Comments on a456: What is Your Object?

Hi Enrique,Thanks for the really thoughtful post. ...

2008-04-23T12:11:00.000-04:00

Hi Enrique,

Thanks for the really thoughtful post.

Some comments...

1) I was and was not talking about architecture history. Your points are all well-taken and everything I said can be applied to architecture, but in general I am seeing a broad-based lack of historical understanding of our culture. Heck, I see a broad-based lack of any understanding of our culture, but being a historian it seems to me that historians have, in particular, abdicated their responsibility in favor of increasingly safe, carefully circumscribed positions.

2) The question of the relationship of the Ph.D. to the architecture degree is a tough one. Do you have to be a creative writer to be a literary theorist? For all that the profession gives you, doesn't being trained in it not also result in a narrowing of perspective? My sense is that the requirement is twofold: first, it is meant to solidify the break from architecture history's troubled lineage in art history; second, it is meant to ensure that students will be able to get jobs and serve the profession. I always wonder why the history of architecture and urbanism—something so crucial to human existence—isn't part of any liberal arts education. If it were, then our problem would be solved. But that, alas, is not to be.

I would advocate anthropologists in architecture history programs. I would advocate anthropologists in history programs so long as they are reflexive in their methods.

I am concerned that historians and architecture historians, have given up on the contemporary. Bravo to the anthropologists for realizing that the contemporary world around them (as opposed to a "primitive", which is akin to a temporal distance, although the situation is more complex) is an appropriate object.

3) What, if any, history out there is compelling today? I am pained by absence here.

Good point(s). While I do agree with the general ...

2008-04-21T10:15:00.000-04:00

Good point(s). While I do agree with the general premise that htc programs stay relevant by aligning themselves to design programs, I wonder how successful this alignment has been? Maybe some type of study is in order, one that looks at recent Ph.D recipients and looks closely at what they do. Do they teach studio? Seminars? I know candidates from my program who have done both as soon as they've entered the post-general, post-dissertation proposal, ABD phase. I, however, can't say if these people are doing any type of substantive research. I assume they are.

But back to your response, I think you have made some compelling observations about keeping htc work both in the studio and in the outside world. Thanks again for your insight.

Just a few thoughts, because I keep wondering abou...

2008-04-21T09:45:00.000-04:00

Just a few thoughts, because I keep wondering about this: It's interesting that your year in the PhD program seems to have a much larger issue with the architecture background vs non-architecture background distinction. I wonder why that is. To what extent does an MED count as an architecture background? Isn't it a bit more gray than it is made out to be? I completely agree with you that it is not so helpful to make such broad brush distinctions on such a regular basis. It doesn't seem like something that would be fruitful for us 'architects' to bring up more often, it's just falsely divisive in most instances, as you seem to be suggesting. Sure there are areas like formal analysis or structural analysis that are harder without design training. But for sure, you have skills that you've learned in your past education and employ to great effect in your historical work.

But the value in keeping htc attached to the design studio--in my opinion--is that the attachment can keep htc relevant to today and operative. I know I myself use my encounters with studio and design to re-orient my historical and theoretical thinking. True, if the studios are not relevant to today nor operative this doesn't work. But in my ideal world, that is what would happen.

I do think the major difference between those with architecture design backgrounds and those without is the job market when you leave the PhD program.