We often applaud the work created by licensed architects, but what about those who are self-taught? Filmmaker Zack Godshall explores the intriguing and similar motivations behind the building of five very different but very interesting structures around the country in a new documentary film...
What started as a travel grant to research self-taught architects and builders around the South turned into a full-fledged film project after filmmaker Zack Godshall and collaborator Emilie Taylor discovered that many of the self-taught builders claimed their ideas came from divine inspiration. The film is an in-depth look into five structures built without blueprints or end goals. We got the chance to preview the film, and we think if you're interested in architecture, folk art or religion you'll find these structures and these architects quite intriguing. We asked Godshall some questions about the film:
Did you go into the project with any preconceived notions or expectations?
Initially I was very impressed with the more mysterious aspects of the builders and their work. The fact that each man professes divine inspiration and influence really attracted me. Many people nowadays tend to dismiss these kinds of claims, and so I was interested in meeting the men where they stand and listening to what they had to say and profess. But once I got into the shooting and editing, I began to really respect and love the builders themselves. Their personalities began to shine through in the footage. And so in editing the film, I recognized that my interactions with the builders really revealed a deeper truth about the men and their work, a greater truth than I had in mind at the beginning. And so as it is now, the film is a lot more direct and personal than I had imagined at the beginning, and I believe this evolution was a good thing for the movie, and for myself.
What surprised you most about talking with each one of the architects?
While some of the builders are deep thinkers and others are more practical and matter of fact, each builder has some important wisdom to share, at least to my mind. But more than this, I was blown away by how funny the builders are. They each have a rather wild sense of humor, and much of that has ended up in the film. Some of them really are comedians.
Do you think there’s a difference between the passions and motivations that drive these men versus the ones that drive licensed architects?
These men do not worry about codes and laws. They build according to intuition and without blueprints. Neither do they concern themselves with the practical concerns that most contracted architects must consider. While the title of the film refers to the men as architects, I think “builder” seems to describe them a bit better. They don’t really concern themselves with the process of pre-visualization as does a traditional architect. So aside from the perspective of a designer, the builders in the film work in a way that is more purely intuitive and immediate. As Shelby Ravellette, the mason, says, absolute precision is not a concern of the mason. In the case of a traditional architect, precision is key.
In Godshall's words, this film is really about "inspiration and dedication to a project, no matter how bizarre or ridiculous the circumstance may seem. And that is something everyone can relate to." You can find out more information about this movie at the website. If you're in Austin, you'll be able to catch a screening of the film as well as purchase DVD's on Wednesday, November 11th at the Alamo Drafthouse South Lamar location. More information at AIA Austin.
What do you think about self-taught architects and builders? Have you ever visited a structure created by someone self-taught? Are you yourself a self-taught builder? Let us know!
(Top Image: Flickr member [OlgaKaynow] licensed for use under Creative Commons; other images screen captures from the God's Architects)
It is wrong of AT writers to refer to these men as architects. As you can see, the film maker refers to these men only as builders.
The title 'architect' is one to be earned and respected, just like 'Doctor.'
Other than that, the documentary sounds quite intriguing.
view allisonharris's profile
Amen, allisonharris!!
Talented builders, yes, inspired and inspiring designers, absolutely. Architects? NO.
Bluntly--it's easier in the US to become a doctor or a lawyer than it is to become an architect. I spent 7 years in college, interned for another three, and I've been working in the field for over 10 years. But until I pass my seven-part, $1,500 exam it is illegal for me to call myself an architect. (Don't even get me started on so-called "software architects".)
Simply the fact that "these men don't worry about [construction] codes and laws" takes them out of the realm of architect, and shame on the filmmaker for titling them so.
view rockypondgirl's profile
I attended the premiere in Birmingham, and have to say this film is absolutely amazing.
view aesopsgato's profile
you guys are just jealous that you are in debt up to your ears from schooling and haven't built anything that's in a movie.
ar·chi·tect (ärk-tkt)n.
1. One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures.
2. One that plans or devises: a country considered to be the chief architect of war in the Middle East.
boyah
Veeery nice article AT
view benfowler's profile
The architectural profession places the restriction on calling oneself an "architect". No jealousy involved. It's become the same dangerous ground as calling oneself a physician or doctor or M.D. without having met all the professional requirements. A looser use of the word will get you in trouble these days.
view youngbloop's profile
To rockypondgirl
I may be a little sensitive as I'm studying for my boards now but easier to become a doctor than architect??? Unless you have done both don't start comparing without knowing the time that medical students/doctors put into their career. So please don't say it so lightly that it's easier to be a doctor than architect. I can go on and on about medical school experience, having to take not 1 but 3 of those 7hour exams to be called an MD and practice (not that I'm complaining since it comes with the territory)...but it rubbed me the wrong way when I read your comparison.
Anyhow back to doing what I came here to do, surfing AT & relaxing.
view soni's profile
To me, the people depicted in the film are "artisan builders" or some such, not actual architects. It takes longer to become an architect than a medical doctor, hard to believe but true. Calling those in the film architects is sure to offend those who earned the name and license. Interesting film nevertheless.
view Kalio's profile
I agree wholeheartedly allisonharris and rockypondgirl.
The dictionary definition of a lawyer doesn't mention anything about college degrees or the bar exam but those are still the defining characteristics that distinguish between a lawyer and a layperson. The same is true for teachers. And accountants. And physicists.
The people featured in the research and the film have many great qualities--creativeness, ingenuity, determination, vision. But they are not architects.
view kodak's profile
I'm so excited about this movie! Architect debate aside, this is a topic that really fascinates me. I've done a bit of research into roadside attractions like these. It seems that the people who built them are eccentric, perhaps crazy, but above all I respect their determination. I'm amazed by what one person can make when they stop making excuses and just build.
view StudioStarter's profile
amazing. the director's last name is GODSHALL
view saraesc's profile
oh, i hope i get to see this movie one day.
view betsbillabong's profile
I'm with allisonharris, rockypondgirl, youngbloop, and kodak and am appalled, absolutely APPALLED, at AT referring to these people as "architects" because they quite simply AREN'T!
Regardless of the dictionary definition, benfowler, people can't LEGALLY called themselves an architect unless they've had the proper training and passed the exams proving that they have the capability of being such. Therefore, others shouldn't refer to them as architects either. And this isn't just elitism. When you hire an architect to design your building you can have confidence that the building will not fall down and kill you and if it does the architect is liable. Whereas such "self taught architects" have no proven training. Think about it. Do you really want to risk your life to a building potentially falling down on you?
view Daily Nuance's profile
yes. yes I do.
view benfowler's profile
As a wannabe landscape architect (I still have to work a few years in the field and sit/pass exams now that I've graduated from an accredited 5 yr. program) I take issue with calling these guys self taught architects as well. They are at best designers who operate design/build companies. If one of their creations were to collapse and mame or kill people everyone would be cursing them for practicing architecture without a license.
Any dirtbag can call himself a designer, but once you try to call yourself an architect or landscape architect you have crossed into the territory of established, recognized professions with licenses and legal responsibilities to their clients and the public.
Kodak, a lawyer is a person who has studied the law. An attorney is licensed to practice.
view slobound's profile
You tell 'em Ben!
It's like the way that art produced by people who haven't been to art college is refered to as being "outsider art". Stupid, stupid, stupid elitism!
view AcrossThePond's profile
IT'S NOT ELITISM! IT'S ILLEGAL!
That's what separates a profession from a job. You wouldn't let just anyone prepare your taxes, or drill your teeth, or perform surgery on your loved ones. Same goes for architects. Architects have to be aware of, and keep track of, not just the design of the project, but the building codes, zoning/permits, engineers and consultants on top of keeping the client, developer and users happy.
It is a highly complex profession that not just anyone can do. It takes years of schooling, on the job experience and liscensing exams before you EARN the right to call yourself an architect.
view allisonharris's profile
slobound--not according to the dictionary. According to the dictionary, lawyer and attorney are synonymous.
And that was my point. The dictionary is not from where a profession is defined.
view kodak's profile
Wow, there's a lot of passion on this subject! Just my two cents - I am a general contractor so I work with a lot of "architects", and I can tell you that at least here in Los Angeles, anyone who has a degree in architecture and works for an architectural firm refers to him or herself as an "architect" - regardless if he or she has passed the exams or not.
view Emily the Cat's profile
And @Daily Nuance - Most architects know little to nothing about keeping buildings from falling down on you. That's not their job. Talk to a structural engineer for that.
view Emily the Cat's profile
God's architects is the title of the movie, it is clearly an expression, an appropriate use of the English language...not a legal definition. Chill out people! I happen to think it is a really interesting application, I mean LOOK at those things they have built.
BTW I think anyone who claims it takes longer to become an architect than a doctor doesn't know what they are talking about. It can be variable and tedious, also critical to get in the extra years of study to become an elite doctor, every person takes a different path.
This was a way cool article and AT wasn't calling them architects the director of the movie was, these comments are bringing me down :(
view RalphEMole's profile
RalphEMole:
I believe most people were referring not just to the title of the movie but the entire AT article which uses the term 'self-taught architect' repeatedly.
And as for the comparison of educational requirements between doctors and architects, the baseline minimum for both is nearly the same. Both fields also have specializations that require additional training and education.
There is almost no person on this earth whose welfare and safety is not affected by the work of an architect. All of the medical knowledge in the world won't help you if a surgical room isn't sterile or a recovery room isn't therapeutic.
view kodak's profile
film looks interesting. I don't understand the surprise at people building and designing their own homes though. With a good contractor and a structural engineer to sign off on the plans loads of people all over North America are building their own homes. I prefer the ones people are making with rammed earth and strawbales but truly the best house always seem to be the ones where the owners had a hand in the design. I've gotten to help build some rammed earth homes and it's amazing how easy it is.
view TheoJ's profile
OMG, I am a landscape architect and could have predicted the responses as I was reading the article!! First to the 'men' and second to the 'architects' : ) I don't find either offensive but I do think the film should perhaps reflect on the terms (given that others may have the same reaction as AT) and I think it might result in litigation to use the term architect. At any rate, I think this is a great subject to explore and look forward to checking out the film. Cool idea and I hope it goes well! We can all learn something from these 'people who build'!!
view wormy's profile