Thanks for the reply! So, are there any books that you recommend i read ? What should a first year archi student start with? thanks...

between architecture & ID, which is better in term of job finding?

the other reason why there's no textbook in architecture is that the amount of knowledge that could be integrated into design is virtually limitless. u can take the study of human psychology and adopt it into design. u can do the same with quantum physics, virtual reality, environmental issues, fashion, journalism - virtually anything u want. and in education practice, we encourage everybody to approach different things.

however, during the early years, we do insist that students follow the same thing so that they'll learn what to adopt and what to throw away. in such case, i would recommend francis DK ching's books, especially "the visual dictionary" and the "form, space & order". these two books are basic enough for 1st year students to get a glimpse of the world of architecture. another book that i would recommend would be "experiencing architecture", though i cant remember the author. google it!

architecture. simply bcoz architects can do ID's job, but ID cant do architect's job. look in the first post in this thread to get a rough idea what else can someone with a degree in architecture do.

i hv a problem now, or rather a dilemma.

i seriously, really, really wanna study architecture, which i'll most probably do next july (my trials are a lil..bad). however, my family- including father, mother, aunties, uncles, cousins, they all keep telling me to rethink carefuly coz the future aren't very bright for architects. they were like telling me constantly as to remind me. to further annoy me, they gv examples, like "i hv a colleague's friend bla bla bla, also like u wan take architecture, now end up earning bits for years", or "believe me, i got friend now architect so hard earn money, economy not good sumore"or "be architect need alot creativity 1 wor, u got meh?" especially my dad, he wants me to take finance much, or accounting, a subject that i'm doing very well now in form 5- which he claims hv much better future & income. that starts to make me wonder.

i wan to study architecture, i really do. but, i'm a little afraid that i'll end up jobless. i always thought that where there's a will, there's a way. so i decided that, i'd rather do the things i like than to do the things i'm not interested. optimist> pessimist

This post has been edited by Cenarius: Oct 6 2008, 07:06 PM

i. well, they're right. in malaysia, architecture is one of the least financially rewarding jobs around. meaning u wont earn money worthy of the energy u put out. it is where "overworked but underpaid" phrase get to be repeated a lot.

ii. it is also true that architecture depends very much on a country's economy. one slight hint that it's going down and jobs went flying away. if u read the papers u'll know that right now we're on the verge of another economic downturn. heck, we've already been sliding down. so guess how's architects in malaysia are doing?

however, if the economy is right, architects are the biggest earners easily. they can earn up to RM2-3mil within a year. it's not something other jobs could do.

iii. creativity? well, it's something that will be nurtured in school. during 1st year, it is assumed that everyone has little or no development in creativity, so it will be cultured and cultivated throughout ur studies. u'll be surprised how someone who have no indication of being creative could suddenly be one of the brightest designers in the world.

iv. finance jobs are much more stable. architecture is basically riding the big waves. if u're good, u'll be on top of everyone. if u're not, u'll die. there are no weak designers in architecture. u just... wash away.

For the past few weeks, I have been extensively "investigating & researching" into "International Style" architecture and glass house architecture by looking/reading up books and internet resources about those topics. With all of this "research" of mine, I am getting not only interested (I was already interested) in the topics, but I am getting "somewhat" influenced (or can I say brainwashed?) by those "Styles" of architecture - International Style architecture and Glass house architecture.

The thing is, I was already very interested in modern - futuristic - technologically advanced buildings, way before I even thought about studying architecture, however, having "researched" on my current topics at college today has further increased the interest and inspiration level in me for these architecture styles.

Now, I am having the feeling that I am already (kind of) setting up a "focus point" in my architecture persuade. I know I would most definitely be looking/referring to those "Styles" of architecture as the inspiration/basis for my designs in the future in the design studio subjects.

It is one of my current major subject presently known as "Design Theory" that is the one "Influencing/tuning" my mind to focus into a certain architecture taste and style today. The funny thing is, this subject is also going to be the one to commence/introduce the "Design Studio" subject series starting next semester - which will ultimately stretch toward the end of the architecture program.

In your opinion, is it a good idea that I am starting to "Focus" into a specific style of architecture today? Will this be imposing a positive effect, or a negative effect, on the "quality" of my "Design Studio" assignments/projects in the future?

there is nothing wrong in focusing into a preferred style during ur early studies. but the only problem that might occur is when u refuse to open urself to other aspects in design. some students attach themselves to a particular style and latches on until they graduate. at the end of the day, they cant even attempt other design styles even if their job depends on it.

i realized this early during my studies. so instead of sticking to one style like most my friends did, i dipped my finger in morphosis, de stijl, post modernism, feng shui, deconstructivism, expressionism, colonial architecture, classical and renaissance, art and craft, virtual/digital architecture, bioclimatic architecture, noir and eventually settled in modernism, which is where i am now. i see that modernism is a good platform for me to jump in and out regardless of site, cultural background or project brief.

u might see it differently. use what u have as u may. but u must be the master of the style u choose, not the slave. it's very hard to know if u're the master, coz u can easily be disillusioned by the grandeur that it presents. just look out for situations u cant get out of. if the brief asks for something, and u realize that ur style cant accommodate that, it is a good indicator that u're being restricted by ur own rules. break the rules, meaning ur style is gone. but if u stick to the rules, u cant complete the brief. dilemma dilemma.

Thanks for the advice. As much as I am currently very "obsessed/indulged" in Architecture of the International Style, I will strive to find interest in the other styles of Architecture, by the other Architects. In the first place, I was not really trilled by the works of Philip Cortelyou Johnson. (His buildings are so BORING!) In my opinion, Philip C. Johnson looks more like a theoretical physicist scientist than a creative architect. I think he would make a great "Sifu" (Master) though. :D Nevertheless, some of the International Style buildings (e.g. factories and laboratories) by the other architects were indeed interesting.

Glass house architecture on the other hand is also very interesting and exciting, although Philip Johnson's glass house isn't really so. Anyway, I have to admit that his glass house (in my opinion) is attractive for it's sheer neatness, sleek exterior, balance & harmony of construction elements, and it's surreal relation to the natural surroundings. (I am yet to research about his glass house, because I am currently still working on the first part of my research report; regarding the "International Style".)

BTW Azarimy, if you are at Modernism, then you must be very familiar with the International Style. Both styles are very similar, both uses the same building materials and general ideas. Both style follows the same principle: "Form follows Function". In addition to that, the design solutions of both architecture styles are also indifferent to location, site, and climate; and made no reference to local history and (or) national vernacular. (These were known to be one of the primary "Strengths" of International Style Architecture) :)

I would also have to research about DE STIJL and the Schroder-Schrader House; in preparation for my seminar presentation. This concept of Modernism looks interesting though, and the house in particular has something about it that just makes me want to know more about it...(It is probably DE STIJL in 3 dimension!)

This post has been edited by Benjamin911: Oct 7 2008, 10:16 PM

let me focus on the bolded part. if both styles are very similar, what makes it different? or better yet, is there any difference between the two?

i think u need to read more about modernism. not everything in modernism or the international style abides to the "form follows function" ideology. try to differentiate between modernism and IS. u might begin to see that one is actually a subset of the other, rather than two different things. that is a hint of an answer, so go explore more.

that's another clue to the relationship between de stijl and modernism. read more! read more!

I agree, I believe that there is much more to know; that exist between Modernism and the International Style for example.

I am in agreement that I would have to perform more "research & analysis" into the matters. :D

hey azarimy, did u have to do any sort of analysing, like space analysing, and can u give some tips on that? im in 2nd year right now and had a 2 week project on space anaysing and im just so confused. ppl are getting very philosophical and conceptual about the subject but im just not good at that aspect. designing, model-making and cad work are more of my forte

can u be more specific? analyze the space on what exactly? there are thousands of ways to analyze a space on various different aspects. at 2nd year level, perhaps u wanna look at how spaces interact with each other; or perhaps the transition and circulation of the spaces; psychological effects; spatial qualities; cost efficiency; furniture layout; etc... there are just so many things to analyze.

so if u can be more specific...

hi azarimy.. i'm gonna hav an interview for Bsc arch UiTM this saturday.. the problem is... i dunno wat shud i prepare for this interview... can u help me? like wat shud i focus on.... wat news shud i know bout nowadays architecture in or out of msia...anything dat i shud do for that interview..... i really need ur help.... pls help me

well im supposed to analyse a space that i dwell in (my room), then choose a factor that makes it my own space. im fine with that, but the thing is i was told not to do any technical drawings or scale models of the room, and try to be more philosophical about it . only 2 weeks to do it too. anyway its done and i did alrit i guess. i outlined the shadows in my room at every hour and made dozens of models of the outlines, which btw was a pain and soooooooo time consuming

sorry for the later reply.

usually, some general knowledge of what buildings u like or familiar with would be best for u. just find one or two buildings that u like in malaysia and who the architects are. u're expected to elaborate on why u like the buildings and probably what u could do, as a future architect, to improve on the design. the buildings need not be prominent or popular. u just need to be familiar with it. but please, dont go for "standard JKR schools, ur own house or stuff like that. be elaborate.

they will also look into ur personality, ur confidence and the way u present urself. dont be afraid to say i dont know. if u dont know, say it. but like i always said, u're not expected to know everything, but u're expected to have an opinion.

best of luck!

if u're looking into ur own room, then it would probably be easier. ofcourse, for such small scale, u're not expected to be technical. but i cant imagine anything philosophical about it. just go for:

comfort
circulation
layout arrangment

the shadow thingy that u did would fall under comfort and lighting. how could it affect ur layout? simple, if ur room is facing the evening sun, then u wouldnt put ur PC by the window bcoz of the glare. but if ur room is too deep, then u might wanna avoid putting ur bed on the deepest end coz it would have less air circulation and can get stuffy.

just use the IF... THEN... formula.

thx.... let say i wanna talk bout menara TM.... can u giv me some idea bout improvin da design? prefer bout it from u would make me feel better.... pls help me yea...

first, what do u think about it?

one thing u should know about architecture is, dont expect handouts if u dont have anything in hand .

hmm ok.... thx btw...

salam mr azarimy

i've already graduated from b.arch iium earlier this year
and currently in big dillemma

well, you see. we sat for accreditation assessment for part2 last may, and have a very good chance to be accredited this time (well, already 'unofficially' announced, but i choose not to be over confident)
meaning that, i have a bright chance to further my career until part3.

but i have interest in becoming an academician as well
from your opinion (and experience) is it good to continue my study in postgraduate studies without having any working experience?
does a good architecture professor need to be a good architect (by practicing it)?

or is it better to practice and get the hard-earned part3, and then change to academic profession?
does current economic situation show that it is not a good time to practice architecture as a profession?

salam.

academician or practitioner? that's the question isnt it?

architecture demands its practitioners to be well adept at a wide range of skills, theories and philosophies included. however, for a practitioner, they emphasis on a specific skill set that more on producing a good end result within as little time as possible. there's not much place for exploration, philosophizing and building up theories. but if u're into those kinda things, academia is the right place as u could explore, do research, test/experiment on theories and all that kinda stuffs.

if u branch early to focus into one, u get the chance to inject alot of youth into what u're doing. there are lots of exciting things u can do while u're young, but u dont have the opportunity to do both, i'm afraid. i picked my ground and jumped straight into academia after only 1 year of practice. there are things i miss like doing real projects and stuffs, but there are other things that my friends could only dream of doing when they saw what i have.

but then again, there are also those who migrated from practice to academia, or academia to practice. they would have the benefit of both worlds, which is highly recommended. however, they dont have the experience of someone who would have started longer in a chosen path. seniority is also another matter u should look into.

so to answer some of ur questions:

- work experience can provide some solid understanding for ur postgrad. but that's assuming ur postgrad has anything to do with practice .

- no, practical experience isnt always required to become a good professor. a professor is basically a person who professes his knowledge, continually building up on that and for the advancement of humanity. so he doesnt have to practice architecture specifically to become an expert in any part of it. for example, like me, i'm specializing in advancing architecture education online. whether i practice or not is somewhat irrelevant to the contribution i will be giving out in the future.

- as i've mentioned earlier, which path u take is up to u. what do u like? whatever u choose, there are benefits, and there are things that u'll miss.

- yes. the advantage of being an academic is that u're less affected by the economy compared to practicing architects.