it all arises from the egotism within the department. with each specialization bidding for control over the other two, nothing ever gets done. it's ironic, but look at the interaction b/t ia, la and arch students. ia thinks arch are assholes b/c we think they do no work, arch thinks la are engineers b/c they are in studio more than us.

so, if we as students change how we act towards the other departments, then perhaps the faculty will change as well with help from our example. no point in calling the kettle black.
 

sloring....that is funny coming from you--"so, if we as students change how we act towards the other departments, then perhaps the faculty will change as well with help from our example. no point in calling the kettle black. "
p.s. faculty doesn't care. and isn't this post about artists?
what are we talking about? graphic designers or what? i need some clarification.
 

well then the problem might then be solved my outside work. gallery space in (radinas, beach, mann. art center) i'm a bit more in direction of actually placing our work outside of the "department" let's face it: there is some fantastic work that comes out of our department, college for that matter...sometimes. haha...but why should we be limited to the discussion of architecture? the first friday's expo. was one of the only conditions that i've heard of this happening. and how sick is that?

aside from our departments shit: i do believe that OUR goal is to integrate a better dialogue w/ the other departments. maybe it's too soon to actually discuss "projects" with them...but maybe it starts in our "social" association with them. [perhaps this might be hard w/ "certain people"...but we can always look years below] get them involved, relate more...UNITE as a common student body to control the political actions that our departments are filtering down to us. just thoughts. continue w/ this... i'm interested in what you guys think.
 

i agree w/the displaying of work outside of seaton, you and i have talked about this before and i think that it would be good for the department, good for the university, and good for the community. we have a first class program and hardly anyone outside of our department appreciates that.

and i will be the first to admit that i crack ia and la jokes, which i know that we all do. we should try to watch our mouths when it comes to that because while it may be all in jest (or partially), people do take offense to such things and that is part of what causes all the strife in our department. but yeah, jolly good.
 

i think that a lot of the confusion on this issues arises from a consistent lack of communication from the students and the faculty. upon further though on the issue i also wonder if it is due to the lack of time in uni in which we have to get all of our education in. similar to how we don't have as much hands on work as many people like, the uni expects our years out on internship to complete this part of our degree. while i think it would be quite interesting to work with the other departments on a project, how much of our valuable design education would we lose to it?
 

i think what you have to look at is not the integration outside of the profession but integration within our profession. we have specialized so much that we have isolated areas of "architecture" and handed them over to those who aren't architects at all, contractors and developers. the beauty in our profession is not in the suburbs it is in the artist within our profession, the ecologist, the person who integrates the world into himself and himself into the world.

Realize that all we make is only an evolution of thought driven by our concious and subconcious interaction with reality and our own creation.
 

Over here in the UK they've got this killer magazine called Blueprint, and in the latest issue they discuss their annual awards show called the Blueprint Session. Apparently, they had an award for interior designer of the year and there was a huge uproar when two the the three finalists were architects, and the other one was a fashion designer. There were apparently many references to 'cushions and curtains' in the presentation, and many of the interior designers at the awards show actually walked out. Below is the editor of Blueprint, Vicky Richardson, and her reply to various emails about the issue.

"The Blueprint Session, Interior Designer of the Year, which took place on 9 March, opened up a can of worms. It was unfortunate that many of the interior designers who came along voted with their feet (by walking out) instead of with their ballot cards. We hope that by purusing the debate in the pages of Blueprint we can take the discussion in a positive direction.

At the Sessions anyone can say what they think - no matter how offensive or insulting their comments might be. The Blueprint editorial team has no power to controlt he debate. Nor would we wish to do so. That's not to say we set out to insult anyone at the Sessions, and we were very concerned when we heard the fiews of the disgruntled interior designers who wrote to us after the event. Rreading their letters, though, it soon became clear that their discontent reflects a broader issue the role of interior designers.

The first bone of contention was that there were no interior designers on the shortlist. There were, instead, two architects and a fashion designer. Some of you asked how this came about. The list was put together after a call for nominations from our readers and contributors, followed by a perod of several weeks when readers were invited to vote on our website. That said, even if we at Blueprint had hand-picked the names on the list I would defend our right to select work on the basis of its quality, rather than based on job title.

The only title in the design world that is protected is that of 'architect.' By contrast, anyone can call themselves an interior designer, and the profession incorportates a diverse group. from TV makeover designers to space planners, retail and branding specialists. So the title 'interior deisnger' really tells us very little about the nature of the work.

In any case, designers are increasingly crossing boundaries and breaking away from rigid definitions. So it's strange that interior designers who regularly stray into furniture, exhibition, and product design seem to be at the forefront of trying to put everyone back in their pigeon holes.

Interior design is a relatively young profession. In academia it is often taught by architects, and the historical reference are to architecture as well as decoration. Until either architecture becomes deregulated, or interior design becomes a protected profession - both of which are unlikely to happen in the short term - a hierarchy is inevitable, however unjust. The situation is probably exacerbated by the fact that there are far too many architects in the UK with not enough work to keep them busy.

There is no doubt that iwth the increasing seperation between building and fitout, and the growth of retail design, the role of interior designers will become more defined. We look forward to publishing the best of their work in future issues."

Ironically, they also had a quality article about how the art of drawing is dying in our profession.
 

please nix on the long posts. link more...copy/paste less
 

didn't have a link
 

summarize! please
 

get a longer attention span
 

die and write something that pertains to the original thread.
 

zing!!!!!
 

I did, homo...run along now and go make out with your lover chinboy
 

ok stop this shit. back to topic
 

Somebody get a defribulator, the forum doesn't have a pulse. Clear!!!!

The only aspect of combining the fields that is going to have any value to us is lost in the inhered arrogance, ignorance, and passivity of all the fields. When IA and LA get the balls to admit they loose most of the peripherals of spatial design by concentrating on one aspect, such as landscape or interior, then I'll agree to help them. Either that or someone is going to have to blur the boundaries a little more for me, cause I definitely see a distinction between the fields. I'll ask for their help when I feel I am not capable of designing a successful space due to lack of knowledge on gardening and or interior spaces that are illogical, or when some technical bullshit having to do with fabrics or drainage has me stumped.

Take this however you want, its up to you to decide if I'm serious or satirical.

Cause there aint nothing like a little fascism to jump start a discussion
 

satirical is my answer. sad to think that your serious about this. schooling teaches us the ethics of our practice. we don't "learn" until we are in the field. any of these fields would not exist w/o the other. as much as you might hate it...we are all dependent on each other for business. clients depend on all parties involved. as architects we are responsible [by contract] to negotiate all parties involved...but does that give us "superiority"? key word is [NEGOTIATE] what if contracts are given division by division? now that would destroy our nice little bubble of ego now wouldn't it.
 

I disagree Tom. I think that school teaches us much more than the ethics of our profession; it helps to teach us the basics of design and shows us a way to go about interpreting and understanding the world that we live in and how to deal with that when designing.

While we are dependent on each other in large scale projects, there are many small scale projects in which there are not the finanical resources to consult a landscape architect, interior designer and an architect, so only the most essential of the group is chosen. Types of projects are so vast in need and vary so much that many times the lines are blurred and the project itself may not even be architectural. I believe that this is where our schooling comes into play, because if we have been well trained in design, then we will realize how universal design is and barring any technological barriers, the project should be able to be realized.

The reason that the superiority attitude is so prominent is due to two main things, me thinks. One is that as architects, we are by nature egotistical and therefore will always think that we are better than most people - sad but true. Secondly, most projects need an architect to sign off on the working set of drawings before the project will be allowed to go ahead. They don't need an interior architect or a landscape architect to sign, and this will inevitably cause a schism between the professions, as techincally the architect will be more necessary than the others.
 

false as fuck! by contract we are to NEGOTIATE all parties involved. depending on the project you will be required to have a landscape architect sign off on drawings. don't count them out so quickly. someone get this kid into pro. prac. quick. what makes a project "architectural"? built form? master planning? what?...all forms...no matter if it's landscape or built are "architectural". i think you have a huge archiego if you think this. you are not taught design. it is a mode of process and development. educators are there to facilitate your faults and help GUIDE you onto your own developments. you learn by making mistakes...and you will also learn these in your years after you graduate. this is exactly the shit that [WE] must stop if we are to get our shit in order w/ the department. clean up or ship out. modify then unify. that's all we need...not ego's.
 

i just read this again...sorry baby for being so brash. you know i only do this because i care...and i'm ready to make changes. and unity is what we need right now...perhaps we all have diffrent levels of thought...we should appriciate and use those thoughts to our best advantage...and reach others.
 

There is much more to architecture than negotiating the parties involved in a contract, you should know that by now. And while you are correct in the fact that we may need a landscape architect to sign off on a major piece of work, many minor things we can get away with.
It boils down to the fact that people need shelter to live, period. It is a necessity, whereas a designed landscape around their house, a golf course, a properly draining parking lot, etc...are all luxuries in a sense that can be afforded. If it is broken down into it's most basic form, which profession is the most necessary? The architect; all the others have come about as a result of specialization. However, I am not using this as a justification for acting superior to everyone else, merely as an explaniation for why things are. I agree that we should try and change it, to an extent, as I think that egos do tend to get in the way.

Not all forms are architectural, once again you should know this. Is the McDonalds down the street architectural? How about the mass-produced suburban house? Some sort of thought an vision needs to be put in to a building/object for it to become "Architecture."

While design may not be inheritly taught in school, it is refined and guided and formed by your professors. There is a reason why students from schools have designs that look similar; there is a certain mode of thought taught at a school, and the professors teach this to the students who then refine their designs and modes to match this mode (usually).
 

what profession is necessary? sounds like ego driven arch-bull to me. this is off topic...create a new thread if you really feel like this needs to be debated further. i like how this has become tom vs. sam in an all out architectural babble brawl. lets get back to the work @ hand please.
 

"Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone."

I believe that we are on topic with our discussions, as this debate pertains to art and why there is no collaboration between the disciplines, so I will continue. In response to your question, 'what profession is necessary?' I will answer by saying that if you want to break it down to the bare essentials, then none in our profession are necessary, as engineers can produce a building envelope that will protect us from nature. Through the result of human evolution, however, people have wanted more than just a roof over their heads, and that is where archtiects came into play.

Man, it would be nice if this were more a forum as opposed to a blog, it would allow for easier means of discussion.
 

true. any ideas on forum stuff. i don't think either of us will ever have time to run the code on that. yes. so let's all become engineers. what about an artist. could a painter create a architectural piece? not just a "building" but something beyond. or a graphic designer? or a woman who sticks needles in her face?
 

I'll stick needles in your face.

Fortunately for us, people like to experience the better things in life, so the need for architects exist so we don't have to become engineers. I suppose a painter could create an 'architectural' piece, but then I would think they would be come an architect. If it were to become inhabitable, then they would have to have a licensed architect sign off on it, as that is how the building industry goes.

However, I know that there is an artist who is out of Newcastle, England who actually built a traditional looking house on two sides, and on the other two it is just wooden structure. It is supposed to deal with the notion of place and how humans perceive things and make associations. I've got a DVD on it, and there is a website but I cannot remember it now. I'll show you the DVD when we get back home. It definetly confronts the issue that we are talking about.
 

what is our "building industry"? what if you didn't need an architect to sign off. would grads still become licenced? or would they take another ave.? would we even have grads? would architecture exhist? kinda scary to think about. what is really holding our profession together? engineers? corporations? politics? nix the last one! haha. minus arizona.

http://www.usgbc.org/News/usgbcnews_details.asp?ID=1457
 

I think the inquiring mind is what is holding our profession together. Architecture is about exploring your enviornment, making the most out of a limited palette of materials and ideas and seeing what kind of new ideas and ways of building that can be found by this investigation. As long as there is a thirst for knowledge I believe that there will be a need for architecture.
 

www.streetsy.com