Currently I’m halfway through my Degree in Architecture at some private college. There are more or less about 200 architecture students in that college. From what I can see, only about 3% of them will ever come close to become a real architect. The rationale behind this statement lies obviously. If you could ask an honest – genuinely qualified – design ‘lecturer’, preferably a practising architect, they will conclude the same thing. They won’t spit it out to their students obviously but I can assure you they definitely felt that way about their students.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind that at all. I’m not trying to defend the ‘sanctity’ of Architecture or anything. For all I care, the students can do whatever the fuck they want; it’s their money and it’s their loss. But it’s astonishing to see so many of these fuckups. I’m not an expert on architecture, but I have acquired some knowledge and understandings of architecture in my years of studies even though I have little to no interest in that particular subject. Here are some examples of why they couldn’t become an architect.
I know for a fact that some students – or should I say most – use this logic in persuading themselves into taking up architecture, “I like buildings therefore I can design buildings” or “I like to draw and people say I’m good at it so therefore I can be an architect because architects draw”. Well not exactly like that, it’s the translated version. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way dumbass. Let’s look at it differently, if you like music – I know most of you do – so does that suddenly give you the ability to create music? No! Even if you can play musical instruments doesn’t mean you’re good at creating real music let alone quality music.
The most common of this kind are the ones who think complicated/beautiful the design are the greatest ones. I’ve seen it a lot and I mean A LOT of them. Whenever they say something good about a design, it’s always a complex design. I never once heard anyone praise a simple yet meaningful design – except when a renowned architect did it. What they meant to say was the design is pretty – not good. That shows the lack of knowledge and the shallowness of their mind. They only evaluate design by aesthetic values. If something is beautiful therefore it’s good. That’s not how you suppose to acknowledge design in architecture.
Good Design (because its crowded)
These douches have the exact same views on presentation boards. More garbage/unnecessary things on the board mean more creativity. Even the fonts and borders matters. Sometimes even the fucking background for god sake. What the fuck? Are they really judging based on appearance? Yes they are. Their mind can only grasp the surface. How pathetic.
Most of the design I saw from them are plagiarised. Yes really. I knew this because when I ask them a simple question like “what’s the concept of this design?” or “what’s this particular thing/part for?” they always stutter. Also, it’s pretty obvious and goes without saying. The only thing that gets to me is – even though their board are full of shit and their design are copied – they get appraisal, even from lecturers too. Fuck those who gave them credits. One day, I mean semester, I did exactly what they did. That is...copy a design and put ‘make-up’ on my board to make it crowded. What do you know...I got the same appraisal – and I haven’t got a clue what the fuck I’m doing. The experiment proves my point. Don’t believe me? Try it yourself.
Another type of fuck is the one who said it themselves that they’re no good at designing buildings. At first I thought they’re just being humble or something. Turns out they do suck. I know their intention is to look humble so that people won’t criticise their design. It doesn’t work for me, I see through them. What they should do is quit rather than embarrassing themselves and wasting money.
And finally, the ‘know-it-all’. They think they’re good because they read books. I know they read but do they understand what they read? Of course not. A case in point: There’s this one guy, he’s good at explaining/criticising others design. He can explain every single thing in his design. So I got a bit curious and asked for his resources and oddly enough he gave it to me. So I started going through it. And just as I thought – he didn’t plagiarise the design – but the quotes of architects. He doesn’t know what the fuck he was talking about because the ‘resources’ contradicts him. He took words out of context and uses it as he pleases and that – in his own twisted mind – makes him knowledgeable. And people respect him too...
How can these people were not called for? It’s like an elephant in the living room and no one is saying anything about it. Or is it just me?
0 complaint(s):
Post a Comment