked in detail during each construction phase.

The potential behind this achievement is enormous and leads the entire construction industry into a digitalized future. Using automated quality control, archibrix guarantees the highest standard. Ideally, the information contained is available and usable for all project participants over the entire life cycle. This means that planning, tendering, execution, and, subsequently, the operator work with the same data model. Throughout the entire process, BIM is used as a tool, but this has implications for conventional methods, processes, organization, and, above all, communication.

The light at the end of the tunnel for architectural concepts
The advantages are obvious. When ideas gather dust in various archives, nobody thinks that they can possibly be monetized. This is where Archibrix comes in, providing a solid foundation for all those valuable concepts that could not be implemented right away. Also, the architect has the opportunity to present his designs to a broad, international mix of property developers, project developers, and private clients. Also, the fact that here the design can be sold internationally without much effort should be mentioned. For example, while the architect is based in Vienna, the ultimate buyer could be based in London.

Archibrix a marketplace that networks the entire globe
It has never been so easy to present his design, especially designs that have already been shelved. Archibrix offers a marketplace that connects all project participants in a simple way and offers them completely new marketing opportunities. With October, we will start full speed ahead. We are currently looking for further architects who would like to participate with their designs and ideas in a test phase. Whereby the possibility of a closer cooperation is also offered here. We have aroused your interest? Then do not hesitate to contact us. Together we will optimize existing processes and make the world a better designed place.

source

https://www.arcbazar.com/about
About Arcbazaar

ABOUT US
We created the first-of-its-kind online competition webpage for small to medium scale design projects to allow an easy and fast connection interface between clients, young architectural designers and contractors. We developed the idea for arcbazar.com after realizing that all too often clients could not find an easy and affordable way to find competitive architectural design services. At the same time, designers have a hard time to connect to clients and use their design talent. Therefore, we set out to create a simple, easy-to-use platform that serves and connects the triumvirate of clients, designers and contractors.
Founded in 2010, arcbazar.com is owned and operated by a dedicated executive team and web-developers. Our aim is to help our peers, young designers and architects finding exciting design opportunities from design conscious individuals. Our name arcbazar, is inspired by the idea of a bazaar for architecture – a vibrant space for an exchange and negotiation of design services. We are based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and are working around the clock as we prepare the matching of designers with exciting projects of our clients.

Without entrepreneurship taught, Architecture graduate will probably not have the sense that the Architect role is ideally inherently entrepreneurial. Architect has to work entrepreneurially in order to free itself from binding agreement with employer that is burdening and controlling and we can expect, doing so, Architect can unleash unique individual creativity of him/her/themselves. Architect, if work, as a group, should operate somewhat like a real estate agency in terms of revenue sharing. Every individual professional real estate agent plays the role as an associate to a brokerage principal; not employee. They don't have the right and obligation as employee. Like They don't get paid by salary by the principal. But they have the right to be shared a commission with their principal. They get paid only if they contribute to successful sales, either as a listing agent or a selling agent or principal*. How long their career will last as a real estate agency will be influenced by how much omzet they make. Architect also must not get paid if their design is rejected by client. They should only get paid if their design is accepted. Retirement age is not known in the business. They can work until their death.
Archipreneur can also work until their death since both of them don't have employer who will make them retired when they reach retirement age.

*)In real estate agency, Listing agent means a real estate agent that is granted a right to market of a real estate unit by the owner, hence has the right to charge a commission on them on successful sales or lease. Selling agent means an agent who successfully gets a buyer or leasee to a real estate unit listed by a listing agent. On successful sales,and owner pays commission to his agent, the commission is shared among listing agent,selling agent, principal

 

[typologyenthusiast]

The Occupant and the Design
I have checked some designs on one of the architectural design marketplace. I raise some questions like : who wants to live there? Do people like the design? what kind of people do the design fit with ? Do these designers know who they design for?
It seems to me that those design comes from the designers own mind but who could guarantee they are also wanted by others? This you-tube channel Nomad architecture, in contrast documents actual traditional buildings that are still occupied, signifying the design still get acceptance from the occupants. I browsed to their youtuber: Gordon Clarke website, who has founded an institute of nomadic architecture that conducts research in traditional architecture of nomadic people.

IoNA is a rich source of information on the traditional architecture of nomadic peoples. We have been researching nomadic architecture for the last fifteen years and have over 40,000 images and 500 hours of video clips, as well as detailed notes from all around the world. We are slowly compiling this material into a structured resource...but it is taking time and there is a lot left to do before this site is anything like complete.


Most of the buildings you will find on this site have not previously been recorded in any significant detail, and our study methods are muti-layered. We record the structure itself, and where possible more than one of a type, in order to assess the diversity within the group. Within this framework, attempts are made to name all the parts in the local language, to measure the sizes of spaces and components, and to understand the structural and environmental logic behind the design. We record the processes involved in making the building, this is not always easy as some tents take over two years to produce, a little at a time, as the family moves from camp to camp, and for the mobile architectures the way of moving the building. We record the way in which the dwelling is occupied, any cultural values such as sacred spaces and the places for different family members and guests. Finally, we try to assess the recent developments that have taken place in the design of the building, whether by assessing the introduction of new materials or through the narrative of older occupants.
source

If I were an architecture student, I would rather studying those designs first to try to take some lesson from them than experimenting with totally new design concept which presumably without any historical record of occupiers. It would be best to learn why at least historically,what these buildings with every parts of it were built for and why the occupiers chose to live there. Then, I would try predicting, if we just did the same design now, would it be still relevant? would occupiers still want it?. Do we have to introduce some change? Why or why Not, If yes, what that will be, How important it is. Then I would try to come up with my design, and Approximate, what kind of people will be interested in occupying the design if it becomes a real building? I would try to explain this to my audience; in addition to exhibiting the design . Presenting the finished design without that just seems they are probably the result of the designer's trial and error.

Design Stockpiling: An Introduction to an Alternative Architectural Design Marketing Concept
What Archibrix do is arguably collecting designs from designers and exhibit them to internet browsers. For me, They have introduced an alternative marketing concept for architectural design namely design stockpiling. This allow designers not to rush in finishing their design because of trying to meet a deadline set probably by A project manager or other party. This is an interesting concept. Trying to Meet a deadline can be a cause for a worker work until late and even not to take a night rest, which will make them burn out or even fall ill. By collecting a design stockpile, they solves this problem, which will help architect a lot. They show that working with them ,Architect can market their design with relax rather than rushing. It is sufficient for Architect to submit ready design for them and just wait until buyers come. Design sold might be already the one who is stockpiled for a long time. With this marketing concept , design can be sold even when designers are asleep

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Elora Hardy and John Hardy, Bamboo Architecture, Bali, Indonesia

I admire their work. John Hardy has his own interesting perception of which is classified as architecture and which is merely building. He seems not to recognize every buildings as an architectural work result. I have this perception also. Most building that I see like a result of Engineering work without any architectural sense.

Elora Hardy Exclusive Interview

Elora Hardy: Building a sustainable (bamboo) future

http://www.INKtalks.com Elora Hardy had it all as a designer working for Donna Karan in New York, with her prints walking the world's runways. She left it all to return to Bali and build a sustainable construction company. Hardy builds visually stunning homes out of bamboo, fantasy abodes that look derived from Hollywood movie sets. In this striking talk, Hardy explains the versatility and durability of bamboo, and convinces us all to become advocates of bamboo as the choice building material for construction in the tropics.

ABOUT INK: INKtalks are personal narratives that get straight to the heart of issues in 18 minutes or less. We are committed to capturing and sharing breakthrough ideas, inspiring stories and surprising perspectives--for free!

Watch an INKtalk and meet the people who are designing the future--now.

ABOUT ELORA HARDY: Elora Hardy is creative director of Ibuku in Bali. She established the groundbreaking Green Village alongside the Green School in Ubud. Elora leads a team of skilled artisans, craftsmen and designers to create homes made of bamboo. She previously worked as a designer in NYC, where she created original prints for Donna Karan International and the socially conscious clothing brand Edun.