Re: (Fwd) Level of Discussion Sinks

Burnin' Nic,
There are different ways of looking at all the various relationships involved
in the making of a building, and how those relationships are defined is
every bit as variable as the parties involved. Some wonderful buildings are
started over a handshake, others probably have owner/archie contracts thicker
than the CD set. The contract form and language isn't near as important as the
real and personal relationship between the two (then throw in the contractor
for good measure), except, of course, as the parties decide to let that paper
influence their relationship.

I suppose one could establish his or her practice around how contracts are
handled. How would you feel as a client if your architect slapped a long-
form contract on your dining room table for a $20,000 addition job? A short
form for a $2M office building? I don't know; I've never been at either end
of this process. I do know that no piece of paper is going to make me trust
someone if their actions suggest I shouldn't.

Now, to the other issue of building as text:

Mr. Woods' statement of what archies do as 'making descriptions of buildings'
points out the clearest distinction between architects and "fine artists." We
don't often take part in the actual making of the product. But I feel that
 whilewe can legitimately analyze the _descriptions_ (concept boards, CDs,
 specs) as
we might a piece of literature, I'm not so sure that that can be extended to the
building itself. That is, Nic, you can't say a building is text just because
 thedescription of that building is text-like.

While I agree a building can be "read," I don't believe one can read buildings
the same way as one can read text. Let me modify that, because this is
getting close to splitting hairs: When I read a book, my primary reaction
is emotional, not intellectual. Analysis is an intellectual engagement, that
happens within a supposedly objective framework. I say supposedly because the
framework is an _arbitrary_ construct that is highly subject to change, whim,
style, etc. On the other hand, human emotion is pretty constant, even across
cultures, which is evidenced in certain similarities in building types in
different cultures.

It's a different kind of reading---more direct. Like I said in my other note,
strong buildings need no explication; they speak for themselves, on their
own terms, to everyone, initiated or not.

Mark