14 Apr 2010
quest for malaysian architecture: make beautiful architecture instead
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
An architectural student from malaysia, studying in Curtin University, pursuing his Master in Architecture. Contact at yang(at)yangsquare.com
Great post
I believe good architecture is not just about aesthetics, it’s also about creating the most practical space
manny
April 17th, 2010 at 1:55 pmpermalink
Architecture since the beginning of time, by far extent has been the product of the condition of economy, politics and social of its time. It is always the by-product of the chemistry of all these elements in place in its time. We call it the pinball?… Rather than thinking architecture as the engine that could change the world, i think it is, in many case, determined and manipulated by its surrounding. Our past great architecture, all encompass economical significance within and thus without the factor of money, there wouldn’t be architecture because architecture on our conscious mindset is largely conceptualised by historical definition.
Drawing up plans, authority stamping of project submission etc might not be fancy in the eyes of the visionaries, but it is what it is today, for at least it reflect our attitude and the position of architecture in this age.
The Roman insula for instance has been the must-know architectural artifact now although in fact it was considered the not-so-fancy apartment birdhive then, very much like the birdhive public housing we have today. They are both cheap, practical, and made of the most appropriate materials and technology possesed. The effect of utilization and passage of time have made the insula a great story-teller of its time.
Architecture is far wider than the boundary of conscious human moral and ethical judgement…I put it that way.
MinSyn
May 18th, 2010 at 10:57 pmpermalink
Well..i think money making has been one of the ingredient in architecture where it sometimes add spice and colors to its historical value. The univalen utopian top-down architecture have never happened in our history. It is the struggle and comformities endured plus the multiple attitudes of different parties involved that had granted architecture its truest existence.
Glenn Jehders
May 21st, 2010 at 8:43 pmpermalink
hey man, well said. but one thing, for ur mentor its shit, but for others its sth diff. they might see it differently than ur mentor. and this is why architecture is a creation of ur creativity and the way u see. ppl will have their own opinion. but by saying others work is shit isnt the way to go. should be more professional in that sense. but other than that, what u said, two thumbs up! admire ur posts.
anonymous
May 28th, 2010 at 1:34 ampermalink
one have to admire your passion.. i remember being just as idealistic as you are now, when i was your age.. over the years however, as my experience grew, and as i see how terrible life can be, reality have made me more of a cynic..
i’m not saying that you’ll turn out a cynic like me.. instead, i just want to remind you to keep that idealistic fire burning, even when life brings u down.
for inspiration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
one question:
do u know an architect (not too pricey please) that could help me to design my eco-friendly home in port dickson?
farrah
May 30th, 2010 at 2:13 pmpermalink
Hi Yang,
I agree with you, great architect should learn the arts of convincing their customers. Great ideas wont come out or translate into reality if the architect fails to convince their customer.
Thank you for great post/
handmadenecklace
August 24th, 2010 at 4:33 ampermalink
before you create and construct the building…you need to go through tonnes of bulls@it (client, budget, constraint, etc) before it become reality.
So the design struggle is just a small part of architecture.
ex-lecturer
August 26th, 2010 at 9:12 ampermalink
[...] Previous Post [...]
architecture moves us » Blog Archive » quest for malaysian architecture: architects are initiators
September 6th, 2010 at 7:29 ampermalink
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’m sorry, that is one of the most absurd things I’ve heard in a while. And I find it funny it that it came from your mentor? I have to agree with what anonymous said. And to come out with such nonsense, I do seriously question the credibility of your mentor.
I’m pretty sure you understand the creative industry is extremely subjective and I would like to know on what ground your mentor assesses a design being shitty as to beautiful ?
IMHO the whole quote just made the post absolutely irrelevant.
Archidude
October 3rd, 2010 at 12:15 ampermalink