This was what was drilled into us the first two years of architecture school. Looking back, we were all so optimistic. We all thought we could come up with something different and revolutionary than what other students decades before us have done. We all had the same project, the same requirements, same materials. How the hell do I set myself apart from the 100 other students if we all have an equal start? Answer: craft and execution beat out the competition every time. You can't understand how beautiful a two-inch by two-inch cube of gray museum board can be while you're inches away and it looks like a perfect cube of clay. Hell, you couldn't even see shadows from the edges.
Once we were past the fundamentals, we began designing spaces for people to inhabit. We have complete freedom to create a concept and form an idea of what we would like the building to become. We begin rough sketches and begin researching projects. And that's the thing -- Why do we always research projects if we already have a general idea on what we want to design? On every project we research wall systems, structural systems, finished materials, shading devices and the list goes on and on. We look at built and unbuilt projects while documenting our precedents for reference. The oddest thing is when you have a clear concept of your building. You're sure there is nothing in the world like what you're thinking and you find the EXACT same idea during your precedent research. Oh, and it is built too... multiple times... by totally different firms... oooon totally different projects. But, why do we still do research? Because that's how we learn as individuals. We all learn by copying what someone else has already done and apply it to our own use. Doesn't matter if it is architecture or business or science. We copy because what we copy is a proof of concept. It has been successful before and, if applied correctly, should yield successful results.
If everyone is copying everyone else, wouldn't everyone end up with the same result? No! Unless there are very specific guideline and steps to follow. Like performing an experiment. Referring back to what I learned in first-year architecture -- It doesn't matter how equal our materials and projects are, the defining factors are craft and execution. It is funny how common similar concepts come-up in architecture. I remember one semester three people in the same studio had the exact same concept, program and site. Guess what! All three of them had very different outcomes.
So how does copying lead to something different? We all contribute to the development of a discipline. On my most recent project, I needed to design a shading system. I did a decent amount of precedent research and found dozens of examples for what I wanted to execute, but the finished materials were different and I had to tweak the form of the shading device. Also, I had to figure out how to connect the shading device to building while staying within the language of the architecture.
I used to think, "how could I ever create something new and different if all I"m doing is looking at precedents?" How could I have a different thought if I'm looking at other peoples ideas? If anything, you become a more well-rounded person the more you expose yourself to different methods, technologies and even culture. You're able to grab your 'bag of tricks' to help you distinguish your work and yourself from others. You have to be able to research, document and put your own spin on an idea. Otherwise, you're just plagiarizing.
