Myths of Studio Culture Reloaded: Architects as Suffering Artists
Since I had posted the list of the “myths of studio culture”, there had been some reactions about the items that comprise the list.
As far as reactions go, some agreed, some disagreed and some made no sense at all.
As I had mentioned before, the American Institute of Architectural Students (AIAS) is responsible for the list of myths of studio culture. That is their opinion as a collective.
Of course other people are entitled to their own opinions.
I would say that based on my experiences, I absolutely agree with the AIAS with regard to their list.
As to the people who disagree with some items on the list, they had got me thinking now.
I'm thinking that the voices of dissent about the list could simply be because some items on the list are really not myths at all. It's possible that the AIAS is wrong about some items on the list. The people of the AIAS are definitely not perfect.
Seeing it another way, it can also be a testament to the validity of the potency of these myths. They are so powerful that they are very much ingrained in our consciousness to the point that we think they are not myths at all but absolute truths.
I believe that there is one particular myth that seems to tower above the other myths in the list. The funny thing is that it is not specifically mentioned but only hinted upon in the list. I think that this is because it transcends studio culture since we usually subscribe to its notion even way before and long after we are indoctrinated into the architect’s way of life.
This is the myth of the architect as a suffering artist.
This is such a big myth that most of us seem to use it as a gauge for integrity, merit, validity and even reason for existence in our profession.
See if your heart skips a beat when you read this:
"The greater I suffer the greater an architect I become."
Would that mean then that the happier an architect becomes the more mediocre he is as an architect?
Would it be wrong then for any of us to want to choose happiness over suffering since we would basically be saying that we'd rather be mediocre than great?
This is such a huge myth that I think I've actually just shot myself in the foot for even daring to mention it.
I'm not going to cry over it though because I for one would rather be a happy architect than a suffering one any day of the week.
Life is just too short.
posted by ben tumbling @ 5:03 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Johannes, if you're a Filipino like me, I think you can answer your own question. Do you have the same design studio myths as Americans?
Do you think that students should not have a life outside of architecture school?
Do you think that the best design ideas only come in the middle of the night?
Do you think that creative energy only comes from the pressure of deadlines?
The design studio is a method and a process. I don't think it's really possible for it to be exclusive to a certain national culture except unto itself.
In my observation, if there's an obvious difference between Filipinos and Americans with regard to the myths of studio culture it's usually their attitudes to it.
let's face it, filipinos are raised to be martyrs. it's in our religion, in our lives, and in our work. we are taught to make great sacrifices for our families, friends and superiors, and usually end up expecting the same from those under our care and supervision. it has its good points, but more often that not, it becomes exploitative when those entrusted with power become misguided and corrupt.
the suffering artist is not immune, in fact, no one is.
... and the myth of the suffering artist goes on.....
speaking of danny silvestre... he once told me that destructive "gloom and doom" thoughts are characteristic of creative genius. i.e. artists LIKE to suffer. or at least, they like to THINK that they are. (suffering.)
but yeah, i'd rather be happy designer than saturnine designer. so sue me.
I can understand how "destructive gloom and doom" thoughts could be characteristics of a creative genius. It's because most - but not all of them - would probably be or feel unaccepted by mainstream society especially if their ideas are extremely radical.
It must be said though that their "destructive gloom and doom" thoughts are only reactions - just a branch in many other possible kinds of reactions - to their unique situations. It must be clear to us that those kinds of thoughts are not sources for creativity themselves.
This distinction is important lest we revert to people wanting to be gloomy all the time thinking that would actually make us creative geniuses. That would be like putting the cart in front of the horse. Sadly, a lot of people actually fall into this trap.
Of course, pulling inspiration out of our tragedies is valid but so is getting inspiration from the ecstatic and the mundane. Of course we can't go to the other extremes of only considering the ecstatic or the mundane as points of inspiration. This is simply because of the obvious fact that life contains different kinds of conditions and that living means coming to terms with all those conditions.
That is why I think that a real genius among geniuses should probably be able to draw creativity not just exclusively from the negative. That being said, we might be able to conclude that the true path to creative genius is not solely by the road of suffering but a middle path of clarity and openness to everything.
Post a Comment
<< Home