True Story: this idea
came to me in a dream last night. It is
a well-known fact that the two leading professions in the built environment,
Engineers and Architects, think very differently and approach the challenge of
answering how to build something from completely different angles. Architects center their approach on the arts,
while Engineers focus on the science and mathematics of the problem (if you
will one is right brained and the other left brained). And this dream also brought me back to a statement
that my boss, an Architect, Cathy Wolfe stated in a meeting the other day, that
when it comes to design (that part of either profession that needs creativity
and iterative analysis) Engineers and Architects approach that very differently
too. She said that for Architects, “the
design is defined early in the process and the rest is simply documentation.” While for Engineers, she expressed, “they see
design occurring throughout the process, and not complete until the end”. Now enter my dream last night, where my mind
literally re-entered this conversation again.
So in this dream, I envisioned my explaining this using an analogy of a Stone Sculptor/Architect or a Lego builder/Engineer.
David by Michelangelo
(photo found at ducksters.com)
Let’s start with the Stone Sculptor. Michelangelo is attributed in saying that “[i]n
every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me,
shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough
walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as
mine see it.” After reflecting on this
question of how Architect’s think about design, I more and more see that they
design in the same terms as Michelangelo speaks of sculpting marble. They establish a vision for what the
structure or landscape is intended to be, and then simply work to describe and
dictate what it is they already see in their minds eye. And like a sculptor who uses his hammer and
chisel to tap and chip and scrape away at the stone, Architects use color, and
materials, and texture to hew a creation out of the earth. The design is complete in the vision they
have, and it’s a matter of documenting and bringing out the tactile reality
that they see. And it isn’t a violation
of the “design” of something to tweak the precise elements of the structure or
place to enable the vision they have to come to fruition, because they work
towards the whole rather than trying to sum the parts. The ultimate form is well defined, and the
function fits within that context that is assumed to meet the needs presented.
David by Michelangelo
made of Legos (photo found on funchannel.net)
Now on the other hand, let’s talk about the Engineer. The engineer is all about the pieces the
parts, the individual component and how it works and how it works
together. He has specific parts to pick
from, a box of Legos to use to build his structure. The color isn't critical, but it doesn't mean
Engineers are blind to obvious poor aesthetics.
Building with Legos is all about one piece at a time, one thing after
another, forming the answer, in a repeatable process. It is iterative, and it is a system of
systems, to an engineer, that makes the whole.
The function of each component addresses a specific need, solves a
specific problem, which enables the most needs to be answered at the same
time. Several bricks can be used, but
analysis dictates the “right” brick to match established patterns, best
practices, and the inter-operability of the several systems that have to come together
to meet the desired result. Making a
change in a brick selection is simply a “re-design” of the system. Thus the design of something is not ever
complete, as optimization and valuation builds one step to the next and can
always be refined, always lubricated with creative juice, to perfect each individual
piece to the point that the sum is the “well-oiled machine” they dream
about. Design for an engineer, is “an
iterative process of trial and error, using rules of thumb and requiring experience”
as I was told in my Structural Analysis lecture by John Thomsen. And because of this drive to make perfect and
optimize, Engineers are risk averse, they build in safety factors, they study
failure obsessively to avoid it at all costs, and the idea of running to a
vision on a whim is more than frightening, it’s apocryphal. This, however, is wholly a human endeavor, as
“[t]o Engineer is Human” as Dr. Henry Petroski plies in his well-read history
of human achievement found in failure.
So as my unconscious was speaking to me, I gravitated to the
need to share this image of a Lego Builder vice the Stone Sculptor. I see both approaches as extremely valuable
and valid. The challenge is using the
word “design” can oft be misused and misunderstood between Engineers and Architects. Ideas about who ought to control what parts
of a “design” are also challenging because on one side there is but one design
and the other a process of design.
Frankly it requires a person who can hold both spheres in the tension
and excitement that they make as the come together, to be able to maximize the
creativity yielding the best results.
Vision and process cannot stand alone, and those that are “middle
brained” can see how they interact and come together. Perhaps the best start in this is recognizing
how we see our mutual crafts, which I think these proxies can help us do.
No comments:
Post a Comment