how to be a good architecte?? part 2

What does this mean for being a 'good' architecture student?

Put simply, architecture and architectural education are being forced towards a massive paradigm change (or at least a paradigm expansion) Ð and that might not be as negative as it sounds. In many ways it is a long-overdue opportunity for the discipline of architecture to go through a wake-up: from childish self-involvement, through adolescent awkwardness, towards a less marginal, more diverse engagement with wider social aims. But if this is going to happen, it is unlikely that the change will be lead by the establishment itself, but rather by an ambitious, socially-responsible generation of students, young designers and progressive tutors using their time in architecture school to come up with different ways of doing things. Don't change yourself to go into architecture. Go into architecture to change it. If being 'good' in the traditional way carries such little reward, I hope more and more students will have the confidence to be 'bad'. Not 'bad', as in lazy, thoughtless or arrogant, but bad in terms of a willingness to misbehave; to ask difficult questions, to be disobedient. Not to settle for unemployment or drudgery, but to look for other applications for architectural thinking, to focus much less on the design of art objects and assets, 'space' and 'form', and much more on the social, economic and environmental systems that shape them, on value and values, on social norms, on processes and production. Basically: on what architecture does. Here is a rough manual for the 'bad' architecture student - some suggested rules of thumb:

Question the question: It's almost always wrong.

Question the measures of success: Don't try too hard to get a first. They're nice for job interviews, but don't help as much as you might think, and the more fixated you get on high grades, the harder they come.

Trust your own judgement: Often the most important questions are the ones which are so obvious that no one dares ask them for fear of being branded na•ve or stupid.

Dare to face realities: Be they financial, technical, legal, social, environmental... This might begin simply by asking: 'Who pays for it?' or 'Why do we need it?'. Real problems are actually much more interesting than invented ones, even if they're harder to solve.

Seek uncoventional solutions to conventional problems: Not conventional solutions to unconventional problems.

Research rigorously: It's the best way to fend off ignorance.

Be less interested in the world of design, and more interested in the design of the world. (Thanks Bruce Mau)

Don't buy into jargon and BS: What does "materiality" actually mean?

Don't oversimplify: At the same time, don't pretend that non-thinking is a form of pragmatism. Grapple with complex ideas, find words to communicate them.

Don't worship empty idols: John Maynard Keynes shaped the future. Zaha just sells futuristic shapes.

Take your ideas to other audiences: Why produce ideas just for job interviews and exhibitions? If you have good ideas, publish them, show them to economists, politicians, farmers, investors, anyone who will listen. If you have a brilliant idea, start a business. Don't let architects be your only jury.

Inform yourself: Read the FT, New Scientist, Wired, Adbusters; watch TED talks, study anything that interests you. Be an amateur generalist.

Collaborate: If you work better with a friend, work together. Produce amazing work and dare your school to fail you.

Debate among your friends: Don't let your tutor lead the conversation. (The best ones will love not having to).

Focus less on object and more on outcome: "We should be less concerned with the design of bridges and more concerned with how to get to the other side." (Cedric Price)

Be self critical: There is no, single, 'correct' way to look at the world, there are lots of different ones, so try on different pairs of spectacles from time to time and see what your work looks like through multiple lenses.

Drop-out creatively: One of the most counter-productive symptoms of the linear education model is the negative stigma attached to changing one's mind. Since the purpose of education is to find what it is you're good at and make it your work (even if a job description doesn't exist for it yet), dropping-out is one of the more positive decisions anyone can make Ð it makes you much less a 'failure' than those who stay on their current course for lack of imagination.