Feb '09 - Oct '09
Sorry to everyone for not having had the chance to write the past few weeks. I've been pretty occupied with work, and part of it was my own fault. I took a a 5 day trip to the Bahamas for a wedding which was a well needed break from things, but ended up putting me so far behind in my work, it got pretty crazy.
My studio review went ok. Part of the criticism was on my failed ability to communicate my ideas visually--which was a valid point considering that I had flown in from the Bahamas the night before and had 6 hours until my review to organize and clean up my drawings and diagrams. (I’m pretty sure I was still a little hung over too.)
I've started noticing a recurring theme at the BAC which is beginning to frustrate me. I think the overall teaching methodology could be described as "exploration" as opposed to "instruction." We're generally thrown into the deep end and expected to learn how to swim. For those who manage to figure it out the experience is incredibly fruitful. The problem is that most people don’t really end up making it out. Talking to my studio-mates, we all sorta felt like we didn’t know what we were doing until after our mid-review crit.
We began the project with simple diagramming—examining circulation, structure, solar and wind studies, views, etc. Then diagramming their relationship to each other. And as a final step, deploying these relationships in a new way. What I think was missing from our instructors was an explanation as to why we were doing what we were doing. When we began the project it would’ve been helpful to hear why we were diagramming, what it would do for us. How it will help us. I found that most students including myself began mindlessly diagramming. Making diagrams of circulation just because we were told to, without having an understanding of where the project is going. And then it would’ve been helpful to hear why we were “deploying” and why that is different from transformation. I think most of us ended up rebuilding structures that looked pretty similar to our original houses because we weren’t given an explanation of the difference between deployment and transformation. (To be honest, I’m not sure they really know either. In past years the project used to be a “transformation project”. They changed it this year for some reason.)
Exploration is a great way to learn. But without any instruction, exploration can easily become a sink-or-swim situation. The overwhelming feeling from the majority of students is that we never knew why we were doing what we were doing, and also considering that none of us have done any of this stuff before, sounds like a recipe for failure in my opinion. At the very least it’s inefficient. I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve been “exploring” down a line of thought only to find out later that it has no relevance to what that project is supposed to be about. Someone could’ve told me that…
I have to give my section instructor credit though for being more open to guiding us towards books and resources, giving us lessons, and overall trying to give us a basic knowledge base on the material we’re supposed to be learning. It helps. If anything it helps us better determine whether we’re on the right track.
I’m curious to hear what people from other schools think of this…whether or not their studio instruction operates in a similar way or not.
In other news, the other weekend our AIAS chapter had a tour of the Genzyme building in Cambridge—it’s the largest office building to have a Platinum LEED certification. Pretty cool use of reflective surfaces to direct natural light from the atrium to office spaces throughout the building. Pictures below.
3 Comments
diagramming is a technique that allows one to explore various scales of complexity about conditions as essense in a order to understand it - sometime one can look at similar diagramatic themes across disfferent aspects/ disciplines -
diagramming as a technique has embedded criticality and in order to make a proper diagram that is assertive you have to take a stand - generally it will be at a 'part of a project' rather than a whole.
diagramming allows one to develop complex language skills about a condition -
eiseman is a good source for diagramatic thinking -
no single diagram will lead to anything - you just understand the place/conditions better
once you understand the conditions - you can set out to distrub it
T
Our first M.Arch year started in an unusual way, at least for me. Let me explain why. Each semester we have 2 faculty members and the "primary" was away the first semester, leaving the other to do all the teaching. Throughout the first semester, I was frustrated yet open-minded as we went through extensive exploration/play with minimal instruction. You are very right to say that this method is potentially sink-or-swim for the student. I am fortunate enough that this method worked for me as I feel my work was strong. However I did not fully realize what I until AFTER my final critique and during winter break which could only have been successful with heavy reflection and retrospective thinking. Post-rationalization?
In our second semester the primary professor is again taking the lead. His teaching method is still exploratory in nature, but is a little different, but I can't put my finger on how yet. There have been times when the professor deliberately holds back information while talking one-on-one. I constantly remind myself to be open-minded and driven. You want to explore something that's relevant to the current assignment? Just do it. Read, ask questions, etc.
Graduate students are treated very differently at my school, but it is because they believe our maturity level allows for it, this aforementioned style of teaching. I have come to believe that directive style instruction is more for undergraduate students who tend to be less disciplined in their focus, attention span, time management, and other factors.
With all this said, I openly admit there have been times where I silently beg the teacher to just tell us why we're doing this or that. I feel like one of those high-school kids in my math class who always grunted, "Why do we need to know/do this?!" I realize that is a rather ignorant way of thinking with no faith in the teacher, but like I mentioned earlier, I remind myself to be open-minded and, to reiterate TED's comment, if I do decide to disturb anything I need to first understand what it is I want to disturb.
Thanks guys. That's a great way to put it--setting out to "disturb." And as a reaction to the last post, I think you have a good point with regards to taking initiative. Reflecting on past projects, I do find that my success comes when I push hard and take the initiative to explore on my own. I think I need to learn how to explore FASTER though. And that's probably where the last project fell through the wayside. If only I had one more week! it always seems to come down to that! :)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.