Three Aspects of Teaching Architecture

I read this statement, part of a larger conversation with architecture students at Rice and Louis Kahn. Though he is discussing how to teach architecture, I think there are some great points that can be applied to librarianship as well. So, without further ado, here is the quote:

We were talking earlier this afternoon
of the three parts of teaching architecture.
Actually I believe that I do not really teach architecture,
but that I teach myself.
These, however, are the three aspects:

The first aspect is professional.
As a professional you have the obligation of
learning your conduct in all relationships...
in institutional relationships,
and in your relationships with men who
entrust you with work.
In this regard, you must know the distinction
between science and technology.
The rules of aesthetics also constitute professional knowledge.
As a professional, you are obliged to translate
the program of a client into that of the spaces of
the institution this building is to serve.
You might say it is a space-order,
or a space-realm of this activity of man
which is your professional responsibility.
A man should not take the program
and simply give it to the client
as though he were filling a doctor's prescription.

Another aspect is training a man to express himself.
This is his own prerogative.
He must be given the meaning of philosophy,
the meaning of belief, the meaning of faith.
He must know the other arts.
I used examples which I maybe have used too many times,
but the architect must realize his prerogative.
He must know that a painter can turn people upside down,
if he wants to, because the painter does not have to
answer to the laws of gravity.
The painter can make doorways smaller than people;
he can make skies black in the daytime;
he can make birds that can't fly;
he can make dogs that can't run, because he is a painter.
He can paint red where he sees blue.
The sculptor can place square wheels on a cannon
to express the futility of war.

An architect must use round wheels,
and he must make his doorways bigger than people.
But architects must learn that they have other rights...
their own rights.
To learn this, to understand this,
is giving the man the tools for making the incredible,
which nature cannot make.
The tools make a psychological validity,
not just a physical validity,
because man, unlike nature, has choice.

The third aspect you must learn
is that architecture really does not exist.
Only a work of architecture exists.
Architecture does exist in the mind.
A man who does a work of architecture
does it as an offering to the spirit of architecture...
a spirit which knows no style,
knows no techniques, no method.
It just waits for that which presents itself.
There is architecture, and it is the embodiment
of the unmeasurable.
Can you measure the Parthenon?
No. This is sheer murder.
Can you measure the Pantheon,
that wonderful building which satisfies the institution of man?

When Hadrian thought of the Pantheon,
he wanted a place where anyone could come to worship.
How marvelous is this solution.
It is a non-directional building,
not even a square, which would give, somehow,
directions and points at the corners.
There was no chance to say that
there is a shrine here, or there. No.
The light from above is such that you can't get near it.
You can't stand under it;
it almost cuts you like a knife...
and you want to stand away from it.

What a terrific architectural solution.
This should be an inspiration for all architects,
such a building
so conceived.

Louis Kahn, Louis I. Kahn: Conversations with Students. Princeton Architectural Press, 1998.

If you finished that quote, give yourself a pat on the back, get a cup of coffee or a glass of water and come back for how I think this applies to librarianship.

All set?

The first point Kahn talks about is teaching professionalism. Of course, he speaks to architecture students, but he does make some applicable points for library students, I think. He speaks of our professional relationships - that we must be taught the guidelines and expectations that govern us as what I call "true professionals," - meaning a career with a set of agreed upon ethical and behavioral guidelines. It is these guidelines (set forth by the ALA) that largely direct our professional conduct - and we must be taught these guidelines. I know I was taught these in IST 511 for Syracuse, but it is my understanding that all master's students at ALA accredited programs are required to receive the same education. We also learn how we as librarians fit into a larger information world.

Kahn's second point is about self-expression, which to me had no immediate connection to librarianship. However, as I thought about it, this thought came into my head: our self-expression as librarians comes at the intersection between our own personal motivations, ethics, and ideas and those of our larger profession. In his point, Kahn points out that artists can completely distort the world, but that architects have an obligation to create things which are usable but still are not without expression. As librarians, we are frequently the gateway or interpreter between our users and the information they seek - and as such, we can completely distort their view of the world, much as the hypothetical artist in Kahn's second point does. We have an obligation (as do architects) to be true to what it is people need and want from their information resources, and then to do our best to serve those needs with a blend of knowledge, creativity, and professionalism.

His third point, about the existence of architecture, has more application to an odd (and oftentimes confusing) idea in librarianship, namely FRBR. Kahn, in discussing the idea that architecture itself does not exist, is highlighting the difference between a work in FRBR and a manifestation/item. Architecture only exists in the realm of thought - but works of architecture we can actually touch, much like a manifestation or an item in FRBR are really the only parts we as users can interact with. I just thought that was a very elegant (and way ahead of its time) explanation of some of the concepts behind the FRBR framework.

What did you see in the quote that you liked? What did I miss? Do you disagree with what I took from it?