The Company equation

Just a quick note of it before I forget I ever know this equation

A company is made up of 4 types of people.

1) The brains

2) The connector

3) The seller

4) The doer

The brains devises the solution, the connector who has a very wide range of connections, pool people in, the seller pitches the project and get things started. The less awarded but highly important people are the doers - the ones who does everything from start to end.

Now, Who are you?

(credit goes to Mr.Edward Chew my tutor in college, him and his grandfather tales. I added in the 4th person in as I saw fit)

We > God

Some say “The devil is in the details,” meaning solutions break down when you examine them closely enough. Some say “God is in the details,” meaning opportunities for discovery and creativity come from digging into the details... if you search deep enough, then you will be able to discover an aspect of perfection.

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/03/30/god-is-in-the-details/

I came about this route as I was thinking about the linkage between professions, between 'subjects' or categories all part of the same world. As my previous studies over some a few architects such as Gaudi, Kisho Kurokawa and Wright, I realised they can't create architecture without their substance and inspiration from categories OUTSIDE of architecture. Be it spiritual to realism, their architecture always link more into the world for some 'higher value'.

Taking Kurokawa as an example as he seems most fitting, his philosophy of metabolism:symbiosis attempts to overrule or rather synchronize with the pattern of nature - building in purposeful harmony. With that being said, the philosophy links up history and future, human and art, nature and machines, etc etc etc, which brought me to realise, it's that simple building links - just the way things are perceived.

Our actions are cultivated through instincts - served from our human nature. Thus whatever we do, nature resides in our actions. Put into context, all products or service created by humans reflect each other in more ways that we imagine. Supply and demand, Roof for shelter, School for teaching, Medicine for curing, Elimination for mistakes. These things all come from the equation of natural instincts where looked closely, echo each other piece by piece - this is commonly extracted through our metaphors & similes. "autonomous teams like machines, light like hope to life. structures like trees". Our creations are no more unique than the way we see it; the term "everything's done before" is scarily true (at least for me) because all these links lead me to believe, WE HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE. Creations are only a symptom of what we are. So it doesn’t quite matter if we're doing economics, arts, engineering or architecture, we resonate together synchronously as we all have a common goal - set by nature and our interpretation of nature, Survival and Life, respectively.

I wonder now if it's truly God who's in these details, or is it only Human in nature's system, like you and me. And to know that we humans have step foot on almost every corner of this earth, make an impact and decision for every rock, I'd believe our existence has burned into the flesh of every-thing possible. Simply put, while WE dominate the world we live in, and echo each other ever so flawlessly; our byproducts of reactions-to-life all come under one powerful entity made up of a race which could be crowned for no-body else but us: Humans. Our doings are Perfect in its apparent creation.

hence, I would like to rephrase today’s topic expression as:

We are perfect in the course of nature’s system

thus,

We are in the details.

the system vs. the components vs. catalysts vs. resources

The system

maths rhythm history life science patterns procession etc.

The components

survival economics business standard-of-living architecture health happiness meaning-of-life

The catalysts

fire light electricity technology cars phones computers super-computers satellites communication, brains.

The resources

land, water, food, materials (stone, wood, metal), gold, diamonds, etc.

The benefactors, the cause, the beneficiaries, the victims

Humans.

The Purpose

Do we:

Live for our personal desire

Live for our children to come

Live for earth's cycle

Live for survival

or simply Live because we were given the life

The outcome

Life

Saviors?

God. People who play God. People with power. People with skills. People with vision

I truly believe architects serve a higher purpose in life; more so than building a shelter, more so than making money for mortgages and definitely more so than making a stupid icon. Beneath all 'added value', we come under 'components of a greater system', and we make a difference to that 'outcome'. We provide what is unachievable by non-architects; skills. The difference between a true purposeful architect and a man who builds is that the architect builds more than just that physical building.

Any man and woman could pool together strength and coordination to build a house - this happened couple of millennia ago. So those who hold a cert, and design a house no different than a house a century ago are not architects - they are mimickers.

If the land, earth's most important resource, is used 99% by man-made structures and infrastructures, are we not responsible for expansion? And if we are, aren't we one of the mains who can do something about the damages inflicted on the planet?

We live on what we make, it's about time we see to our responsibilities.

____________________________________________________________________

Ofcourse architects aren't the only ones who can make a difference. But size does matter in this case - built function encourage or rather limit actions/reactions. Freedom associates with positiveness in a figure of speech, but truly, it means anarchy. We enjoy freedom as a race, not an individual thus order was created for effective functioning and directions were distributed through education. Every custom, religion, culture have to be re-introduced with sustainability and earth appreciation.

So, this order should begin with the built environments. We architects have to take the first steps and make a model of ourselves.

Is copying all that bad?

Recently I learned that the younger generation, us, are growing to be worse.

Reason being, styles + icons. It's widely known that styles do no good as most copycats are plastering the outlook of famous styles on their work - claiming it comparable to those born from pure inspiration and reason OR simply just coming up with a compelling form of no functional enhancement; just for the appearance.

Though I do agree with this statement, I see a possibility of what I imagine as hope.

What IF. Copying is encouraged. Only this time, these fellow sheep copy an effective solution. Bring it back to Corbu all over again. Create a formula of architecture, when replicated, becomes highly effective a machine. Let towns work in sync, let cities combine to change, let countries bind edge to edge to reverse the industrial damage - heal the world as we destroyed it, reverse its course.

Recreate a trend with the help of publicist. Brainwash the no-brainers. Screw the identity, diversity and interesting architectures for the moment. We're already at the edge of losing the physiological need of survival - theres no need to move up for self actualization (following the maslow's hierarchy).

So stop. Take a few steps back. Go for the opportunity cost. Though moving forward seems crucial, what does it all mean if we lose thousands of lives along the way? To progress on others' death wouldn't be a victory at all. Progress can only go thus far until all is lost.

___________________________________________________________________

Would it be called copying if it was a reuse of solutions?

Would it be bad if copying solved the problems?

Would copying be the right word to use if "all has already been done before" in the first place?

Whose fault? Architects vs. Clients for 'good architecture.'

Architects call themselves con-artists.

Yet the "customer (client) is always right".

Common situation

1. Client says no, architects agree mindlessly. Project continues, money comes.
2. Client says yes, architects disagree consciously, due to the responsibility of an architect to his profession and attempts to convince client OTHERwise.

For situation 2, it may come out 1 of 2 ways, client is satisfied OR client is dissatisfied and either finds another architect/ the architect quits/ the architect quietly abide in order for project to continue for various reasons.

The major reason is Money. Survival issues.

Hence, problem 1 arises. Once the architect lets go, assuming the architect was well educated and DID have a better suggestion, "Bad architecture" arises. Fingers begin to point. Truly, who is to blame then? The stubborn client or the weak architect?

Architects are called 'consultants' in the construction practice. Aside from designing, we also consult. Thus the 'con-' attached to 'artists'. So, if we are who we are supposed to be, consultants - should we not learn the skill of public speaking, marketing and communications? Or is it up to personal architects to sought for their own definitions and scope of 'responsibility' in order to prevent fingers from pointing? 'I'm not responsible for what the client wants, therefore I do my job as a designer solely'

In reality, "bad architecture" could be the fault of either one and/or both.

In my perspective, I see faults in both parties as long as bad architecture arises. Aside from the endless possibilities of a bad project alone (eg cost, planning, time, management, disasters); For the sake of this situation created, it will be the architect's fault for failing the project as a whole (not just the design stages. but the execution through the process) AND the client being too stubborn to see better solutions in the eye of the architect - after all, an architect is rightfully hired to solve problems to 'bad' architecture.

Solution?

If educated effectively, in a typical world, architects are just simulating machines - brought up as worldbuilders, only with the power of creativity and innovation (the triumphant element against machines, don't know about A.I. =P) Hence, the problem still boils down to the one who wants to a building built - the client. Speculated around the world, good architecture, are commonly seen together within a settlement (despite the fact famous 'and assumingly good' architects run around the world promoting their skills) Thus I believe the problem begins with the people (all being potential clients) and their education level on well-being, ultimately customs. The solution is not matter of what but how, as the understanding of changing a custom is through a lifelong education 40% from the schools and awareness, and 60% from the environment themselves (eg surroundings, parents, friends, media, religion, etc).

EG/ Dubai. Thousands of critiques are hammering on the architecture built in U.A.E due to the absurd points proven. With the set of criteria and the abundance of cash, the filthy rich clients prove one thing - with too much money, power and the lack of understanding for sufficiency, limitations are endless, focus is also dispersed; hence 'bad architecture' arises. Clients are ultimately the ones who initiate the project of a building to begin with- their intentions give the spark for the project - so the problem would start where intentions go 'wrong', leading to a whole set of miscalculations within the equation.

In this scenario, it seems the solution is out of the architects power. However, put in a different situation, even if architects were able to convince every stubborn client - would it save the world then? I believe not. Architects are worldbuilders. We don't just build buildings, we're building a module to fit within the system of world's buildings' system. We literally shape the world we live in. Hence, the final creation of a city, state or country is up to the political leaders - governments - the ones who can make a true widespread and quick difference. As our order goes to them, they have the responsibility to improve our options and ultimately the architecture we create.

Conclusion

So in this case, should we be spending out efforts convincing every client, or pool our energy together to convince that one person who makes the difference for every client? =)

____________________________________________________________________

Ofcourse there are tons of loop holes in this argument but I saw to prove one point only. Through discussions with mates of mine, we understood that, there is no ONE solution to improve the state of living (even in terms of architecture). The International style is an example sought to improve the way of life, thought it rightfully succeeded, the inevitable course of nature continued to cycle - humans ask for more despite the given amenities. Cultural diversity, regionalism, identity, meaning of life.

The more we strive, the faster we speed up the process,

The more we push, the closer we come to our end.