response 2 _ Silvetti

"The Muses are not Amused"..... i think my head hurts?

This article does not stir up any internal angers that I have, or even enough interest to question his logic and reasoning for these four categories and their "definitions". Instead I find myself questioning the tools and methods of the architectural education process today. I think some of Silvetti's broader concerns, "a progressive dissipation of the centrality of our mission as educators to teach and learn rigourously and vigorously about form-making and its consequences, a process that is slowly becoming secondary and peripheral," [22] are very valid; I think that the process of architecture students has become impaired due to new technologies and the lack of historical precedent. I am not about to start a debate about hand vs. digital or how many "building studies" we should all do, in fact I am a strong believer in advancement; however it is the steps we have taken to misuse these technologies that I question. Somewhere I think the necessary constraints that a hand produced processes encompassed are SOMETIMES, not always, lost in its transition to the digital world.

In my experience and understanding of form making, I find it most easily manifested when derived by all the other aspects of the process. For this to be such an easy transition [which it hardly ever is], I've needed the foundations of historical precedent, my understanding and analysis of the landscape in which the project is being implemented, the overall comprehension of the building's function, and a large part of form making is intuitive. Perhaps its this last piece of the puzzle that Silvetti and others question when defining the problems within the process of producing form. However, in my opinion, one of the greatest attributes that a good architect has is his intuition to create something based on all other factors that fits the context of a landscape and creates a lasting experience.