EXPAND THE LIMITS OF THE PROFESSION
Eduardo Cadaval
Not long ago an informal conversation with a music composer helped me to understand more clearly some of the weaknesses that I believe affect architecture. On that occasion my composer friend complained bitterly about the state of his profession, the loss of its relevance and the risk of its disappearance; but above all, of the few professional opportunities that even he barely had today. Cornered in the academy, without a real vocation for it, he taught a profession that he could not practice and looked for some opportunities in “people who could understand what he really did.” Seeing the difficulty with which he tried to explain the importance of what he called “cultured music,” it was easy to intuit that part of the problem lay in the discipline itself. Listening to it, it was impossible not to find parallels with architecture and with how it has become more and more enclosed in its disciplinary field until it has become almost inaccessible.
Architects often complain about our isolation, but an exercise in self-criticism will allow us to understand that to a large extent we have been the ones who have distanced ourselves from the most transcendent issues. Partly because architecture has been more obsessed with itself than with what it could do for the rest of society, but also because in recent decades a certain myopia has invaded the training and academic offerings, drastically reducing not only the possibilities of our work but also our fields of action and influence.
If we analyze the current state of the profession, we can understand that deep down what is being demanded is another type of architect, and therefore it seems pertinent to ask: why have architecture schools not been able to answer? Why not They have made their teaching system more flexible? Why continue to produce only one type of architect if there is not enough work for him?
Architects are most useful when we occupy a broader range of our spectrum of professional influence. Being a project architect, that is, one of those who design buildings, is just one of the many ways that exist to practice the profession: more architects-urban planners, more architects-politicians, more architects-public servants, more architects-editors, are needed. curators, academics, critics, theorists, urban managers, etc., etc.
What is more surprising is that the current academic landscape is actually full of myopic curricula that privilege only one type of professional. Architecture schools – in many cases guided by a commercial strategy and business model – are increasingly obsessed with the figure of the architect designer. It is precisely in these schools where, from the first years of training, both teachers and students begin to coin the disastrous classification that this or that student can be “a good architect”. This classification, which then accompanies the profession in its development, only refers to that student with a certain compositional ability and its implications and consequences are deeper than apparent and reflect simplistic and dangerous professional aspirations. Are we so little? How limited are our expectations about what we can do and contribute?
Fortunately, there are many architects who have modified their roadmap, generating large contributions and expanding our range of influence. These other ways of doing architecture have proven so transcendent that it would be worth asking why not promote them from the first training cycles. I do not mean to belittle all aspects of the teaching of architecture; This training is still capable of endowing the student and future architect with a very particular mental structure and set of knowledge that no other profession offers. The architect is a type of guerrilla who is capable of fighting in many battles in which he always contributes something that no one else can contribute. Therefore perhaps what would be worth reflecting on is what would happen if a more open training were promoted in schools ?; How many new opportunities would it generate?
Architect-urban planners and Architect-politicians helped transform cities like Medellín, Bogotá or Barcelona to name just a few. An architect by training and later elected mayor in Brazil, he was the main promoter of the “Integrated Transport Network” of Curitiba, which would eventually be implemented as the Transmilenio in Bogotá or the Metrobus in Mexico City; a politician who, thinking as an architect, created this novel system that has become one of the great alternatives for updating public transport in many metropolises.
There have been many other architects who have brought about great disciplinary changes through the study of history and theoretical research of architecture. His texts have been as influential as the most transcendent buildings in our recent history. Without his work we would not have been able to see and understand many of the things that now facilitate our work and for which we have been able to take it to the frontiers.
The academy on the other hand has always been an integral part of the disciplinary field. There are many architects who combine their professional practice with teaching. This binomial has been a constant throughout history, from classical schools to the Bauhaus and current universities, where hundreds of young and consolidated professionals feed back their professional practice through active teaching. Many other architects have chosen to be full-time professors or researchers. This is another way of exercising architecture as valid as the others; To be a good architecture teacher, you don’t always have to have an active professional practice or be a good architect-designer. This belief is actually not only false but it distorts the most intimate aspects of academic training. From my experience as a student, I can see that several of my best teachers were full-time professors who dedicated themselves exclusively to research and teaching. Their passion, their pedagogical experience and the methods they used were much more effective than those of several renowned architects who also taught me and in some cases barely had time to attend to their students.
There are many other areas in which the profession has influence but in which it could also strengthen its presence; from the restoration and protection of heritage to anthropological and urban research. There are also diverse examples of architects involved in the publishing world, in curating or disseminating architectural culture. From great editors and cultural managers, to newly graduated architects who have created some of the most influential blogs on the web. We all know that knowledge is only such if it can be transmitted and therefore the work of many architects within the publishing world and of cultural diffusion is not only essential but should make us reflect on the fact that if we do not know how to explain our work to the rest of society, we should not be surprised that it does not understand us.
It seems pertinent to ask again what is architecture used for today? And what do we call “architect” today? Unless architecture schools want to continue training future unemployed, they would not only have to foresee these new formulas but also promote them. After all, the figure of the architect is attractive when it includes a wide range of his sphere of influence, whether as a designer or as a politician, as an urban planner or landscape designer, critic or cultural manager. We are all equally essential and it is together that we give meaning to what we do. After all, it is important that we begin to understand that if we want to have a quality architecture, we need a system that generates it. We will not have a strong discipline if we do not create a solid framework in which it can be sustained.
Link
