Recently a discussion has returned to the conversation circles among Engineers and Architects: the vote on PL 9818/2018. Among other things, it is about the repeal of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 of Law 12.378 of December 31, 2010, which regulates the exercise of the professions of Architects and Urban Planners. These paragraphs govern the authority of the CAU - Council of Architecture and Urbanism - to define the areas of exclusive practice of Architects and Urbanists. According to CAU it is a matter of autonomy, according to CREA and PL 9818/2018 itself, it is a legal problem, since no council can plead for exclusive attributions, thus creating a market reserve.
The most interesting thing is that the CAU itself, when defending itself cites Resolution No. 218, 1973 of CONFEA, but forgets that this same resolution places the attributions of architects in shared form with Civil Engineers. I believe that the biggest divergence should be about the execution of the architectural project. This makes sense, since the architectural project is one of the most expensive parts of a building project. But it is not the only one, and CAU in its manifestation fails to clarify important points such as the role of architects in interior design, landscaping, land division and even furniture design. Points that conflict with designers, forest engineers, biologists, agronomists, surveyors, and even carpenters. But if you are an architect, calm down! Don't hate me yet...
When I enter into conversations about the subject I like to use the analogy of the Administrator. Can you imagine if the Regional Administration Council decides to say that only business administrators can administer companies? Absurd? Maybe, but that's what happens with Law 12.378 that violates clauses II and XIII of art. 5 of the Federal Constitution, about the principle of legal reserve and the principle of freedom of professional exercise:
"The exercise of any work, trade, or profession is free, subject to the professional qualifications that the law establishes."
Any architect can rightly argue that the creation of CAU was done by Law, so it doesn't hurt the constitution. The problem is in the use of the word exclusive, because the attributions of engineers are also given by Law, and there can be no overlapping of one law to the detriment of another. But this is a legal aspect and we, mere mortals, would die on the beach in any debate over the tartarus of Brazilian jurisdiction.
It may seem like a current issue, but the subject is actually recurrent and dates back to the Middle Ages. There were no distinctions between Civil Engineer and Architect, the figures were better represented by images such as: the master builder and the designer. Vitruvius, considered to be the father of both professions, left in his treatise on architecture, the necessary techniques for any ancient designers, valuing both the human side and the analytical precision.
The master builder, on the other hand, is something similar to the construction engineer, a professional chosen by the king, usually from the military order but of lower rank than the designer, and who was responsible for dealing with the construction workforce, the construction processes, the quality and the adequacy of the parameters used. At that time there was no ABNT, but techniques already existed, and the master builder was the man with a vast curriculum in works for the king or the empire, who was able to deal with both the high-ranking and the (slave) labor force of construction, often the problem of rank was solved with experience and he himself became a designer with time.
It is interesting to keep in mind that in the old days, in a statist society, those responsible for infrastructure works were the military themselves, since the infrastructure of the country was considered a matter of national security, and often the architecture of the State was confused with its own protection. Examples abound: Luxembourg, Toledo, and the Wall of China itself, are all cities/structures built to inhabit and protect. Over time the construction technique evolved, and it was necessary for professionals to become increasingly specialized, but the function of the profession remained the same: building.
It was in 1768 that the English engineer John Smeaton called himself a civil engineer, as a way of separating him from the military. Smeaton followed the trend of the Industrial Revolution - specialization in a single branch. John saw himself as a Civil Engineer, and sought to work in this type of infrastructure. He created the Society of Civil Engineers and started one of the most traditional professions in the modern world.
A similar fact occurred in the 20th century, with the emergence of modernist movements, such as the Bauhaus, The Stijl and Le Modulor, where Architects or Designers (designers) aimed at a more artistic approach to their work, with a well-defined philosophy and a versatile approach to the demands of society. Then comes the idea of a new architecture, and with it a new professional.
As for the formation of this professional, I leave the word to the creator of this architecture Walter Gropius:
"It is more important to teach a method of reasoning than mere skills. It should be a continuous process, developing concentrically, like the annual rings of a tree. The cycle of tasks should remain global at all stages of education, not be divided into isolated parts, and gradually increase in intensity and depth in all fields at the same time[...] If he (the student) starts from the general to the particular, and not the reverse, he will easily learn all the other minutiae and order them where they belong."
Nevertheless, as to the creative/artistic capacity, the master teaches:
"I am convinced, however, that there are artistic capacities in every human being; it is only that today the deeper values of life are undermined because the main accent of our existence rests on secondary things, such as commerce as an end in itself, and the purely practical side of this or that profession."
Both excerpts were taken from pages 86 and 81 of the book Bauhaus: New Architecture Debates series, published by Perspectiva.
Gropius defended the formation of a new architect, more valued, who knew how to fight for his space. With this caveat, I reaffirm my conviction that, if he were still alive, the Bauhaus creator would find this discussion frivolous, and very distant from the professional he aimed to educate. Much more than architects, Gropius' ideas portray the profile of a designer, and what skills he should have. I am sure that the core of this whole debate is the trade of architectural projects, because of the emphasis given by CAU and by many architects who debate the subject, that is: secondary issues. If the artistic capacity focused on solving social problems were of paramount importance, the CAU would not be fighting for exclusivity of projects, but for guarantees for the quality of execution of such projects with its sister councils.
Worse yet, if it were really the case of an exclusive attribution, there would be no need to fight for it; it would be like putting a biologist to perform cardiovascular surgery. He even knows the object of study, knows how to identify the attributions of each one of them. But he would be totally lost during the process and would not have the slightest notion of how to guarantee the quality of his solution - by quality we mean the adherence to the client's needs. But such divergence only shows how far we are from becoming those professionals idealized by the designers who laid the foundations of modernism.
Much is criticized about the formation of engineers, who supposedly "don't do projects during their graduation". I consider this not only an observation of the dissonance between both professions, but also of the lack of respect between professional colleagues. First, because the civil engineer's education deals with projects from the very first period, just as architecture does. The big difference is in the type of approach to solving the problem. While the civil engineer has a more analytical education, more focused on the elements and their mechanical properties, the architect has a more humanistic education, focused on utility, the use of space, and its relationship with the environment. In other words, they are different approaches to solving the same problem.
But does this mean that an architect will always be better at solving utilization and an engineer better at solving technology? Absolutely not! Reality shows how fine the line between both professions is. Gaudi is one of the best examples of this, being a master in the application of compression arches, he was an architect, but his structural solution inspires engineers to this day. Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the giants of North American architecture studied Civil Engineering, until he quit his profession to start working as an independent architect. Others, like Santiago de Calatrava, show that both professions go hand in hand, with degrees in both architecture and engineering. Examples abound: Gustave Eiffel, Prestes Maia, Thomas Telford, and why not: Leonardo da Vinci himself.
So the debate about attributions of the professions is nothing more than a frivolous commercial dance. Both professionals are qualified to elaborate solutions for the built environment and infrastructure, and each profession has its own characteristics and peculiarities that will help the professional to elaborate his solution. The winner is society, which has a greater variety of choices in the solution to its problems. My opinion is that the debate should evolve towards normatizations that guarantee the quality of the project, and avoid the usurpation of the profession by "adventurers". As an example, INMETRO's Technical Quality Regulation for the Energy Efficiency Level of Residential Buildings and Performance Standard 15.575 are regulations that bring new light to the exercise of the design profession.
The rest is history.
Comments