The varied nature of our discipline means it is often particularly difficult to appraise. Post Crit will therefore be hypocritical; at times it will contradict itself and it will not aim to provide a definitive answer. Its value lies in its provocation – it says what needs to be said. It asks the questions which need to be asked. Whilst many of the issues may never be solved entirely, they must be addressed. Who better to comment on this than those who have experienced it first hand? Post Crit is an alternative to the overanalysed, outsider observations. It is instant, relevant and unmediated.
There is a dangerous trend within architecture of taking pride in over working oneself. These tendencies go far beyond a jovial gloating of a strong work ethic, they outline a worrying ability within architecture to take pride in stress and in isolation. This leads to what we define as the ‘Post Crit effect’ – anxiety, guilt and the inability to detach oneself from work. Surely this detachment from real life is in fact a hindrance? Why are we stuck in architecturally unstimulating spaces, resolving problems we cannot find time to experience? Does the evident disengagement of architects to the general public derive from the very roots of our education? Exacerbated by a need to boast about piles of work as some form of self assurance, to concede to “architorture”, we are resultantly pushing non-architects
further out of the realm of understanding - yet we somehow enjoy basking in this disengagement as a form of pedestal in which to heighten oneself. In a land where it is increasingly easy for the developer to build without the architect, perhaps our value is in our observation of reality, of social and political context. In order to achieve this, the previously unspoken issues surrounding architectural education must be discussed. The scare tactics, the ridiculous Facebook pages and #Architorture must be stopped.
Don’t retweet this.
...or like this.
...or wear this.
As graduates accumulate over ÂŁ30k worth of debt from a Bachelors degree alone, there is a real danger for architecture degrees to become privileged courses for those who can afford it. Our post-war housing estates have taught us that those who have never lived in estates struggle to design them, and the danger of saturating courses with the upper-middle classes of society has the real ability of recreating such nightmares. How can architecture provide its graduates with an understanding of all of society if it is pushing away those who cannot afford its extortionate extras?
1. Architectural education needs reform, YESTERDAY.
2. Does advertising undergraduate architecture as a ‘good universal design degree’ limit architectural reevaluation and innovation?
3. Should we value an inculcated work ethic over political, social and contextual practice?
4. Are contradictions and mixed messages an occupational hazard or an issue to be solved?
5. Why are students rarely involved in the debate surrounding OUR education?
PC.
@post_crit