|
On the social level, inspite of the realization
that not only higher education is not necessarily
a route to wealth and happiness.(it can in fact be
a hindrance to unlimited wealth and happiness according
to Kiyosaki), yet we still see the mushrooming of
educational institutions all over Asia as exemplified
by the projects featured in this issue of Architecture
Asia. One would think that fewer parents would want
their kids to be "over-educated" lest they
become "poor dads". However it seems that
Asian parents are continuing with their zest for their
children's education as reflected in their willingness
to send their children overseas at great expense.
It is a notion commonly held by architects
that the environment for excellence in education should
be an excellent environment itself. Architects often
find it ironic then that students are often exalted
to strive for their ideals and yet the very institutions
that promote this idealism often do not live up their
own expectation. We want the students to do their
best. But do we give them the best facilities in the
best environment? Do we use the best architects for
the masterplanning and designing of our schools and
universities? Not to mention other consultants such
as interior designers,landscape architects,signange
designers etc. who are the "products" of
this same educational system. This is the second contradiction.
There are schools that train designers and architects,
yet the schools are not designed by the best designers
and architects, or they are not open to competitions
so as to secure the best design.
The third kind of social contradiction is that
the general improvements in the quality of our lives
or the standards of our living conditions (physical,
economical and political) do not seem to correspondingly
improve the production of more great men and women.
To cite two commonly known figures : Abraham Lincoln
and Mahatma Gandhi both grew up in relatively difficult
political times and poor living conditions. Things
have improved tremendously since their time. But in
terms of great leaders, where are the Le Corbusier's
and the Mies van der Rohe's of our time?
This is followed by the fourth, an architectural
irony that points to the fact that even a good system
of education delivered in a well-designed environment
does not guarantee the creation of great leaders.
Take the education of the architects as an example,
there are campuses and schools that were designed
by great planners and architects, yet these schools
may not produce the best architects. For example,
the Bauhaus was a great school both in its programme
and architecture. Today it is remembered more for
its founders and great teachers than its graduates.
How many great architects or artists had Charles Rennie
Mackintosh's Glasgow School of Art nurtured? And how
about Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesen West?
Now that we can see that formal education may
not be the only way to wealth and success; that improved
living conditions have not cultivated more great men
and women; that educational institutions pay lip-service
to idealism; and that a well-designed environment
does not necessarily produce great designers or architects,
we may well ask ourselves, does design really matter?
And if it does not, why do architects keep complaining
about badly designed campuses and school buildings?
We, at the Editoral Board eagerly await your
response to a lively debate on this and other controversies
in this and future issues of Architecture Asia.
|
