So I did some googling, found this review of John F. Harbeson's "The Study of Architectural Design", and bought the book (1927 publication), and would recommend this book for understanding the basis of U.S. architecture Curriculum. The key principles that carried over are clear: Everything you know about the Studio culture.
I was interested in the "Esquisse" and would like to relay what this is here in contemporary terms.
The "Esquisse" in the network of a central school of architecture with satellites (ateliers) had this initial assignment that is exactly like the one day ARE exam of the early licensing exam days or the Schematic Design of the now Thompson Prometric days in which the the candidate addressed and resolved a design problem for a well defined program without any books or help and submitted it to a standardized review board for the entire USA, like NCARB or something.
This project then proceeded based on this initial design, where the student filled in all the blanks - the details,. If the student did not match the initial design, the project was thrown out and disqualified from the competition and being graded. This demanded a serious approach to the problem from the get go, and is Professional to say the least. There is no time in the profession to do things over and over....Somewhere in Venturi Scott-Browns seminal work they mention - 'we didn't have the fees to do things twice...hence'.
This process required an initial clear approach to design. John Harbeson who taught at one of my alma matters would probably slice his wrist had he witnessed what we were doing 80 years later after he published his book.
(2006 @ UPENN) We were questioning the very thought process of addressing such a problem as the "Esquisse" with artillery supplied mainly by Gilles Deleuze via Manuel DeLanda. I believed this was Thwoomps problem with process, this obsessive review of process while solving a problem.
Why can't one just solve the architecture problem through some method of architecture?
with that said....
A couple other things I noticed, apparently only MEN participated in architecture, at no point is there mention of 'she' or 'they'...the book even says 'old men of the Ecole', boys workin' for old men...
But that's not what blew my mind, that's not what made me want to post this, while thinking twice about even doing it, since there was value to this book in principle....It was a paragraph I had to take a photo of and not re-type to make it clear, the photo below is from the book I am talking about and I think it addressed many many ills of this profession as often covered on Archinect.
I believe Donna Sink would have liked this reference in the Charleston, SC debate and I know Ken Koense will eat this up.
See below - A Gentlemen's Profession, no?
boy in a well
Dec 23, 14 6:18 am
hilarious and fascinating.
but the inclusion of beaux arts shit was a sham from the beginning in that conversation. no one displayed a sketch, no one displayed development. program, silent labor, parti, sketches, final drawings, end product. there was never display of 'process". that shit got niggered out, so to speak. fancy water colors only allowed at the end.
dear god.
faith to history has made a 4chan of us.
TIQM
Dec 23, 14 9:49 am
Yes that's pretty awful, especially to our contemporary ear.
Boy in a well... You are wrong about the process at the École. Sketches were displayed, critiqued, there was all manner of process, endlessly considered and reconsidered. The difference between the process at the École and what is generally taught today is that tremendous importance is put upon the initial idea, the vision, which is what comes out of the esquisse. As was noted, this establishes a serious approach from the start, and puts a premium on careful consideration and synthesis of the big picture as an initial step.
After the parti was established in the esquisse, then there was many weeks of careful process, including program, development, sketches, drawings, sections, elevations, details etc.
DTL DWG
Dec 24, 14 12:50 pm
"As was noted, this establishes a serious approach from the start, and puts a premium on careful consideration and synthesis of the big picture as an initial step"
After only slightly over a decade of working I am 100% certain school in general has replaced this initial step with tasks such as: research, diagramming, research, philosophy, linguistics, research, algorithms, parametrics, software, research...I really like Javier Arbona's essay The Rise Of the Darists with regard to - research! (or the problem thereof, thanks again Nam for the link)
In practice, and I mean like daily practice, where you resolve issues constantly - considering all things all the time - something like the 'esquisse' seems to be a much more fundamental and appropriate approach to the 'practice' of architecture unlike this Darist stuff.
What OMA and BIG do for the most part is called "schematic" design. This is what architectural education has resolved itself into - "schematic design". and yes Orhan I have been to Kunsthal, Lille, Den Haag, etc...and in all cases the detailing of OMA projects is sub-par, supporting my argument here...also privy to other projects that clearly indicate these guys do mainly - "schematic design".
If "schematic design" is all you do, then not getting it right the first time, or simply being lazy in consideration of what will be architecture is easy - other professionals and consultants will figure it our for you, so why bother?
Not suggesting we return to 'traditional' design since this isn't about 'style' but about 'practice' or more importantly 'architecture' and if you like I can teach you how to do Zaha, Libeskind, Eisenman, Lynn, Gehry etc...'style' in 3dsMax - a how to in 5 minutes kind of thing.
_____
@ boy in the well - I feel I need a few drinks to get into the groove of your post, and I do have a nice Johnie Walker gift package from a GC to dig into...
Given your appreciation for Eisenman as an educater - is the following a record of "process in design" or "thinking about process in design"?
The thread posted by thwoomp Where did the dogma of "design process" originate? got me to research further the claim that "process: came from Ecole Des Beaux Arts.
So I did some googling, found this review of John F. Harbeson's "The Study of Architectural Design", and bought the book (1927 publication), and would recommend this book for understanding the basis of U.S. architecture Curriculum. The key principles that carried over are clear: Everything you know about the Studio culture.
I was interested in the "Esquisse" and would like to relay what this is here in contemporary terms.
The "Esquisse" in the network of a central school of architecture with satellites (ateliers) had this initial assignment that is exactly like the one day ARE exam of the early licensing exam days or the Schematic Design of the now Thompson Prometric days in which the the candidate addressed and resolved a design problem for a well defined program without any books or help and submitted it to a standardized review board for the entire USA, like NCARB or something.
This project then proceeded based on this initial design, where the student filled in all the blanks - the details,. If the student did not match the initial design, the project was thrown out and disqualified from the competition and being graded. This demanded a serious approach to the problem from the get go, and is Professional to say the least. There is no time in the profession to do things over and over....Somewhere in Venturi Scott-Browns seminal work they mention - 'we didn't have the fees to do things twice...hence'.
This process required an initial clear approach to design. John Harbeson who taught at one of my alma matters would probably slice his wrist had he witnessed what we were doing 80 years later after he published his book.
(2006 @ UPENN) We were questioning the very thought process of addressing such a problem as the "Esquisse" with artillery supplied mainly by Gilles Deleuze via Manuel DeLanda. I believed this was Thwoomps problem with process, this obsessive review of process while solving a problem.
Why can't one just solve the architecture problem through some method of architecture?
with that said....
A couple other things I noticed, apparently only MEN participated in architecture, at no point is there mention of 'she' or 'they'...the book even says 'old men of the Ecole', boys workin' for old men...
But that's not what blew my mind, that's not what made me want to post this, while thinking twice about even doing it, since there was value to this book in principle....It was a paragraph I had to take a photo of and not re-type to make it clear, the photo below is from the book I am talking about and I think it addressed many many ills of this profession as often covered on Archinect.
I believe Donna Sink would have liked this reference in the Charleston, SC debate and I know Ken Koense will eat this up.
See below - A Gentlemen's Profession, no?
hilarious and fascinating.
but the inclusion of beaux arts shit was a sham from the beginning in that conversation. no one displayed a sketch, no one displayed development. program, silent labor, parti, sketches, final drawings, end product. there was never display of 'process". that shit got niggered out, so to speak. fancy water colors only allowed at the end.
dear god.
faith to history has made a 4chan of us.
Yes that's pretty awful, especially to our contemporary ear.
Boy in a well... You are wrong about the process at the École. Sketches were displayed, critiqued, there was all manner of process, endlessly considered and reconsidered. The difference between the process at the École and what is generally taught today is that tremendous importance is put upon the initial idea, the vision, which is what comes out of the esquisse. As was noted, this establishes a serious approach from the start, and puts a premium on careful consideration and synthesis of the big picture as an initial step.
After the parti was established in the esquisse, then there was many weeks of careful process, including program, development, sketches, drawings, sections, elevations, details etc.
"As was noted, this establishes a serious approach from the start, and puts a premium on careful consideration and synthesis of the big picture as an initial step"
After only slightly over a decade of working I am 100% certain school in general has replaced this initial step with tasks such as: research, diagramming, research, philosophy, linguistics, research, algorithms, parametrics, software, research...I really like Javier Arbona's essay The Rise Of the Darists with regard to - research! (or the problem thereof, thanks again Nam for the link)
In practice, and I mean like daily practice, where you resolve issues constantly - considering all things all the time - something like the 'esquisse' seems to be a much more fundamental and appropriate approach to the 'practice' of architecture unlike this Darist stuff.
What OMA and BIG do for the most part is called "schematic" design. This is what architectural education has resolved itself into - "schematic design". and yes Orhan I have been to Kunsthal, Lille, Den Haag, etc...and in all cases the detailing of OMA projects is sub-par, supporting my argument here...also privy to other projects that clearly indicate these guys do mainly - "schematic design".
If "schematic design" is all you do, then not getting it right the first time, or simply being lazy in consideration of what will be architecture is easy - other professionals and consultants will figure it our for you, so why bother?
Not suggesting we return to 'traditional' design since this isn't about 'style' but about 'practice' or more importantly 'architecture' and if you like I can teach you how to do Zaha, Libeskind, Eisenman, Lynn, Gehry etc...'style' in 3dsMax - a how to in 5 minutes kind of thing.
_____
@ boy in the well - I feel I need a few drinks to get into the groove of your post, and I do have a nice Johnie Walker gift package from a GC to dig into...
Given your appreciation for Eisenman as an educater - is the following a record of "process in design" or "thinking about process in design"?
Happy Holidays!