architecture enlightens life

Reply to Aconda

I’m glad you commented a great deal to my post. however I apologize for that my opinion might have change / matured from the earlier post I have made. I don’t believe money is always the dealbreaker, a good architect can make good architecture within limited budget, provided he has a good client. here comes forward Mies’s quote: a good architecture requires a good client. thus, it is our role as architects to educate our clients; not just following whatever a client wants. a great mentor of mine has always told me that a client knows what he wants, but not what he needs.

the problem of Malaysian mainstream architects are that they are oriented towards money. yes, money is essential but you should not sacrifice your integrity as an architect to achieve a commission. remember, architecture is not a career, it is a profession. it requires years of practice and education - an effort similar to that of doctors and lawyers. architecture is beyond business, it belongs to the realms of art and humanities; for architecture is the highest level of creativity can offer. therefore any attempts to equalize architecture as a money-making business is an utter disgrace.

some architects make lots of money out of creating shit. I hope you don’t make shit for a living, but make beautiful architecture instead. - a quote of my mentor

I agree with you that original intentions and ideas for architecture is very important. for every architectural idea that is developed, the first sketch is always the most binding. the judge of sydney opera house, eero saarinen picked up jorn utzon’s entry based on the sketch from disqualified piles and announced it as the winner. utzon have always hold dear to the original shell forms, and never submitted to pressures from upper hands. he resigned in integrity and never ever seen his masterpiece completed, yet his work is one of the most photographed in the world.

yes, fame of the architect is not everything. but the background of the architect is. a client should pick the architect based on the track record of the architect; works that are done and education of the architect - not based on the fee an architect offers. architects studied a minimum of 5 years of university education and 2 years of practice so responsibility carries weight in the profession, not simply any engineer, contractor or draftsman can replace the role of the architect. in the construction hierarchy, the client is equavalent to the producer; but the architect is the director of the team, not an actor.

the public should refrain on relying too much on the developer. to developers, construction is just a bigger part of business making machine - to architects, the qualities of space reign supreme. I believe that housing should focus more on plots of land rather than the development of the houses - and let architects deal with that. building a house starts by consulting the architect, and he will advise whether there is a need to hire project manager - but in theory the role of managing the project falls under the architect, so as a client, one should demand the architect to supervise. so the money you paid the architect does not go in vain, rather than settling for a marked-up house in the developer brochures.

contrary to the opinion of engineers, architecture is not just about aesthetics of the building. nor architecture is just about drawing up plans, or stamping authority of project submission - it is rather a study of space-making, design process that involves improving the quality of living on part of the users.

for architecture if executed successfully, it is beyond beautiful - it is a pleasure.

yang yang

• Read More »