| 요약2 |
There is a barrier of conception among those who design, need, and involve buildings. That is because they do not perceive architecture from a comprehensive viewpoint, instead approaching it from their respective points of view. Producing a blueprint alone does not make architecture. If each process of the building fails to communicate through exact wordings, that work is destined to fail. The intention of an architecture, backed by the logic and sense of the architect, should be delivered to the public sufficiently and easily. When a social system that produces architecture festers, culture becomes stagnant. In order for architecture to evolve, there should be an agreement among members from all areas. The public and media are beginning to see architecture in new light. A Major change in the media is that architecture is dealt in the culture section and not in the society and economy pages. The public has an instinct to tell the good from the bad. Creation is only possible through accumulating high levels of experience and skill. A professional proposal can lead to general sympathy through the media, who builds that bridge between the profession and the mass. This is why we need criticism. Professors are scholars who deal with architecture as a field of research. They should be responsible for the role of analyzing and systemizing the works of architects. It is also their role to let the public know the meaning and value of architecture. The problem is that there is no communication between architects and scholars. Nevertheless, professors place themselves between the consumers and architects as advisors, deliberators and examiners. This should mean that we have many great critics, which, ironically, is not the case. They should not stay silent, but should render value to the architectures through reviewing the degree of completion and the meanings of architecture, and help the public understand it, those who cannot easily access the essence of buildings. They should draw a social agreement for architecture. It is futile to try to communicate with the public with buildings with unimpressive qualities, those that did not deliberate on what we should make, with what and how, and what meanings and values we should suggest to the public. Buildings that win sympathy from the public will be a catalyst in producing even more new values. Architects should approach the public not as subjects to be enlightened, but with new ideas that bring the everyday lives of the public to the next level. This is how communication between architecture and the public should begin. |