The point is, all jobs have a love/hate relationship. I can't think of any professions, where no one complains about their job. Naturally then, architects have a lot to gripe about too! And though I have written for this column for almost two years, I haven't yet listed out all the pros and cons of being an architect. I think I owe to readers to do this for at least once, not necessarily to turn you off or anything, but to really lay it to you what are some of the realities, everyday architects face. But for this first part, lets lay the background for what an architect should be first.

 Our society at large doesn't appreciate high culture as much as our ancestors might have eons ago. Today, it is all fast consumerism and fast consumption. Very few people have time to slow down and take a look around the environment, not until they are reminded to. Maybe this has something to do with the way we are educated, or the values we are infused with. Our educational system spends little on appreciation of art and culture. Very few takes the time to browse through public art galleries, enjoy a fine piece of music or even just sit back and take in our city. No one has time or energy anymore, for things that are unnecessary. In our culture, 'architecture' can sometimes be considered as superfluous, a luxurious accessory, rather than a necessity. This is a sad state of affairs. As the city buzzes around us, and we are lost in this mess.

	People rarely knows what's the job of an architect

The irony is, when you ask most ordinary people, whether they consider architects an important contributor in society, most would give a resounding 'yes'. In fact, architects' importance in society are commonly considered to be on the same par as doctors, engineers, lawyers and other professionals alike. Most believe that architects, do important useful things and contribute as pillars of society. But when asked 'what do you think they do?', rarely would one get a sophisticated, thought-through answer.

 'Well, they build things, right?' Yes. But why? A building contractor and a developer with the know how would be able to build a reasonable building. You certainly do not need an architect to put together contract documents and procurement schedules. A project manager with experience would be able to do that with more efficiency and accuracy. Most professional surveyors would know enough about building codes and ordinances, to ensure the buildings meet health and safety requirements. Engineers could handle all the structural calculations, energy audits, electrical designs, and plumbing requirements. So with all the modern day compartmentalization of responsibilities, and specializations, what do you need an architect for? Worst even, architects are often placed as the team leader in these construction teams, directly hired by clients to put together the teams and requirements of the project. Architects are the 'face' of the project. They are given so much responsibility to look over the whole project, that he or she forgets what their prime purpose is and what is the most important thing they can and should contribute in the whole process.

 Like a conductor of a symphony orchestra, or a film director of a movie. An architect's main purpose is to give the building, a 'direction'. A 'soul' you may say, a purpose to exist beyond its utilitarian functions. To be able to achieve that, than an architect can truly call himself/herself an architect. An architect's prime purpose is to use his knowledge in architectural discourse. The Roman architect 'Vitruvius' in the early 1st Century gave three fundamental principles required in a good building properly designed by its architect;-

1. Durability - it should structurally be sound and safe.
2. Utility - it should be useful and functional for its occupants and users.
3. Beauty - it should delight people and raise their spirits.

More and more emphasis was placed on beauty which stressed architect

Other philosophers, critics, thinkers and architects through the eons, further elaborated in this fundamental principal, but never veered away from its fundamental messages. But as the times went on, more and more emphasis was placed on the third principle of beauty, which stressed architecture's fundamental role to elevate the human spirit and inspire us in our daily chores. Lacking this last principle, immediately disqualified any work to be counted as 'architecture'. John Ruskin, a 19th Century English art critic, with his Seven Lamps of Architecture,  placed an overwhelming emphasis on the third principal and demands good architecture to possess the following seven points;-

1. Sacrifice - dedication of man's craft to God, as visible proofs of mans' love and obedience.
2. Truth - handcrafted and honest display of materials and structure.
3. Power - buildings should be thought of in terms of their massing and reach for the sublimity of nature by action of the human mind.
4. Beauty - aspiration towards God expressed in ornamentation drawn from nature.
5. Life - should be constructed by human hands, so the joys of its makers can be felt.
6. Memory - buildings should respect the culture from which they are developed.
7. Obedience - no originality for its own sake, but conforming to the finest English traditions.

Obviously, what he wrote seems irrelevant today. If we build the way he said we should, nothing would be built as the costs would be astronomical. But strip away all the nationalistic and religious overtones, what he is fundamentally proposing, is the importance of architecture as a tool to elevate the human heart and soul. Amidst our concrete forests, very few examples of buildings do we now see fulfills the fundamental requirement. More on this later.