December 2018

The Privilege that is our Democracy…

Over the years I have noticed that people speak so highly of democracy as though it is the one and only system that can possibly work in a civilised society. My views on democracy is that democracy always has and always will be a double-edged sword. On one hand we have the power and privilege to cast our vote and potentially shape our country’s future, a privilege that I will never take for granted. However on the other hand, a very important decision has been left in the hands of thousands of millions of idiots (including myself of course) to decide upon.

What goes hand in hand with this ideology of how inferior democracy is as a system to all other systems, is this need to comment on other nations without a democracy as though they are primitive in their ways and approach to different policies. Tyrants are not prevented through democracy, if anything one could argue that if a tyrant were given power in a democratic country, then the people only have themselves to blame.

People who usually want change when their lives are filled with discontent and what that change is even most of them don’t seem to know. This intrigues me as someone who has seen two polar opposites around the world: one being privileged yet discontent people, the other being people who are content with their lives and yet have so little entitlements compared to the citizens of many other well off countries. Although this is a slight generalisation, there is some logic behind it, although I won’t explain it now in this particular article, however there is a crucial point I would like to highlight: every nation has its issues and perhaps democracy isn’t the answer to all of them, because it certainly isn’t the answer to ours. It is merely a tool for the people to use, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will solve the problems of a nation and in some cases it has done nothing but divide people.

This is not a condemnation of democracy, but merely a note that for one to think it is a perfect system would be borderline delusional.

Why Competing in Architecture school is redundant (The Toxic world of Architecture school)

Architecture, Thoughts and Opinions

another mess

If you are an architecture student/former student depending on what Architecture school you went/going to and what kind of students were/are there, you might find yourself in a very competitive environment for whatever reason. Some of these reasons may be because: some students are compared to one another from time to time, some students are incompetent at designing, some students think becoming an architect means they’re inferior, the list goes on and it could be for pretty much a number of different reasons. Despite how being competitive can push an individual to reach their full potential, it can also create a very toxic and to a degree a very destructive outcome. Students and architects alike are expected to work as a team and this is necessary to get the job done, however for the competitive students, they would rather aid themselves than support their fellow students working with them. Often this includes trying to get ahead of everyone who have put their trust in that person, only to screw them over. Another situation of note is the reluctance of students to be transparent with what they do, but making sure they know what everyone else is doing, which one may argue is a tad malicious. In various architecture schools, tutors expect the students to learn from one another, which depending on the students can be like trying to crack an egg with a feather…

Nonetheless one must ask themselves: surely this behaviour of competitiveness is necessary to be successful? From a boarder perceptive, the answer would be no. Every architecture student is different and architecture is incredibly subjective (which you would think was obvious). No matter what you produce as a design, not everyone will be fond of it and yet the vast majority of competitive students don’t seem to comprehend this. Everyone has their own style, so what are we even competing for? Perhaps if one had potential they wouldn’t have the need to compete? Although ‘compete’ is probably at this point the wrong choice of word, ‘sabotage’ seems more fitting. ‘Sabotaging’ the efforts of other hard working architecture students just to ‘get ahead’ whatever ‘getting ahead’ means. Architecture school is already a gruelling experience alone, so you would think everyone would be supportive of one another as a opposed to acting like venomous snakes. Taking part in design competitions and being hard working as an individual isn’t what is being disproved of in this argument, trying to ‘get ahead’ whatever as established ‘getting ahead’ even means, at the expense of other students is what should really be disapproved of. Everyone has something different to bring to the table and yet not everyone seems to grasp that. You can’t expect people to change but you can rant about it…Perhaps if anything is redundant it’s this bloody article you just read. Have a nice day.

What is even the point of an Architect? ‘Qualifying to be a scammer’

Architecture, Thoughts and Opinions

mess

There’s been a raising trend in most Architecture schools in which students who do well often plagiarise existing works, which often gets them the top grade. Of course for the students who try to be original, this doesn’t always work out unless they’re very lucky. The need for precedents has become compulsory as a means of justifying every design decision, which begs the question: where’s the precedent for that precedent and where’s the precedent for that precedent’s precedent? More importantly, where does the chain end? This is not an article condemning inevitable inspiration from others works, if anything that should be encouraged; however copying a design brick by brick, from plans, sections to elevations with no creative input is what seems to be the issue. It makes one wonder: what is the point in being an architect when the client can simply do the job that you can do; after all even the most incompetent of people can just trace over an existing project. What’s the point in putting thought, time and energy into a design that’s been carefully planned out, when someone else can just trace over your design in a third of the time with minutes to spare to make it more presentable?

Creativity, imagination and a good thought process are no longer necessary. You don’t have to be intelligent to do architecture either, perhaps just a tad bit manipulative. Of course every students circumstances are different and not every outcome for ones decisions are the same; however full on plagiarism is a trend that is growing very successfully and is a mockery to the people who’s designs have been stolen and even that is an understatement.

With an abundance of innovative designs and ideas, you would think students and architects would be inspired to recreate these various ideas or at least come up with new ones; instead it’s an excuse to become lazy and reuse existing works.

Perhaps that’s why becoming an architect takes so many years to qualify, if it was only a three year course: more people would qualify and more people would be an architect. Who knows maybe I’m wrong or at least I hope I’m wrong…