Forums

ArchSociety :: Forum :: Scribbling on sketch-pad :: Off topics
 
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Controversy of Ego of Architect and the Truth
1 2 
Moderator(s): Array, Array, Array, Array, Array, Array
Author Post
NEO
Sun Dec 17 2006, 08:37am Print
Admin Registered Member #4 Joined: Thu Aug 04 2005, 04:54am
: Dhaka
Posts: 666
Once Professor Shamsul Wares said, “তোমরা নিরমোহ হও”.. if we try to translate it in English it stands like: “leave all your attractions”… mmm it’s tough to translate.

Anyway the thing I was about to say is all about the ego of designers. Every artist face the paradox of ego and the truth. We design things out of our own desire our very own chain of logics and thoughts. And we are used to feel an extreme ego about our creations. Often we can’t accept criticisms. Often we take many decisions just to entertain our ego in design.
Many design decisions are often taken out of our own ‘attractions’. And often those decisions don’t go with the true need of the project. Many of our egoistic decisions become invalid to the users. Many attractive and glamorous things are often denied by the real users.

There’s a thin line of balance between our ego and the truth. Architects are to keep the balance. Once in that very lecture Wares sir said after one of my speech on users opportunity of taking design decisions “….why? why shall I give the chance to the users to customize their home? I’m the architect, I know the best, my decisions are the ultimate, what I draw in papers that’s the truth, I’ll even design the spoons of dining table… that should be my work of art…”
I couldn’t deny it entirely. I think there should be the balance of ego and necessity. As Shamsul Wares said two apparently controversial things in the same lecture “tomra nirmoho hou” & “I’m the architect, my decision is the ultimate”. Existence of this controversy is the ‘right’ thing I think. And Shamsul Wares suffers from this controversy or paradox; this is natural.

‘Completely working for humanity sacrificing all personal ego’ and ‘doing the artwork for the designers own thirst’ both is important.
What you think? Edited Sun Dec 17 2006, 06:19pm
Back to top
Rami
Sun Dec 17 2006, 06:18pm
Registered Member #397 Joined: Fri Dec 15 2006, 06:11pm
: chennai
Posts: 8
U r absolutely right neo.

U knw wht? New discoveries in architecture has already taken an apex, Now we young architects should preserve our resources, its not just an image of building, its what u take out from the earth and wht u give it back to it? nothing? is 80% answer.

Respond to client's need,Absorve their psychology towards the subject(designing) , and concept should reveal our culture and need rather than image of that particular building.

"ITS THE AGE TO RESTORE AND SAFEGAURD OUR RESOURCES IN MAXIUM WAY FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATION"

This is my opinion. Any controversies let me knw
Back to top
Unknown
Mon Dec 18 2006, 06:28pm
yes is a good topic to discuss, i had this feelings in my mind but could not express ever, i am a bit egoistic about my design, when a teacher or someone talk about design, i take time to like the comment, i know there is no end of learning, and we do mistakes, but mistakes can be done on functions, but what about design? as there is no standard or measure of aesthetic, all of us design from our own perspective of aesthetics.
and when it is about client, we have to gain the quality to influence our clients, we must make our client believe that we are the best in design and know better than him.
an architect can make a move by designing, he can change the society, many of us do architecture based upon the things that are happening around us or what is as usual, but with architecture we can change our life style. i believe mentality of a child who is growing up in a apartment and who is growing up on a home with a open courtyard will not same.
so when this is about the ego, we must not concentrated on upto which limit we are designing but we must think what influence (must be good influence) we can make on our society. so without fighting for a good color for wall we can fight to give a open space to breath.
if we can serve our society some good things then automatically the mass people will depend on us for designing. i dont know if that day will come or not. but lets try. may be that day we wont need to think about our ego.
i dont know how much consistency my opinions have with the ongoing topic. but that is the way i dream and think about architecture.
Back to top
NEO
Mon Dec 18 2006, 08:49pm
Admin Registered Member #4 Joined: Thu Aug 04 2005, 04:54am
: Dhaka
Posts: 666
Mrs. Ahsan,
You wrote “all of us design from our own perspective of aesthetics”… yeah that’s the trouble, that is the controversy, whether should we design from our own set of logic, own perspective and ego, or we should listen to the users voice and desire… it’s a debate.
But my opinion is a bit different in reality than what I wrote in the starting of this topic. I threw this debate from a neutral position, I didn’t give any opinion. But I have some opinion about this controversy, and I believe in it:

My opinion towards this controversy
Suppose Leonardo da Vinci declared just before his death that you are the person who will have the ‘right’ to edit his paintings. And suppose the owner of Mona Lisa asked you to ‘complete’ or ‘edit’ the painting! What would you do? Do you have the guts to touch your brush on Leonardo’s painting? Isn’t it an almost untouchable duty or responsibility on you?

Now think you as an architect. Now it’s not a human being like Leonardo, it’s the god who’s creation is in front of us to ‘edit’ or ‘modify’! Allah has created the universe and the nature which is the only absolutely perfect composition and the ultimate of aesthetics and function, no doubt. Now for the sake of demand we architects are trying to retouch the ultimate painting with our stupid brush.
So it’s impossible to make ‘perfect architecture’. On one in this universe can’t create the ‘perfect environment’ other than the god.
Architects are trying to do the job what was to be done by the god himself!
Now think, how tremendous pressure and responsibility we are dealing with!

As artists are doing the job of god, they are egoistic. But this very ego is the reason of every distraction. As it’s not possible for us to ‘create’ the ultimate perfect thing within the nature… then we shouldn’t have any ego at all. We shouldn’t posses a single drop of ego in our blood. We have no right to have ego. Because, our given responsibility is to ‘design the perfect environment editing the most perfect nature’… and no doubt we are failed. We will always be failed. And as we are always failed to fulfill our responsibility, we should have our neck down to the earth, we should surrender ourselves to the ultimate creator. We should pray… “may we can reduce our errors”.
Forget the ego of our set of logics, otherwise this very ego will kill us, will lead us to worse designs.

Edited Tue Dec 19 2006, 10:47am
Back to top
Unknown
Tue Dec 19 2006, 02:00pm
oh allah, bless me, neo everything is spinning around, i will write some more about it when it stops
Back to top
NEO
Sat Jan 06 2007, 05:20pm
Admin Registered Member #4 Joined: Thu Aug 04 2005, 04:54am
: Dhaka
Posts: 666
See how greats are also suffering from this controversy....
An Indian architect Akhil Sharma took an interview of Frank Gehry here is some selected portion of that interesting conversation:
"I don't know why people hire architects and then tell them what to do," Mr. Gehry says. "Architects have to become parental. They have to learn to be parental." By this he means that an architect has to listen to his client but also remain firm about what the architect knows best, the aesthetics of a building. This, Mr. Gehry says, is what makes an architect relevant in the process that leads to a completed building. "I think a lot of my colleagues lose it, lose that relevance in the spirit of serving their client, so that no matter what, they are serving the client. Even if the building they produce, that they think serves the client, doesn't really serve the client because it's not very good."
[click here to see the original article]
Back to top
NEO
Sun Mar 11 2007, 10:47pm
Admin Registered Member #4 Joined: Thu Aug 04 2005, 04:54am
: Dhaka
Posts: 666
New dilemma revs up in me!
That is the 'honesty in design' VS 'compromise for situation'
Till my third year first semester I was insanely strict to 'honesty in design'. I even could tried to design the nuts n bolts of a hanger for a multimedia projector in the first preliminary of designing a school when I was in 2nd year! I came up with those details and nothing off school at all. Because it seemed to that the multimedia projector in our class room are in a place where it should not be. So I thought it was my first duty to solve this crisis. A perfect arrangement of angle of vision of the students, position of the teacher, screen, writing board and the projector is mandatory. And I felt like skipping these issues will be a mere dishonesty in design.
So after fighting a whole night I came up with a solution of the angle of vision and the projector, nothing else at all! I got a zero in that preliminary.

In later I realized there should be a balance of work volume, time, honesty and compromises. For the next few years I fought with myself to understand which part of design should be skipped for the sake of time and energy and which parts should never be compromised. Still I'm fighting with it... trying to understand the right process.
Often I'm getting fragmented, scattered and confused... and sometimes feeling like I'm getting my way....special.png
God knows what will happen with me Edited Mon Mar 12 2007, 10:30am
Back to top
NEO
Mon Apr 07 2008, 09:11pm
Admin Registered Member #4 Joined: Thu Aug 04 2005, 04:54am
: Dhaka
Posts: 666
God now has started to apply his decisions I think.
I have started hating being an architect. I'm loosing my passion for this profession. The whole scenario of professional architecture seems so silly, meaningless and dirty
I want a serious escape.
Back to top
1 2 

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System