message_206955

Topic for Debate
 
Architects should think?
hi
I found architects areprofessionals only. I feel, however, they should be much responsible about the whole built space where people live. Architects should have the responsibility and a vision in a wholistic way. It is not the urban designers role always. What can we do?
Tharanga Suresh Edirisooriya Arachchige
Responses
 
Architects should think?
that is exactly what an architect is- a person with the capacity to think. someone with the power to manipulate space, colours and forms which in turn mould human behaviours and their interactions with each other and with their environment. we can change the way humans act, and we can change ther decisions, remove their fears, make them happy, make them cry or laugh or angry or even feel secure or vulnerable.

what can we do? there's no end to what IF you really are an architect inside- there's no end to it!
deleted user
Architects should think?
To bb aa
Capacity to think? It took about 20 million years of constructive behaviour to form humans as they are today, so, how can an architect know how "to make them happy" if he does not care to study the evolution of architecture and man?
Nold Egenter
Architects should think?
hello.
when we say 'architect should think', could we be referring to the DEVELOPER?
Jofer Magsi
Architects should think?
to Nold Egenter,

By �think� I am referring to the ability of spatial perception which an architect develops over time with experience and of course study of as many human-related sciences as possible. The evolution of architecture and man is one of these innumerable subjects we need to understand to comprehend what kind of built environment is feasible for human development.

Knowledge gives perception and perception gives a glimpse of the future.
deleted user
Architects should think?
Of course! :)
Anthony Stewart
Architects should think?
To 'deleted user' and Anthony Stewart

Hagia Sophia / Ayasofia / Holy Wisdom: (see very good article in WikiPedia)!
Prokop describes the dome as 'hoovering' in the air and being flooded with the divine light of the 'canopy of heaven'. Rationalistic art historians (e.g. A.M. Vogt) thinks that there must be an imaginary golden chain at the end of which the dome is fixed, thus hanging down from heaven hoovering like a lampshade! But, the whole is a problem of a very different and very ancient space concept: Prokop describes the building as consisting of two entirely different but constituting parts, the 'supporting substructure' below (like rocks) and the hoovering golden dome representing heaven. They form a unity of opposites in harmony like heaven and earth. The rationalistic art historian did not understand this medieval (and much older) philosophy of 'coincidentia oppositorum' (two opposites meeting together). It is absolutely irrational: 2 = 1. And it produces aesthetic or harmonious analogy: O/A1 = O/A2 = O/An, an aesthetic world in which all that is beautiful in this categorically polar sense, is considered identical, thus forming a harmonious unity (gr.: henkai pan) in our world. Evidently this ancient spatial, architectural and aesthetic wisdom got lost in our modern technico-rationalistic tohuwabohu......
Nold Egenter
Architects should think?
Nold, salaam wa shukran!

Thank you for your wonderful post. I will indeed check those websites and probably spend hours in percolation. The phrase 'coincidentia oppositorum' exactly describes one of the tenets of complementarianism (an esoteric modern philosophy based on quantum physics).

You have made my day, maybe even a month!

ma salemah!
Anthony Stewart
Architects should think?
Does this also speak to an architect's ability to "know thyself" thereby knowingly placing themselves into a deeper understanding of spaces, history, values, culture and vision of future mankind?
Iqbal Jamal
Architects should think?
I think architects should consider the cultural heritage which has been given to the generations.And complete with their own visions.
Aylin Akbas
Architects should think?
hello Tharanga Suresh.

by "architects are professionals only", i presume you meant that architects have been limited to the role of providers of services but only corresponding to the scope of work and fees paid for. my impression is that you find this somehow to delimit the essence of what it is to be an architect which may encompass a bigger role.

how about then if we re-phrase your question to something like "Would an architect make a good national leader?" how would you answer this? does is it feel the same?
Jofer Magsi
Architects should think?
Tharanga Suresh,

This question is too wide to answer. The building environment encampus a lot of different professional such as civil and structural engineer, H&V engineer, project manager, developer, contractor, urban designer, planner, etc. My point is that we architect don't shape the earth alone. We have to work together with other people.
Simon Pui Kee Lui
Architects should think?
What about "Do architects think?" :)))

Seriously, every human has the ability to think and every human has the ability to create.

But having the ability to think and the ability to create has nothing to do with what humans think and create.
Frank John Snelling
Architects should think?
you know about the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. and it's unfortunate that not a few good architects are relegated to the function of 'accessorizing' on account of other people's tastes. of course, that's the market. but, i personally feel that architects should have the ability to lead other parties to see matters from different points and enable them to select wisely.
Jofer Magsi
Architects should think?
First, It is true that architect has the same responsibility with urban designers in the term of built space and built environment. And that's how architecture work. It's not only about creating building or making some interventions in nature. It's also about how to make everything sustain so that nature and architecture is supporting each other in a symbiosis of mutualities.
Rachmat Rhamdhani Fauzi
Architects should think?
In fact or in reality no architect has any responsibility to any client other than being liable for a defective design or defects in the design.

In plain words, what is proposed as the topic, is the architectural equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath of the Medical Profession which begins "First do no harm."

So if anyone in this forum knows the full text of the Hippocratic Oath, I would be interested to read it. :)))
Frank John Snelling
Architects should think?
http://members.tripod.com/nktiuro/hippocra.htm

The Hippocratic Oath
(Modern Version)

I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.
Jofer Magsi
Architects should think?
hello Tharanga Suresh.
hello Frank.

i suppose there are other versions out there in the internet, and i'm not sure if the above is the best version of the Hippocratic Oath. but i chose it for the reason that the latter paragraphs would call for A LOT OF THINKING. :o)
Jofer Magsi
Search

Thumbnails
View

This site is adjusted only for landscape mode. Please rotate your device for properly using Archnet.org
We are sorry, we are still working on adjusting Archnet.org for Metro IE. Please use another browser for the best experience with our site.