Posted by Mat on August 18, 2003 at 01:03:27:
In Reply to: Re: Definition Of Architect posted by Harry Pasternak on August 17, 2003 at 22:32:24:
No. According to Richard, Erskine said "the difference between a good architect and a useless architect is that a good architect loves people". The rest your making up. He didnt define anything.
You yourself said "that most cities are dying because most (99%) architects pander to the whims of land speculators". So are we calling them architects or not?
You also said that "this has nothing to do with pleasing people" so the question has to be asked - Why is it important to 'love' them then (and how would you measure it?)
Your original post appears to be concerned with good and bad design. Thats a good discussion and you make a very valid point. However I dont think it has anything to do with "The definition of an architect" as you post is titled.
I tend to think you have miss-quoted someone in order to make a gross generalisation. Good and bad design is far more complex than you suggest.
Types & Styles
Library Places Building Photos Free 3D Models Archiplanet