How success in architecture is judged and how architects want to be judged

[Halsey]

I just had a general thought about this topic, which we talked about in class:

How success in architecture is judged and how architects want to be judged.

I think that architecture is judged by the way a building looks when it is finished. Society judges a book by its cover and if a building looks nice, then it's a good building. It's a very superficial way of thinking but I believe people think like that. I think, Architects should be judged and want to be judged by how well the building is structured, how good the concept is, how responsive the building is (to climate/site/community), and how efficent the building is. I haven't really thought the last part really through but that's how I would like to be judged. So I guess how well the building works is a big thing, not really how the building looks on the outside. I'd rather sacrifice beauty than sacrifice efficency. I'm big about sustainabilty. The beauty in the building will show when everything works as one.

[am_i_wry]

Originally Posted by Halsey

I just had a general thought about this topic, which we talked about in class:

How success in architecture is judged and how architects want to be judged.

I think that architecture is judged by the way a building looks when it is finished. Society judges a book by its cover and if a building looks nice, then it's a good building. It's a very superficial way of thinking but I believe people think like that. I think, Architects should be judged and want to be judged by how well the building is structured, how good the concept is, how responsive the building is (to climate/site/community), and how efficent the building is. I haven't really thought the last part really through but that's how I would like to be judged. So I guess how well the building works is a big thing, not really how the building looks on the outside. I'd rather sacrifice beauty than sacrifice efficency. I'm big about sustainabilty. The beauty in the building will show when everything works as one.

I think your view of success is superficial and cynical. You do seem to have a better idea of what is actually important though. At the same time whilst most people are idiots i dont think everyone is so superficial to judge a building only on aesthetics, indeed most dont have the ability to properly do so but they do have the ability to judge functionality and where users are concerned that is the key factor.

Architecture is ultimately about solving problems (and according to Mies, IIRC, its about choosing which problems you solve) and in those terms an ugly but functional building can be more successful than a very pretty and functional one if the programmatic problem it is solving is more complex or it has a more varied and involved context.

[Halsey]

That is a very good view on it, as I said I havent really thought it completely through. So architects should be judged on how well we solve the problems we choose to solve. After I posted that I thought about the user. The user should have alot of input because of the functionality issues but if the building is built, functional, and efficient (and the user agreed on the look of the bldg), but the rest of society hates it, is it unsuccessful? Thats the thing i was getting at before.

p.s. Im not an architect yet, in my last semester of school(still a ways to go).lol

[am_i_wry]

Originally Posted by Halsey

That is a very good view on it, as I said I havent really thought it completely through. So architects should be judged on how well we solve the problems we choose to solve.

p.s. Im not an architect yet, in my last semester of school(still a ways to go).lol

This is actually something we have been talking about in our firm. We are good at solving complex problems and producing on time and budget and all the worthy but dull stuff. Sadly a good chunk of what we do is hideous. Its horrid for a number of reasons but if one does a test of 'quality' as if one was visiting a website for the first time one would judge on the basis not just of aesthetics but of perhaps only one image. Thats not how *we* should judge but its part of how we should perceive and market ourselves.

[Chris Stewart]

The beauty in the building will show when everything works as one.

That sounds like something I would say

Judged by who? Does society really judge? Are they qualified to judge? If we are only asked to give our opinion as to whether some building is beautiful or not then we are only talking about superficial aspects.

If the people using the building say that it doesn't function very well than I think their opinion is very valid.

We judge ourselves and consider aspects that society knows nothing about.

[Halsey]

If the people using the building say that it doesn't function very well than I think their opinion is very valid.

We judge ourselves and consider aspects that society knows nothing about.

very true

[Chris Stewart]

Here is something I wrote many months ago:

My Functionalist Philosophy

Can we all agree that we should be good people?
In other words we want to be virtues, fair and treat others as we would like to be treated.

Architecture has many aspects. Above all, buildings should be a reflection of our ideals. I don't know if there is a God but I do know that we should try to be good people. The buildings we create are a reflection of us and need to demonstrate our ideals. If there is a God, surely God would want us to be beautiful people. So too should we want our buildings to be beautiful. Our buildings and our built environment are a reflection of ourselves.

We could also say that we should work towards an ideal architecture. We know that we should not build an environment that causes ourselves or future people hardship either through excessive debt, poor use of natural resources, climate changes or poor social or physical health. These are our responsibilities as people who create the built environment. So any architecture we create needs to be towards that ideal.

These ideal aspects I might call a buildings higher functions.

Then we have utility. A building has a job to do. It has a function. Would we cheer our local sports team if they allowed themselves to become out of shape and unfit for their purpose? A building also should perform its job as well as possible.

Beauty is always a part of that function. In fact we may design buildings who’s primary purpose is beauty. Does beauty flow naturally from function? Maybe function flows naturally from beauty. Since they are really both the same thing it does not matter.

To not work well is to not function well. An ugly building does not really work well. Ugly buildings make us feel bad. They cheapen society. Ugly buildings tend to be un-cared for. In other words people are more likely to let an ugly buildings roof leak that a beautiful buildings roof.

Fortunately beauty and utility are not exclusive of each other. They should work together in everything we design. In most buildings one should not hinder the other. If we allow utility to harm beauty or beauty to harm utility the building suffers.

Art and beauty are not the same thing. Art is about creativity. Beauty is about aesthetics. There is certainly art in the way a building is created but architecture is not art. Art may and should be incorporated as elements of a building but the building should also be beautiful without those elements.

We should think of beauty in buildings the same way we think of beauty in people. There are two kinds of beauty, -inner beauty and outer beauty. Inner beauty has to do with morality and virtue. Outer beauty has to do with an aesthetic judgment based on a societies preference to some degree but we can say that there are certain aspects of human beauty that the average human would agree on.

Without philosophy architecture is only style. We may design classic, modern, blob or whatever. Regardless of the style of a building it is its inner beauty which differentiate a good building from a bad building.

A beautiful building has to be true to our ideals or it can not be truly beautiful. That does not mean bad buildings do not have any virtues. Most all buildings have some admirable qualities, but we can not judge the quality of a building by it's outward appearance. Just by looking at a buildings appearance all we can say is that we either like the way it looks or we do not.

Since we know that outer beauty is in the eye of the beholder outer beauty is not a good indicator of the quality of a building. To accurately judge the quality of a building takes careful study. A building may have outer beauty which we do not prefer but still have an abundance of inner beauty or the opposite may be true.

According to my own philosophy I can say that I have never created very good architecture but having goals gives us something to work towards. Knowing the difference between what is important and what is superficial allows us to more accurately judge architecture.

With my philosophy I can consider more than whether any building is just grand, impressive, beautiful, creative or whatever. I feel that it gives me a compass which will guide me to better architecture.

[back2b]

Originally Posted by niftyshoogle

At the same time whilst most people are idiots i dont think everyone is so superficial to judge a building only on aesthetics, indeed most dont have the ability to properly do so but they do have the ability to judge functionality and where users are concerned that is the key factor.

Don't you think averybody - including or especially architects - do consider aesthetics in their judgment of things. In my oppinion aestics is much more important for architects than for other people.

Even though I think it's pointless to have a discussion going based on aesthetics (it's such a subjective perception), I still value 'beautiful buildings'.
Now I have to be careful that you get me right:
I think functunality has to come before aesthetics.
But: As long as I don't have to use a 'bad building' myself: I don't care.
I just appreciate it's 'sexyness' from the outside

I guess you can draw a paralel to girls.
Beautiful girls are nice to look at - even though I often wouldn't like to get involved with them.

[el-capitano]

Originally Posted by back2b

Beautiful girls are nice to look at - even though I often wouldn't like to get involved with them.

I'm not even going to touch this one!!

[am_i_wry]

Originally Posted by el-capitano

I'm not even going to touch this one!!

Is that what they say to you?