DIT Colloquium

Tuesday, 31st March.
(in the small print)

Its just one day I thought it went for 1 month and was located in two buildings one being eastward but I was wrong…

???

lol. I love it.

Any feedback?

B.

Summary of Sean O’Laoire’s speech –

‘Ramble ramble ramble.’

I paraphrased

The basic trouble is, these guys are so busy trying to ‘make it work’ in the ‘real world’ of consultancy practices, with over 4 staff, that getting anything like enough time to socialize and interact with mere non-architect mortals, seems out of the question. I know, because I have invited several out of their rat holes on occasions, and it doesn’t work. You die slowly on your feet, while pandering after the needs of your ‘client’. It shows when you position the architect in a social setting. The lack of social development that is. The theory goes something like: After you have worked four hundred million, night and day hours to get through architect school in the first place – you should in theory ‘revolve back to the real world’, and gain back lost ground, lost time, lost sanity or whatever else you lost along the way. But more usually, you find a strange and unfamiliar face looking back at you in the mirror at 40 – and you say, S*** what happened to my life. At which point, there is no option, but to turn into some rambling, cranky, odd balls who people refer to as ‘quirky’. That is the architectural ‘greats’. Life is much less forgiving on the lesser architect. The blog entry merely skirts around the issue, without going for the jugular.

http://www.architecturefoundation.ie/2009/01/16/some-dark-thoughts-for-these-bleak-times-by-sean-o-laoire/

Brian O’ Hanlon

@garethace wrote:

After you have worked four hundred million, night and day hours to get through architect school in the first place – you should in theory ‘revolve back to the real world’, and gain back lost ground, lost time, lost sanity or whatever else you lost along the way. But more usually, you find a strange and unfamiliar face looking back at you in the mirror at 40 – and you say, S*** what happened to my life.

Excellent! 🙂

excellent?!!!

this guy only excells at stupidity. paul clerkin, i propose that garethace is banned from the site until he learns to write a coherent/ concise scentence.his postings consistantly have the consistancy of vomit. i can only imagine (acurately) why you are so bitter about those architects who are successful.

perhaps what? should be banned for his/her inability to accept the fact that someone may have a different opinion to him/ her

or maybe I’m just stupid. in which case, ban me too. Personally, as someone over 40, I think it was a very erudite observation.

http://designcomment.blogspot.com/2009/04/strongly-knit-family.html

Brian O’ Hanlon

There in another way to develop the point, in relation to youth versus age, in thinking about architecture. It goes something like this. (And I don’t want to pick on any one individual architect either – they are all equally as guilty)

If somebody explained to you how the deal works, you would say it is ridiculous. It couldn’t happen! Yet, in reality, that is how it does happen.

I think I know how females must feel now, venturing into the big bad world . . . as the saying goes, it’s okay for boys, but if a young lady . . . Young Architects face the very same ‘lose-lose’ situation. But, for many, that is the only deal on the table.

An older guy who owns a practice, takes a lion’s share of the returns from doing business. He is free to extinguish anyones’ contract at a whim. But still manages to have very young, inexperienced architects – providing him with solutions?

Worse, the young bucks are competing with each other, for the ‘honor’ of providing the older man with a ‘design solution’.

Worse, they work late after work, without pay, to enter competitions, and provide design solutions, on tap, for the sole benefit of the older man.

How does that deal work?

How does that deal work fairly for anyone?

Seriously, I am open to any views on this matter.

Talk about having it your own way.

All the design magazines are doing is encouraging this system even further.

It is a daft system, a crazy system.

Furthermore, it doesn’t produce design standard improvement over time, or anything that might benefit an institution, which pretends to be ‘for’ design.

The institution and the old guys should be putting a certain amount aside, to encourage and develop the youth in the design profession.

Over a period, you might begin to witness a virtuous cycle of improvement rather than degradation of the youth.

The institutions attempt at something like an exhibition space, is shocking. Simply, shocking.

A basement – that says it all.

(Of course, we wouldn’t want the riff-raff attracted into no.8 now would we)

A fortune has been earned by architects during the Celtic Tiger, but the institution still has the same miserable exhibition space we had 20 years ago.

They did up the institute bookshop, and now ask you strange personal questions, when you wish to buy a book there, as a non-member. . . I thought supermarket club cards were bad.

I was in UCD last week, and a €150.00 levy fee is being collected from all students to build a new sports centre.

It makes one wonder what sort of levies were collected from architects? How was it invested?

Probably on BMW’s, Sky Plus and summer houses.

The youth are the ones who broke their backs for the last ten years, and are queuing, 200 at a time, to pick up glasses.

Shame on the profession. Shame on all.

The ‘Architecture Foundation’ website, credit where it is due, is a needed step in something like a right direction.

But far too little, and far too late.

Sorry this developed into something like a manifesto.

Brian O’ Hanlon