Certainly, architectural prime is fading away and thus putting the architectural practice in a secret crisis. Eventually, the profession has eradicated the integrity of building construction. When asked of what they exactly do, architects should not merely state that they design constructions. Architecture comprises wider matters and not just dealing with aesthetics or forms.
Therefore, architects ought to respond to an inquiry concerning what they do with creative thinking. As conceited as one might consider, architects are proud of their knowledge and their commitment shows it. Nevertheless, such achievements are currently not sufficient. Our opportunity for resolution is diminishing. We are short of flexibility in our performance and thus we give away more positions to other sectors of practice.
Due to work sharing, which assumes a more holistic structure, the profession has broken down into several specialisations and consequently driven the development of architectural practice into a manifold that cannot be depicted in just a single sentence. In simple terms, architectural practice should show ability to acclimatise and lead other sectors to facilitate its survival in such transformations.
Could lack of a unique contemporary theory of practice in present architectural offices contribute to this occurrence? Did we cause it ourselves as we attempted to outbid with deceptions of too much form and practice? Debatably, architects are frequently branded with interruption and thus the profession has the urge to progress outward, as if detaching from other standards.
The present unclear function of architectural practice might be the reason for bad timing. Whatever the cause, architecture and its practices should embrace the inevitable transformation. The character of architecture has constantly been concerned with having authorisation from higher authorities. Accordingly, the connection with politics is indestructible as political roles come with profound accountabilities.
In this regard, architects have detached themselves and with time, a stereotype has been built up. Architects have become less official and assume a more artistic project quality thus siding with contemporary architects taking in the fundamental idea; that is, the yearning to share information with others and extend knowledge by accommodating broad range of views.
If an individual cannot make clear his or her intentions, then that individual cannot assume authority. An expected inquiry, concerning sharing as a means of survival for architectural practice, underscores the extent to which sharing should take place.
Apparently, the notion of teamwork is not only to shatter “I discern more than you” stunt, but also to move away from the predetermined constructions and focus on architectural practice and promote its principles. In other words, this aspect is a means of unlocking criticism. Philosophers have just interpreted the globe in different manners; the logic is, to transform.
Sharing is not sufficient and thus an accurate teamwork tactic is necessary. Close attention to the sharing notion and sharing vital information by the project and its comrades are as well required attributes. Just as the initiative of “municipality, privatisation, and ownership” transformed the structure of constructions and the extent of political control necessitated constructions, such tactic might bring rescue to the architectural sector.