According to Architecture I have what you might call a Past. I never thought I did, but there you go. I do. What I mean precisely is that at one time I had a life that did not revolve around architecture. I’m one of those suspicious Non-Architectural Background types—or a person from the realm of the Non-Architectural Background.
Architecture has found ways to accommodate people like me, but at times it is still an uncomfortable accommodation. Architecture likes to view itself as cosmopolitan, cultured, and intellectual, but when it comes face to face with individuals who have educations and experiences of non-architectural sorts it doesn’t always know what to do with us.
More after the break.
In the academy, it was the same way. There were the Non-Architectural Backgrounders in one M.Arch program and the other students, who had already studied architecture, in the other program. One of my first experiences in graduate school was the perceived wall between these two supposed castes. It was interesting to note that the ones with the architectural backgrounds seemed to spend most of their time learning how to use Maya and Rhino and design buildings that looked remarkably similar to designs their instructors had done. Apparently, this was different from the architecture they had been doing before.
Meanwhile, us Non-Architectural sorts were thrown in head-first and doing everything in a compressed sequence of experiences designed to make us viable architects (or so it seemed) in roughly three year’s time. Trial by fire. The M.Arch for us was truly transformative—or designed to be transformative. I think it genuinely was in a lot of ways. I don’t think I really learned how to be an architect, however. That came later.
You would be surprised how many times architectural pedigree comes up in conversation. Well, then again, since you are probably in architecture, you wouldn’t be surprised. You are either a Non-Architectural Backgrounder yourself or one who is suspicious of them. I think suspicion is the right word in this case.
I wonder if there are different perceptions of this in Europe or South America, for example. Is this simply an American phenomenon; the product of a certain narrow definition of the architect based on an obsession with professional boundaries or a specific type of education? Do we get too carried away with the “disciplining” of architecture?
I have been to more than a few interviews where my non-architectural past and non-architectural interests have come to dominate the conversation. Here is a recent example. I am invited to a reputable firm in my city for an interview. I sit down with two of the principals and they begin to ask me questions. One of them is interested in my design work and wants me to talk about some of the examples I’ve brought. Seems to be going well, right?
The other principal continues to look over my resume and starts asking questions about what I did before architecture. This is when it gets interesting.
“It says here you have a BA and MA in…what is this…East Asian Languages and Cultures? Why did you study that?”
“Yes. I was in the Humanities. I primarily studied modern Chinese literature, art, and film. Before I decided to pursue architecture I was doing a PhD in this field. “
“So, you wanted to be a professor?”
“Yes. At one point I did.”
“But…why did you switch to architecture?”
I looked right at him and said, “I was interested in it.”
“Well…this couldn’t have happened overnight…. I mean, they aren’t even related.”
“It was a gradual process. Would you like to hear the story?”
“Yes. I think we need to understand.”
At this point I had already decided I didn’t care if I blew the interview. I had been grilled like this before by other architects. By now I was used to it. I even expected it most of the time.
These days, whenever I’m questioned in the manner above, I like to be honest. In the past, feeling rather defensive, I used to try and come up with an elaborate mythology that made it seem inevitable that I am now doing architecture—or trying to do architecture. There would then be a flash of recognition on the other architect’s face as if he suddenly got it. It all makes sense now and he can perceive me as someone who is more like him and was indeed destined to be an architect from a young age and didn’t get distracted by other meaningless pursuits…like philosophy, literature, foreign languages and the like.
Many architects envision themselves in archetypal terms, like they are the embodiment of the western conception of The Architect. This archetype helps them construct a professional and personal identity by connecting them to the discipline, a lineage. I’ve written on this before as it relates to the culture of the profession. In this case, it becomes a matter of personal identity and how it informs people’s responses to things outside the profession.
Whenever I attempted to tell the story of my “journey” in architecture I found I was just making things up, trying to match what I perceived to be the expectations of my audience. I wasn’t trying to deceive. I was genuinely trying to make sense of my “transformation.” What was most puzzling, I think, was the obsession others had with me having a story for this change. I had to be able to explain it even though I couldn’t necessarily do it so easily or in some sort of linear fashion.
It’s weird. It’s the only field I have been in that expected me to have a teleogical narrative of how I came to this, and why I came to this. Of course, I did it for the money, the fame, and the glory. I wanted to make a difference? I wanted to do CAD all day? I like computers? My high-school guidance counselor said I should do architecture or I would end up in jail or in an asylum? I like long hours?
If you are a Non-Architectural Background person like me you might know what I mean. You are automatically suspect unless you did architecture as an undergrad, which is the right way to approach it, apparently. If you are educated outside the field, in another discipline, let’s say, you are somehow not authentic, not hard-core, not passionate…enough. You are an outsider. You didn’t do studio for four years or five years as an undergrad.
The interesting thing is that there are a lot of us. I don’t know the numbers, but I have a feeling it’s a fair percentage. We may not outnumber the “born to be architect” types whose entire higher-educational experience was devoted to architecture, but we make up a fairly large population. Just guessing here. And I’m not going to bother to get statistics for this so you can look them up yourselves if you like. Just ask around your office or in your graduate program. Lots of weirdoes come to architecture. It’s one of those professions that tolerates…to a certain degree…eccentric individuals.
Anyway, after enduring a number of interrogations, I decided it would be best to challenge the basic assumptions of my interrogators. I’m not going to erase or fabricate my past just to suit their narrow conceptions of what an architect should be or what type of background an architect should have.
There is no single model to follow, after all. I could be like Ando and box or drive a truck. I could be like Rem and write screenplays. I could be like Zaha and study pure math. We are complex humans who at some point decide to pursue changing the built environment. And, by the way, we must be masochists, too.
To be perfectly honest with you, I have been interested in many things in my life. Architecture is just one of them. I’m not sure I can pinpoint the exact moment or epiphany where it became clear to me that I should pursue architecture. It was more a convergence of factors and life events. I did not have the luxury of peaceful contemplation or the early exposure to an architectural mentor. In the middle of a storm, I jumped, not fully cognizant of what I was getting myself into. I didn’t know a damn thing about it, actually. I didn’t care.
Architecture never crossed my mind until I was in my 30’s. It was perhaps more the result of an early mid-life crisis rather than enlightened intellectual curiosity. It was also a field that seemed wide open with possibilities, like there was no single way to pursue it. You could seemingly follow your own passions and, for lack of a better term, vision. At a certain point in my life I was looking for something like this, something difficult and open to the eccentricities of a creative mind.
As long as I am doing architecture I feel there is no need to justify why. There is no real story to tell and if I did tell you a story it would not necessarily make it any clearer to you why I entered this profession. Any narrative I attempted would be mostly fiction anyway. I think the stories people tell about how and why they became architects can be interesting but I also think they are partly post-narratives, constructed after the process of becoming an architect has reached a point where it is time to solidify a proper identity, an archetypal identity other architects can recognize and understand.
So, this is what I told the interviewer:
“I really don’t know when I first became interested in architecture. It’s a part of my life now. It’s sort of like asking me to tell you when I first became interested in living. Would you like me to try and answer that question for you?”
I thought for sure they would never hire me after that comment. Much to my surprise, however, the phone rang a couple days later. I turned them down. You see, there was no foundation for trust and it was clear I would have had to pretend I’m a different sort of person. I’m a Non-Architectural Background person and that’s fine with me.
The Indicator, a weekly column focusing on the culture, business and economics of architecture, is written by Guy Horton. Based in Los Angeles, he is a blogger for Metropolis and frequent contributor to GOOD, Architectural Record, The Architect’s Newspaper and Architect Magazine. He is also a contributing architecture critic for The Huffington Post. Follow Guy on Twitter.
The opinions expressed in The Indicator are Guy Horton’s alone and do not represent those of ArchDaily and it’s affiliates.
New book out soon! ‘The Real Architect’s Handbook: Things I Didn’t Learn in Architecture School’, by Sherin Wing and Guy Horton.
Very interesting ell written article. I graduated in advertising and I now pursue in architecture. I am asked a lot of questions sometimes. But as you share in your article, I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all to “do something” before entering in architecture… I think it gives more insight in your approach and a feeling of proximity to “normal or non-architectural” people, usually those whom we design for.
“graduated in advertising”? I wouldn’t admit it in public.
For the longest time I have felt that architecture is yet another sect.
This is me exactly, I totally understand. However, there is a flip side to that token. I come from a Pre-med, Psychology background and from some reason I was seen as some type of Architectural Messiah, not just me, but some other Psychology majors in the new architecture field. While the positive attention nurtured my ego it also ate away at whatever sense of security I had about doing well in the study of architecture. I fancy myself a creative person, but I’m also very realistic. The level of work I needed to attain to at very least match my peers was to much to compress in the allotted amount of time given. Nevertheless, I feel that having a background in something other than architecture gives us the leg up, rather. Instead of being crammed in a studio during our formative educational years we explored other aspects of life, simply put, maybe, maybe the traditional architecture students are jealous.
I am the born to be an Architect.
But throughout my undergrad I have noticed that Architecture is sadly a sect more so than a family. An expected way of life and self-presentation, expected stories and unfortunately an expected way to design architecture.
What I hate the most is that this new digital breed of architects are more concerned with presentation boards and making s*&t look crazy and hyper-expensive rather than creating a structure that benefits society in a strong and meaningful way….but maybe i’m too practical….
I hate to say it….but the model young architect looks more like a franchise rather than an individual…..
great. love it.
Well-written article Guy. I’ve experienced the same issues within the Industrial Design field, while studying for an MSID, with a prior BA in the humanities. Frankly, I believe those with prior design experience (BID, BFA, BArch) progressed less (relative to their existing skill level) than those from Non-design backgrounds, who seemed hungrier and more eager to acquire knowledge within a 2-3 year Masters.
Well I think the persons with an Undergrad Architecture degree, have already started conceptualizing a manifesto towards an architecture (their style) that they are very interested in. so it may seem as if they aren’t really progressing or seeing the big picture, but when in fact they are actually fine tuning..
love the article
It’s funny because though I am an undergraduate studying architecture I’ve felt a similar separation from others simply because I didn’t have a lot of study in art or architecture in high school. It was something I simply was very interested in.
If I were interviewing someone and found out that they had a past outside of architecture, I would be interested as well, but not for whatever sinister caste-like system that some people imagine. Some of the best architects that I have known come from different backgrounds, and it’s not only interesting to see how they arrived at the decision to commit to a life of design, but it’s incredible to see what a well rounded individual can bring to the table. A person with many interests is often an interesting person.
To answer the question about whether in Europe it’s the same:
No.
and the reason is very simple and institutional: the lack of liberal arts education. If you want to do architecture you do it from day 1 in the undergrad and then you continue to the March, there really isn’t a practice of doing 2 completely separate things in the undergrad and graduate schools.
Which explain why there are 3 adults in my undergrad course going through all the undergrad stuff like everyone else :)
i find this interesting as a architecture undergrad. After the first year of study we are now doing architecture all day everyday and i find myself closing off from people outside architecture where questions about what I do in studio are half heartedly answered like no one outside would understand (or care) about what we really do in studio. The early signs of the mentality in which architectus are no longer normal human beings??
Equally I find by dedicating my life to architecture and not studying or pursuing outside interests (unlike in my first year) I feel incredibly flat as a creative mind and a person. I feel that coming from a non-architectural background may actually be an advantage, with a boarder range and depth of knowledge. Architecture, I feel, can’t necessarily inform itself infinitely. It needs new ideas and I feel that often come from outside the architectural realm.
Good luck
Fascinating, and as an adjunct I comment that as a woman who took years off full time work to raise 2 children,I get the same kind of attitude…..as if leaving full time work to raise a family reveals a lack of committment that’s just left me far far behind…..
Really interesting . Being a young architect in France, graduated from an architecture school, I’ve always felt the need to nurture my studies and practice with “life” in a large sens, with any kind of experience that may or may not have a direct link with architecture. Architecture doesn’t feed from architecture, I believe, the same way it doesn’t live for itself. I took the opportunity to leave abroad, spent a few years in India, travelling and working in a local studio, and spent a year doing research with an urban collective founded with an anthropologist and sociologist, both non-practicing architects.
I found that, in France, Hong Kong and India for what I know, most of my job interviewer’s face started to change when I presented some of that “work” I did aside… writing, photography, anthropology, etc.. but in a good way ! that’s what made a difference I believe. Maybe I’m just lucky ?
But that’s always what I put in front; I’m already conviced enough of what an architect is for me, and that is not someone you knows nothing but architecture. It’s probably a personnality, a spongious and generous mind always on the move… one might come to it after a long time of doing and being something else.
Architecture schools are a fun and incredibly interesting place spent our early twenties, but I guess they’re mostly there to make you realise what we want to do, and where to start.
My husband has recently finished his “level 1″ year — as a non-arch background student. Next year he will be integrated with those who have transitioned straight from an undergraduate degree. My eyes and ears will be open to the aforementioned schism. As for my perspective — I think his academic background in English and Religion have aided in the “well-rounded” factor so many people claim to value. However, I think it will serve him best when dealing with clients who don’t really care about pedantic architectural theory, but rather want to know how much it’s going to cost and what color can it be.
Bit of a generalization. My undergrad isn’t design related, yet I’m more interested in the application of theory and design in general than a lot of the B.Arch students.
There’s really no accounting for individual taste or motives, regardless of your academic history.
Architects are so pompous.
I graduated from such a school – and this one in particular. I remember the “wall” he writes of and thought the folks w/o an architecture background were far more interesting. It still holds true that I find people from other disciplines more interesting. Sorry if that bursts any of your bubbles.
Non Architecture background types are idiots. Can’t hold a conversation on architecture in a graduate program…
You’re joking, right?
Of course Jake, you are so correct. Especially when we have to contend with such interesting and heavy weight intellectuals as yourself. Please do go on, we are simply glued to your sharp insight and observations. Alas we are not worthy of your one dimentional point of view of possibly everything you deem as life. Do go on.
i’d like to imagine some of the incredulous looks people give are more along the lines of “you did what before? and you veered away from that to become an architect? are you nuts?”
Thank you, Guy. I’m in my 30′s and considering a graduate degree in architecture. My undergrad is in humanities as well.
I appreciate your insight into what I will be up against and how I’ll be perceived.
I haven’t experienced any real prejudice regarding my background, so take some of the hype presented here with a grain of salt. In my opinion it’s a boon to have a broader educational background, not to mention additional life experiences. So many of the world’s best / most famous architects are M.Arch types, its really not worth worrying about fitting in.
Thanks for that article, Guy. I’m currently in Grad School for architecture after an undergrad in the humanities and half a decade of real-world employment.
I often find the studio work of fellow non-architectural background students much more interesting than the true-believers. It is usually not as polished, but the forms of creativity in use inspire emotions in the viewer other than awe at the skill of the architect. There is empathy, lateral thinking, obsessions with things that are not necessarily related to pushing designs that are aggressively super-awesome dynamic and challenging paradigm shatterers. In other words, humanism counts for something.
It’s a shame that those who have spent their entire higher education in the architecture ghetto don’t know what they’re missing.
work …architecture
hobby…architecture
eat–>sleep …architecture
interesting. Our m arch was about 50% from other disciplines, and since I had studied architecture in undergrad I always thought the other half brought a lot of critical thinking skills and depth of general knowledge that I didn’t have. Frankly I got a better education because of the mix.
Natural for an interviewer to enquire about your past… if you seem flippant or unable to hold down one field I wouldn’t bother hiring you. Architecture is more or less a lifer of a job and the job requires long term commitment to get the most out of people. Hire someone who will leave you in the lurch in a year or less or just get disinterested as let’s face it – most jobs take loooooooooong time, and you are a bit stuffed.
Architecture also probably meanders more into day to day life and culture of a person than most jobs as it is a form of self expression (same as any design/creative field I guess?) I don’t see many engineers/doctors dressing up crazily or spouting phenomenological tirades as a way of improving themselves or their profession. (Then again maybe I take that back…)
haha
I think you are more worried than you should be about it…