3 ms·

Even the introduction to this article is deeply corrupt. It describes the authors partner, an architect, an their constant attention to the flaws of others work

Even the introduction to this article is deeply corrupt. It describes the authors partner, an architect, an their constant attention to the flaws of others work and designs of structures. I’m sure many of us can relate to this feeling, within our own fields of expertise. However, the author seems to insinuate that if only we could overrule each individuals ownership and individual freedom to design and build their own things (buildings, wine racks, social structures), that society could be better.

pizzazzaro 5y ago
Corrupt? I dont see it. Meandering, pointless, and ultimately futile without a readily-accessible thesis? Absolutely. But the fact is, nobody single-handedly builds much of anything of consequence anymore. To call out the architecture metaphor is absolutely necessary! But perhaps for different reasons. I'd be much more willing to trust what a society builds if everyone involved had a voice. Do I get to own my work when I design for Blizzard? Do I get agency over what I've built? And where does this end? Technicians and a minority of engineers alike raised concerns about O-Rings before a certain disaster... If only we gave them some level of oversight over their own work, the Challenger Disaster would never have happened. To suggest that any O-Rings anywhere are the responsibility/property of those NASA engineers is equally inane as divorcing the creator from their work. And yet, under our current intellectual property laws, this is too often the reality. The sole architect is a strawman of a metaphor outside of very specific contexts. And even within them - who trained this architect? What reference documents do they use? Who assigned the purpose for the building? While these inputs are not enough to carry ownership, they are enough to quit pretending some lone figure is a "creative genius" that cannot be outperformed by a team on larger-scale works.

pizzazzaro 5y ago

Corrupt? I dont see it. Meandering, pointless, and ultimately futile without a readily-accessible thesis? Absolutely. But the fact is, nobody single-handedly builds much of anything of consequence anymore. To call out the architecture metaphor is absolutely necessary! But perhaps for different reasons. I'd be much more willing to trust what a society builds if everyone involved had a voice. Do I get to own my work when I design for Blizzard? Do I get agency over what I've built? And where does this end? Technicians and a minority of engineers alike raised concerns about O-Rings before a certain disaster... If only we gave them some level of oversight over their own work, the Challenger Disaster would never have happened. To suggest that any O-Rings anywhere are the responsibility/property of those NASA engineers is equally inane as divorcing the creator from their work. And yet, under our current intellectual property laws, this is too often the reality. The sole architect is a strawman of a metaphor outside of very specific contexts. And even within them - who trained this architect? What reference documents do they use? Who assigned the purpose for the building? While these inputs are not enough to carry ownership, they are enough to quit pretending some lone figure is a "creative genius" that cannot be outperformed by a team on larger-scale works.