Committee on Design

What a sensible approach Mr. Farris brings to these interchanges.

Many years ago when I was on an AIA national Honor awards jury I was struck by the amount of "bafflegab"
with which architects attempted to describe their entries. About two thirds of some five hundred entries were beset by such verbosity. I began after a while to note some of the more glaringly stupid attempts. In many cases the designs were quite clear and worth examining, but the written  language simply confused the understanding of both theory and design process. As a professor, I felt that these entrants had inherited the lingo from either some poorer teachers or some overly pedantic writers. As a practising architect, I felt that they were simply insulting the intelligence of both their clients and the awards jury.

I proposed at the time to assemble a series of the more laughable excerpts into small volume to be made available to AIA members as a useful and cautionary vehicle. The AIA official in charge of the awards juries would not hear of such a thing and absolutely forbade any attempt to do so, even though all excerpts would have been anonymous.

I believe that the need for marketing today has begun to take care of such pompous verbal excesses. Clients today are more savvy about what is available and what is necessary to achieve their aims.

What they are NOT savvy about is how sound theory acts to inform good design strategies.
 
It is essential to be able to put the complexities of theoretical understanding and aesthetic concerns into language that an intelligent non-architect can understand. Lou Kahn could explain such complexities to ten, twelve and thirteen year old children. I have seen him do it much to the delight of the children who responded by discussing with him their notion of "pockets in the mind", an idea which he in turn found most appealing. If Kahn, whose language at times was almost as abstruse as Bucky Fuller's although less convoluted, could so clarify his profound ideas, why cannot the average architect take the trouble to do so.

We work had at evolving design solutions. Why not work just as hard to choose words that describe what we have done? It makes good marketing sense. But it also clears the mind about what we are doing.





-------------------------------------------
Patrick Quinn FAIA
Albany NY
-------------------------------------------

This is a great post - I really wish that you would have a collection of excerpts for our education!

 

One thing that struck me is the growing awareness and emphasis on design in the wider world, and how general publications look at design.  Both Inc. and Fast Company have design issues every year, and skimming (have not yet really read it) the most recent Fast Company Design issue, most of the leadership in design seems to be falling to print and product designers - they have a much less pedantic view of design and are much better at talking about their process and work.  Unburdened by centuries of tradition (how much precedent is there for iPads?), they are much more about how something works, and how it appeals to people than how comprehensively the theoretical basis has been worked though.  Theory is for looking backward, in analysis; design is an immersive activity looking forward.

 

We architects need to be looking at this general discussion and how our society is incorporating design in the broader sense and how we need to adapt our practice to this new awareness about design.  I am going to go back and read the issue with this in mind and see how we differ.

-------------------------------------------
Paul Wilhelms AIA
Vice President
HOK, Inc.
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------

I find Patrick Quinn's opinion of the language of design to be astounding true. I call it "shoving words" down the client's throat. For instance I actually witnessed that an architect was literally using marketing research materials to convince a client on why this design be the right solution. After seeing these repeating sessions, I came to conclusion that clients are getting turned off by "Trust me, it will be great" so i took off to a different avenue. I take the clients to buildings (some by me and some by others) to establish the grounds in meeting of the minds. In the end i find renderings more rewarding than dazzling. It is architect's responsibility to help client achieve the satisfaction of design for the budget.

As for the jury and jurors, i know that the real BIG factor lacking for their judgement, is the experience of the space and travel thru the project.

-------------------------------------------
Michael Gallagher AIA
Principal
Gardenia Victoria, LLC
Baltimore MD
-------------------------------------------