Daedalean Dilemmas -Can the pursuit of architecture, with its inherent structures of risk be supported by and reconciled with the values of a profession ?Leon van Schaik Why is it that despite the direst of predictions, and pessimistic descriptions of the professional lives of architects, so many continue to be determined to be architects? The lottery associated with the harnessing of creativity to the service of the community is a compulsive one. In this paper I will argue that the proper pursuit of architecture is the search for an architectural reality, and that a rigourous definition of the profession could assist us in this pursuit, but will not remove the structures of risk that lie at the core of the act of design - the dilemma at the outset, and I quote from the essential Blau J Architects and Firms: a Sociological Perspective on Architectural Practice The MIT Press 1987 "Daedalus is remembered as the first to venture to fly. Fitting his son, Icarus, and himself with wings constructed of feathers attached by twine, wax and glue to a light frame of wood, Daedalus  and Icarus set out for Crete. What is often forgotten is that Daedalus, in legend at least, was also the first important architect, having designed the extraordinary labyrinth and temple complex for his patron, King Minos. It was Minos`s pleasure and delight with Daedalus`s architectural service that prompted Minos to hold Daedalus captive on the island of Crete, which was the reason Daedalus and Icarus risked escape with the artful wings.Architecture ... is governed by structures of risk that accompany opposing conditions of various sorts1.  This passage reveals two fundamentals at the origin of architecture: firstly it challenges the belief that the mythical ontology is that of the primitive hut or mere shelter2 {the origin by type} or that of the ornamented surface3 {the origin through signs}. The first architect is architect to the sacred and to the historical, the temple and the labyrinth; buildings that hold and convey communal values and credentials. Obviously there are questions about the limits of this restriction which Rossi, for example, explores in the analysis of type and in the aggregation of social housing into objects of monumental scale, but the simple act of creating shelter from the elements is clearly an act that does not need the agency of an inventor like Daedelus. The second is that architecture is a revolutionary practice with inherent structures of risk. Allegorically, the structure of risk is that the invention of flight enables escape, but in so doing creates new dangers: Icarus flies too close to the sun and plummets to his death in the ocean.  The limitation in the definition posed by this myth chimes well with the necessity to establish the specific knowledge base of architecture: a pre-requisite, as will become apparent, for the existence of a profession of architecture. The need for a structured alliance of inventors of the architectural kind is not self-evident unless one has concerns about the relationship between Daedalus and Minos, and its effect on third parties conducted into the labyrinth. The goal of having a profession is to establish an ethical basis for practice and to extend the knowledge base of practice.  I argue for the definition promoted by Davis McCaughey in his lectures: Piecing Together a Shared Vision 1987 Boyer Lectures ABC Enterprises NSW 1988. In these he discusses the Professional Ethics - the codes, conventions and guide-lines that control the patterns of life adopted by members of a profession. He argues that: "the fusing of three values in a profession gains other people`s respect: 1 the value placed upon systematic knowledge and the intellect - knowing2 the value placed upon technical
www.leonvanschaik.com/ethics/EthicsandARCHUWA.doc