I was clicking through the school blogs section of Archinect and I found an article that is eerily similar to what we are trying to do with module.
Here is the link for the article.
http://www.archinect.com/schoolblog/entry.php?id=87228_0_39_0_C
and
http://cornell-convivium.blogspot.com/
Basically, he and a group of students are analyzing the learning environment they are in. Pedagogy, time management, academic structure all come in to play. I know that Marisa has commented on the subject of re-thinking the academic structure for architecture. I think it is a valuable discussion, especially after reading the comments the blogger was suggestion.
Personally, I feel that the difficulties from studio are inevitable. Therefore, I need to adapt myself to the environment I'm rather than change the environment. However, that may not be the best approach. Maybe there does need to be a reassessment of our learning environment. I think it is safe to say that studio is not a healthy environment to grow in. The suggestions that Kyle, the blogger said, were directed towards the other classes we have to take. What if we removed those classes and could focus solely on studio? It might extend the schooling but may be their is worth to it.
I am starting to realize how important it is to be aware of the non-architecture related things we are learning from studio. What bad habits are we picking up that are worked so deeply in our subconscious that it may require another environment as intense as studio to work out? I fear sounding dramatic, however, I have concerns. Maybe this is a good place to get the dialogue flowing. I feel that I tend to repress my frustrations towards studio in order to not complain but maybe its time to cross the threshold, and take an objective stance on our learning environment and let it out.
Posts
I agree that our studio environment could use some re-evaluation. One important aspect to consider maybe the length of our time in studio. Would a more cognitive 4-year studio that builds in pressure be more appropriate for our field?
ReplyDeleteAlso, it could be interesting to consider what constitutes a "healthy" learning environment from architecture. In a way, I feel that the extreme pressure, late nights, and malnutrition have helped change my views towards certain aspect of life for the better. I feel like I am able to prioritize better and focus on what is important. However, I also am more apt to feel burnt out, irritable, and generally more anxious around people on a regular basis these days.
Is it beneficial to experience high-pressure environments and difficult living conditions in order to grow as a person?
For me an architectural education seems twofold. At times I feel the need to fully submerse myself into design, precedent, readings and images. These are the string of allnighters that may be pulled to formulate a basic parti or to refine proportions of ornamentation on a façade. Other times I feel the need to learn things that have little to nothing to do with architecture because someday they may be critical in how I make decisions in my design process.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that mastering architecture doesn’t come through an undergraduate education comprised of structure exams, history classes, and studio projects. Mastering architecture doesn’t come from CAD work interning for real life projects at a firm in your hometown. It doesn’t even occur once you are granted your license and people are paying you for your designs. I think mastering architecture occurs from standing at the base of the Egyptian pyramids, stepping into the Pantheon, and living through multiple architectural movements. Mastering only occurs when we understand buildings that have become timeless and why they have. Why every decision that the architect made was perfect (or imperfect). Why it was the right decision at that time, or how it was ahead of its time.
This can’t be taught in 4-6years no matter what the structure of our education is. The real question is how do you teach a subject without an answer? Where the ultimate goal isn’t a surface or an image it is a feeling. Its hard to teach someone how to create the feeling of space within social, economic, and physical context no matter what the curriculum is.
I used to think that completely submersing yourself into architecture and beginning studio from day one would be benefit me in preparing me for the professional world. And that may be true. But is my goal to be a professional by graduation? Or would it perhaps be better to study a wide range of subjects that shape how we design and make us individuals. Could these subjects that on the surface level have nothing to do with architecture actually make me a much better designer in the future? Probably.
I feel like at the most basic level architecture school should provide us with a some sort of a framework that allows us to develop a strategy for basic design and for analysis of the existing built environments. By the time we graduate from architecture school, we should be able make accurate, and fair assessments of design strategies and learn from them. Assessments such as "This works on this level and this is why, but doesn't work on this level and here is how to improve it" seem to be necessary in developing your own personally design strategy. I'm not saying that architecture school alone will be enough to allow you to make in-depth and meaningful critique, or make you a competent designer but I feel like it is meant to guide you in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteAll of the things Justin mentioned, from standing at the foot of a pyramid to being a CAD monkey for a summer are important in mastering architecture because they're all things that are part of the experience of being in the field. For instance, as a CAD monkey you get to see the inner workings of a firm and how business and the design process works on a daily basis, which is just as important to architecture as learning how to design in school or seeing great works in other countries.
I agree with Justin though, mastering architecture is not about 4 years in architecture school, it is about decades of dedication to all aspects of the field. How many of our favorite architects are under 40 or 50? I also agree that subjects that seem to have nothing to do with architecture can be just as important as our design classes. One of the things I find so attractive about the field is how varied it is. Knowledge of history, culture, politics, networking, and business can contribute to the success of an architect as much as their knowledge of design. Louis Khan probably would have benefited from a better understanding of business and people skills considering he was bankrupt when he died. Also, I'm sure Moshe Safdie would attribute some of his success to his considerations for culture and history in his designs for the Sikh Heritage Museum.
So what does that mean for the next year or three years if your going for your masters for studio? Does that motivate you to want to change the studio environment? I think that accepting that architecture school will not leave us with a resolved understanding of architecture, nor it should, is important, so that we leave with the bigger picture in mind, but what do we do in the meantime? How do we, if it is possible, make this process as beneficial as possible?
ReplyDeleteIs it by spending copious amounts of time in studio, pulling all nighters, not having a clue about what we are actually doing? Or is there a better way? I can see that in years from now we will be nostalgic about the studio process because we can be confident that we earned our architecture degree, that we passed through this ridiculous process that no one else in any other degree (that I know of) has to go through? Does that pride therefore validate the hazing process of studio rather then looking to another way to learn how to design? I'm not so convinced anymore.
Maybe we can actually learn how to design in a healthy environment. One that can be focused on actually learning how to design that does not seek to invalidate our character. To have professors who are more focused about design then paying us back for how they were treated when they were in studio. Has architecture become more identifiable by the studio process than the design process itself? If it has, is that justified?