This is an essay made for The AJ Writing Prize organized by The Architects' Journal.
Do architects have a duty beyond satisfying the demands of the client?
In a professional environment which is developed and matured in a balanced way in its social, economical and political context, where actors are fully aware of the profession’s complex mission, interests and boundaries, the main role of the practising architect would be to satisfy the client’s demands and no one would have problem with this. It would not be a question of wider or deeper consideration. It would be a trivia as much as the role of a lawyer is to represent his or her client’s interest. No one is questioning this simple fact but all agree this is not the only duty of a lawyer. Of course in this idealistic professional environment these demands would not be opposed to the countless other aspects of architecture than client’s needs. Further more, as default, these demands would meet the requirements of architecture’s social, technical, mental, urban and all other considerations.
Since today’s professional environment in the field of architecture and built environment is far from the optimal state this question became a crucial one especially for the designing professionals. Basically the problem does not originate from the intention of architects satisfying one of their main duties. It more comes from the fact that if they do so than most of the time those other criteria are just impossible even to take into consideration let alone to accomplish. Even though the truth is this, the architects are not the innocent victims in this scene because sadly most of the reasons which really influence their professional situation are caused by the architects themselves. Let us see few of the reasons – without the aim of completeness – which could have been easily handled by architects themselves.
Until quite recently the architectural education was driven by a strong individualistic design and artistic approach which led one part of the architects to a working method which only considers these aspects and tends to force to find these characteristics even in the silliest or smallest designing task. Certainly any design could have the greatest artistic value. Although it is important to see that the main problem is not the design approach itself, but the fact that the design could become too easily one dimensional, ignorant and nothing but a self-satisfying act if it only considers an extremely narrow field of aspects. In the case of prestige developments it has been always an aim to represent something beyond the actual physical function, to achieve greater significance, to delight and enchant with architecture. Throughout the history of architecture we can find all the fabulous examples of this from the sophisticatedly decorated arches and finely curved gargoyles of gothic cathedrals to the striking architecture of Frank Gehry at the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. A brand new era started in prestige cultural and urban developments with this project and it unquestionably has influence on the history of architecture (although this significance – from a little more distance – is not necessarily obvious).
A large number of architects dedicated their time to finding the greater meaning of architecture and generally this topic stood in the spotlight of mainstream architectural discussions for more than a decade (since the economic prosperity of the 90’s and the following building boom), but most of the architectural tasks have much more to do with other aspects, such as social, environmental or spatial considerations. Architects’ professional self-definition became highly distorted and incomplete. Meanwhile architecture developed into an extremely complex discipline, depending on the scale involving many participants and objectives and mostly requiring the availability of massive financial resources. In a way architecture – as well as the entire world around us – became a commercialized field led by the ones who are the owners of the essential assets and bear economical, political power. By now the competition for the favour of these potential clients – due to the economic crisis in the developed world – turned out to be so though, architects are willing to do almost anything in order to get a commission to be able to feed their employees and family.
In the same time they have vague pretensions to care about their professional duties, they are hardly aware of their role and responsibility in visual culture and built environment. Although a simple line – drawn in one way or another by the architect – could make a great difference in terms of building costs, construction time or mental condition of the users, not to mention the visual consequences. Architects tend to forget what the value of their work is. All know that they need time to develop appropriate solutions; all know without adequate foresight it is not possible to achieve architectural quality but still they are not able or willing to stand up for their elemental professional interests. Although architecture is well – most of the time even over – regulated by building regulations and technical requirements, other highly important considerations like social consciousness or simply professional self-respect are barely represented. Just a few examples: if architects do not ask a reasonable price for their services then they will not have sufficient financial resources to investigate all the aspects of the design problem. If architects take a commission with irrational deadlines they will lack the time or the opportunity to generate a complete design, to think over all the possibilities. If architects do not stick to the minimally acceptable spatial or technical solutions the result can not be anything else than a failure. These are everyday problems in the life of a practising architect.
It is very easy to shift the responsibility to the circumstances, but the truth is architects lowered their professional standards so much, that it is hard to imagine an easy way back. Unless they will be able to agree on a general professional standard and this could provide strong professional background where there is room for all the necessary considerations to be taken into account. To achieve this stage there has to be a clear image in the architects’ head about their basic professional duties and responsibilities. This should not be compromised by the demands of the client. There also has to be a wide professional consensus on the financial value of the work done by architects and more importantly, the design fees should not be lowered below a certain basic amount (probably defined by their professional associations representing their interests). Not to mention the importance of such a criteria system in other parts of the building industry - from the general contractors to the smallest construction workers – which could effectively guarantee the quality of built environment.
The architects also need to understand their profession is not as much different from other disciplines as they would think so. There are professions which largely depend on external circumstances or demands. Artists, musicians, filmmakers, to achieve success, often have to meet the public mainstream taste. If they are willing to say something beyond this, they might need to face the consequences. In the best case scenario such artists could be able to turn the public interest towards the message they wish to communicate. Other professions – such as medicine or law – have internal professional standards and matured professional representation which does not let the external actions violate the professional aims. Architecture from the clients’ point of view is just another service they pay for in order to achieve their goals. If architects would have the appropriate professional standards which provide opportunity to handle the wide range of aspects as default, then it would not be possible that clients – or any other non-professional participants – could be in a position where they make decisions in strictly professional questions which are far out of their competence.
In another approach architects are able to influence the demands and wishes of their clients through their professional insight and creativity. Just like the countless new products or services – invented by product designers – of which we did not even know we needed before they existed. Architecture could have significantly more important influence on our everyday life and working, living environment if the ones practicing it would care more for their built environment and visual culture and would be more aware of the creative power they have.
After all, the answer for the opening question is: yes. Architects have duties beyond satisfying the demands of the clients but if they are able to live up to these additional duties it is only depending on them.
In a professional environment which is developed and matured in a balanced way in its social, economical and political context, where actors are fully aware of the profession’s complex mission, interests and boundaries, the main role of the practising architect would be to satisfy the client’s demands and no one would have problem with this. It would not be a question of wider or deeper consideration. It would be a trivia as much as the role of a lawyer is to represent his or her client’s interest. No one is questioning this simple fact but all agree this is not the only duty of a lawyer. Of course in this idealistic professional environment these demands would not be opposed to the countless other aspects of architecture than client’s needs. Further more, as default, these demands would meet the requirements of architecture’s social, technical, mental, urban and all other considerations.
Since today’s professional environment in the field of architecture and built environment is far from the optimal state this question became a crucial one especially for the designing professionals. Basically the problem does not originate from the intention of architects satisfying one of their main duties. It more comes from the fact that if they do so than most of the time those other criteria are just impossible even to take into consideration let alone to accomplish. Even though the truth is this, the architects are not the innocent victims in this scene because sadly most of the reasons which really influence their professional situation are caused by the architects themselves. Let us see few of the reasons – without the aim of completeness – which could have been easily handled by architects themselves.
Until quite recently the architectural education was driven by a strong individualistic design and artistic approach which led one part of the architects to a working method which only considers these aspects and tends to force to find these characteristics even in the silliest or smallest designing task. Certainly any design could have the greatest artistic value. Although it is important to see that the main problem is not the design approach itself, but the fact that the design could become too easily one dimensional, ignorant and nothing but a self-satisfying act if it only considers an extremely narrow field of aspects. In the case of prestige developments it has been always an aim to represent something beyond the actual physical function, to achieve greater significance, to delight and enchant with architecture. Throughout the history of architecture we can find all the fabulous examples of this from the sophisticatedly decorated arches and finely curved gargoyles of gothic cathedrals to the striking architecture of Frank Gehry at the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. A brand new era started in prestige cultural and urban developments with this project and it unquestionably has influence on the history of architecture (although this significance – from a little more distance – is not necessarily obvious).
A large number of architects dedicated their time to finding the greater meaning of architecture and generally this topic stood in the spotlight of mainstream architectural discussions for more than a decade (since the economic prosperity of the 90’s and the following building boom), but most of the architectural tasks have much more to do with other aspects, such as social, environmental or spatial considerations. Architects’ professional self-definition became highly distorted and incomplete. Meanwhile architecture developed into an extremely complex discipline, depending on the scale involving many participants and objectives and mostly requiring the availability of massive financial resources. In a way architecture – as well as the entire world around us – became a commercialized field led by the ones who are the owners of the essential assets and bear economical, political power. By now the competition for the favour of these potential clients – due to the economic crisis in the developed world – turned out to be so though, architects are willing to do almost anything in order to get a commission to be able to feed their employees and family.
In the same time they have vague pretensions to care about their professional duties, they are hardly aware of their role and responsibility in visual culture and built environment. Although a simple line – drawn in one way or another by the architect – could make a great difference in terms of building costs, construction time or mental condition of the users, not to mention the visual consequences. Architects tend to forget what the value of their work is. All know that they need time to develop appropriate solutions; all know without adequate foresight it is not possible to achieve architectural quality but still they are not able or willing to stand up for their elemental professional interests. Although architecture is well – most of the time even over – regulated by building regulations and technical requirements, other highly important considerations like social consciousness or simply professional self-respect are barely represented. Just a few examples: if architects do not ask a reasonable price for their services then they will not have sufficient financial resources to investigate all the aspects of the design problem. If architects take a commission with irrational deadlines they will lack the time or the opportunity to generate a complete design, to think over all the possibilities. If architects do not stick to the minimally acceptable spatial or technical solutions the result can not be anything else than a failure. These are everyday problems in the life of a practising architect.
It is very easy to shift the responsibility to the circumstances, but the truth is architects lowered their professional standards so much, that it is hard to imagine an easy way back. Unless they will be able to agree on a general professional standard and this could provide strong professional background where there is room for all the necessary considerations to be taken into account. To achieve this stage there has to be a clear image in the architects’ head about their basic professional duties and responsibilities. This should not be compromised by the demands of the client. There also has to be a wide professional consensus on the financial value of the work done by architects and more importantly, the design fees should not be lowered below a certain basic amount (probably defined by their professional associations representing their interests). Not to mention the importance of such a criteria system in other parts of the building industry - from the general contractors to the smallest construction workers – which could effectively guarantee the quality of built environment.
The architects also need to understand their profession is not as much different from other disciplines as they would think so. There are professions which largely depend on external circumstances or demands. Artists, musicians, filmmakers, to achieve success, often have to meet the public mainstream taste. If they are willing to say something beyond this, they might need to face the consequences. In the best case scenario such artists could be able to turn the public interest towards the message they wish to communicate. Other professions – such as medicine or law – have internal professional standards and matured professional representation which does not let the external actions violate the professional aims. Architecture from the clients’ point of view is just another service they pay for in order to achieve their goals. If architects would have the appropriate professional standards which provide opportunity to handle the wide range of aspects as default, then it would not be possible that clients – or any other non-professional participants – could be in a position where they make decisions in strictly professional questions which are far out of their competence.
In another approach architects are able to influence the demands and wishes of their clients through their professional insight and creativity. Just like the countless new products or services – invented by product designers – of which we did not even know we needed before they existed. Architecture could have significantly more important influence on our everyday life and working, living environment if the ones practicing it would care more for their built environment and visual culture and would be more aware of the creative power they have.
After all, the answer for the opening question is: yes. Architects have duties beyond satisfying the demands of the clients but if they are able to live up to these additional duties it is only depending on them.
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése