In a message dated 4/15/2000 6:15:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> I don't doubt that a personage such as Stern could be particularly
unpleasant
>  in such an exercise, however.  Do tell!

Like childbirth, the mind tends to supress the details of those agonizing
experiences. Who knows what was going on in RAMS mind, but I suspect it has
something to do with differences how people "pay their dues" and how they
operate in their professions. In the fields I am familiar with -- law, fine
arts, history, and architecture -- there are some huge difference with
architecture. Maybe my experience has been different from the norm, but here
goes:

As a lawyer, I was used to speaking cooly and logically about things. Even in
the battlefield of the courtroom, lawyers generally conducted themselves with
civility and professionalism (OK, so it was a while ago -- maybe it's
changed). There was a certain kind of collegiality (this I KNOW has changed).
Although you fought hard for your client's interest, you always knew that it
was "for hire" and that you might well be working together with your opposing
counsel on another case in the near future. In fact, many times lawyers who
have learned respect for their adversary's abilities often seek them out as
co-counsel in other cases and have become personal friends.

I think that the architecture profession is quite different -- tell me if I
am wrong here. Architects seem much more related to fine arts in that the
"artistic vision" is what is at stake (we're talking new architecture, not
historic). It is much more about creativity, imagination, and personal
investment than law, where you work from precedent and logic. Yes, creativity
in structuring your argument, imagination in applying an obscure but
compelling precedent, meticulous attention to detail, etc. are part of law,
but not the "personal investment" part.

It is hard to imagine a lawyer looking over the set of bound volumes of past
deals and those little lucite cubes with mini-prospecti inside feeling the
same kind of thing that an architect feels when he or she looks out the
window a la Ayn Rand and sees the "work of art" realized. They might feel
powerful or successful, but not artistic.

However, in fine arts (I am a painter), I have found critiques to be
generally supportive, not destructive -- explorations of what the artist sees
and wants to interpret, where a painting is successful, where it's not
working as well. Yes, there may be the occasional pointed comment from an
instructor but nothing like the crucible that one faces in architecture.
Juried presentations are not the norm in art school in my experience -- it is
mostly a process of peer group review and discussion.

So that's why, when faced with these horrific presentations where a jury
member unmercifully rips a student to shreds, I was totally unprepared. I
have even seen architects do this to themselves in projects where one is a
client and the other the architect . The architect seemed totally unphased by
such comments as "... and what is this measly, ridiculous hallway doing over
here? It totally ruins whatever slight merit, if any, there is in the entire
first floor."

What is it that makes architects so tough and testy (present company --
except the Humor Czar -- excluded)?

-- M. (loves Ralph anyway) Julep

PS BP Pignic: Projects at 40 paces, Derek