Journey Of An Architect

By Akanksha Shukla

We know that much of the architecture population is getting frustrated, changing directions and not getting into practice. 

An enormous number of malpractices in the path of learning architecture may surface, each with varied implications. If not corrected forthrightly, they cultivate a lenient perspective and a mindset that focuses merely on wrapping up tasks rather than producing quality work—the very essence of any meaningful project.

Countless participants in the field of architecture have reached a saturation point in their professional journey, where every form of brainstorming seems to collapse. A creative block. A thought block. A process block. And so much more. Indeed, there are only a few organized spaces where architecture and its related issues are genuinely discussed.

At every seminar, study tour, or guest lecture, we encounter brilliant mentors who can untangle and weave our ideas into beautiful designs. Their guidance is instrumental in shaping our receptiveness as learners. Yet, the truth feels somewhat different. In a country with nearly a million architects, there exist no more than a handful of intellectual organizations functioning for the betterment of the profession. The problem does not lie in the courtroom but in the approach.

Corrections in design projects are often suggested repeatedly—which, at a learning stage, should help us gain understanding. Yet, it sometimes feels like falling into the same pit again and again, unaware that there’s always more to uncover. This endless loop breeds agitation and hesitation to move forward. Over time, we learn to accept defeat easily. But even after failure, the push to continue persists—making the entire process both exhausting and relentless.

The ideal approach to teaching and correction should exist on an equal ground, where teaching and learning meet halfway. Learners should not hesitate to ask “silly” questions or present incomplete ideas. We are, after all, learners—and mistakes are inevitable at every stage.

In the guise of discussion, we often tear each other apart. The healthy, hopeful exchange between student and mentor no longer feels hopeful. What it lacks most is a genuine understanding of each learner’s temperament and potential—an understanding that could allow them to progress without the fear of contempt. There remains a ceaseless worry: “I don’t understand what changes are needed, and I’m terrified.”

“Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart,” said a Russian novelist. These words hold deep truth and should apply to everyone. Yet, when mentors become neglectful, confusing, or unhelpful, it breeds demotivation and drains the will to learn or create. Furthermore, it creates an optimistic environment for some specific learners who are pushed and brought forward all the time, in every discussion. 

This imbalance corrodes the very essence of discussion, turning it into a ground for comparison rather than collaboration. It grows into a cycle of redundant criticism and subtle belittling. Eventually, it leads to losing reverence—to apathy, ridicule, and dissatisfaction with one’s work.

Even in professional practice, one faces overwhelming challenges. The complexity of the job, the constant deadlines and neglection turn the process into an exhausting trial—especially in a highly competitive environment.

At its core, architecture has never been just about design — it is about endurance. It tests patience, adaptability, and the ability to stay grounded. The process often stretches beyond the drawing board; it challenges one’s sense of purpose and perseverance.

What the discipline truly needs is not constant perfection, but conscious learning. Growth in architecture should come from exchange, not hierarchy; from understanding, not intimidation.

Because in the end, the strength of architecture lies not only in the structures we build, but in the minds, we shape — steady, aware, and willing to evolve.

By Akanksha Shukla