Report comment

I think that the key question at the heart of this debate between practice and academia is not 'what is architecture' but 'what is an architect?'.

As a practicing architect I have no issues with this sort of thoughtful and high quality experimentation, I am also sure that these graduates are very imployable in one way or another, and I have enjoyed many Bartlett / Westminster exhibitions in the past. However I strongly feel that courses that produce this type of work should be renamed 'Architectural Experimentaiton' or 'Architectural Animation' and crucially should not lead to RIBA accrediation or become one of the key elements for qualifying as a fully fledged, practicing architect.

There is a simple question that needs to be addressed: How can someone who has not designed a single building in their their entire final (and most important) year be sanctioned to practice building design and delivery in the real world afterwards?