Sunday, September 09, 2012

Death to the Credentialists

Amen brother.  Amen.


Anonymous said...

I experience this in my own field of architecture.

Frank Lloyd Wright, arguably the most famous american architect, did not belong to the Architecture Institute of America (AIA) which represents licensed architects. In fact, he became famous through residential house design, which is one of the only ways to practice architecture without a license!

He said this:

"Students must go into practice of architecture too cheaply--go ready-made either by rule or rote by way of some preferred educational institution and a license after spending too many years in service to a (perhaps mediocre) professional. Only then is he "licensed" to build. His experience is here reduced by inorganic regulations and rules to servitude--a requirement of his services as architect. Therefore, most of the novitiate thus "licensed" are not builders because of ability, good background or depth of character; they have no proved capacity for the long, patient experiment in work which should be theirs when they start to practice."

Yet today the AIA calls him the greatest american architect! Talk about trying to steal his thunder.

One more thing to consider: architecture was traditionally a *skill*; now its considered a "service."

Finally: you cannot design a public building without an architecture license, which is intended to keep the public safe from poor design. Except that a design also requires the stamp of a structural engineer to insure it is structurally sound. So the number one reason for the credential is actually redundant.

dienw said...

I was willing to read through questionable material until I came upon this: "much as artisans would impose long and wasteful periods of apprenticeship, under the guise of “training,” to keep their numbers scarce and their services expensive."
If you claim to be an intellectual, know what you are talking about. From the first, the artist has had to combine meaning with form to create an object in service to the elites be they the wealthy or religious; to do so, the artist needed training in the materials he was to use, the iconagraphy and symboic language he was to use, in the artistic tradition of his culture, and how to meld all this into an object which conveyed all this visually, tactilely, or kineasthetically: this means that from the first, art has been a master/apprentice discipline.

dienw said...

they = the
iconagraphy = iconography
symboic = symbolic
kineasthetically = kinesthetically

Well, I could make the excuse a dumb ass art instructor once used, "I am a visual person, not a verbal one," but I won't; I'll just take the fault.

kakola said...

The fellow, or more likely the committee, that wrote this diatribe, obviously has a degree or its equivalent, in fine arts. A superfluity of uncommon words, various references to historical facts and figures that are really of no consequence to anyone but the author. He/it describes in various ways what is not wanted. The secret to meaningful writing is to describe what you want. Other than the title of the piece, he/it fails miserably. Excellence is not the enemy; but a meritocracy does not always embrace merit.

I am reminded of Macbeth, who, when he received word of his wife's death, said, " Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

I can figure it out and I'm just a mining engineer!

dienw said...

Sorry kakola, I thought you had the same grade school and high school vocabulary training I had.