In recent years, various social media platforms have reconfigured the distribution and consumption of architecture—a transformation that has reinvigorated the discipline and produced a wide array of provocative imagery. Yet, while architects can and should celebrate this exciting culture of exchange, there is also the risk of becoming too insulated from the problems and paradigms of larger culture. Ultimately, architectural schools bear the burden of navigating these forces and setting the tone for emerging professionals. As architectural educators chart the course for our discipline, they would be wise to revisit the pedagogical visions espoused by our predecessors.

In 1916, the Journal of the American Institute of Architects published a series of four essays, authored by Frederick L. Ackerman, concerning the state of American architectural education. [1] While Ackerman was himself trained in the Beaux-Arts tradition—first at Cornell, then in Paris—he held a deep suspicion of educational models that prioritize artistic ideals and formalistic tropes over a sincere understanding of present conditions. Adopting John Dewey’s belief that “learning is a necessary incident of dealing with real life situations,” Ackerman argued that architecture schools should go beyond abstract exercises in order to teach the application of design. [2] Many of his critiques—which are now more than 100 years old—continue to carry weight today. Consider, for instance, Ackerman’s bold indictment of self-indulgent formalisms: “The study of style, of form, isolated from actuating social impulses, is about as productive a process in the development of architecture as would be an attempt to grow a water-lily in a bed of sand.” [3] Or, consider his rebuke of overly-prescriptive pedagogical practices: “Parrot-like, we are made to repeat the old formulas; minds which should be made plastic to receive the new impressions resulting from changed conditions are made to solidify and congeal by the cold, chilling breath of complacency, smug satisfaction, and materialism directed against them.” [4] Throughout the four essays, however, one theme recurs more than any other: the need to develop a fuller understanding of The Present.

"What can we do to make more vivid the study of architecture? The answer is simple: Let our schools stress the study of the conditions of the present; let the program be a set of conditions derived from personal and actual contact with life." [5]

Let our schools stress the study of the conditions of the present; let the program be a set of conditions derived from personal and actual contact with life.

At its core, Ackerman’s argument for The Present is a critique of educational models that render students as passive receivers of knowledge. Such a critique was further developed by Paulo Freire in his 1969 book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Citing the power implications of the student/teacher relationship, Freire challenged the “banking model” of education wherein the teacher “makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat.” [6] Yet, while it is fairly easy to identify and critique this passive pedagogical model, it is far more difficult to propose a viable alternative. Ackerman’s call for “more intimate contact with the vital forces of The Present” represents one attempt to articulate a more active, exploratory approach to architectural education. [7] According to Ackerman, such a model would rely upon collaborative exchanges between architecture and its allied disciplines. Through direct interaction, he argued, “the student must learn to look upon his [sic] contribution not as an independent element which may at will be added or taken away, but rather as a factor to be integrated with other factors.” [8]

Ultimately, Ackerman’s vision for architectural education never became a reality (or, at least not the dominant reality). Instead, with Walter Gropius’ arrival at Harvard in the late 1930s, twentieth-century architectural curricula came to foreground the same types of formal explorations that Ackerman railed against.

As contemporary educators take stock of the discipline and debate the merits of various pedagogical practices, they would be well served to consider the unheeded voices from our disciplinary past. [9] The writings of Frederick L. Ackerman, for instance, provide one model for situating architecture within a broader field of socio-cultural, economic, and political forces. Moving forward, twenty-first-century educators and architects will have to make a choice. Will they embrace the problems and opportunities offered by Our Present? Or, will they turn inward once again for another round of isolated self-evaluation?

[1] Frederick L. Ackerman was a prominent New York architect whose practice centered on the synthesis of technology and society. He worked on a number of significant building projects, including First Houses, Sunnyside Gardens, and Radburn. His office was also the incubator for one of the most advanced architectural research projects of the early twentieth century: Architectural Graphic Standards. Produced by two of Ackerman’s employees–Charles Ramsey and Harold Sleeper–Graphic Standards brought together a wide array of existing data and best practices, which had previously resided solely within the minds of individual architects and draftsmen. 

[2] As quoted in Frederick L. Ackerman, “The Relation of Art to Education,” Journal of the American Institute of Architects 4, no. 5 (May 1916), 191.

[3] Ackerman, “The Relation of Art to Education, Part III: Architectural Schools,” Journal of the American Institute of Architects 4, no. 7 (July 1916), 284. 

[4]  Ackerman, “The Relation of Art to Education,” 190.

[5] Ackerman, “The Relation of Art to Education, Part II: Architectural Schools,” Journal of the American Institute of Architects 4, no. 6 (June 1916), 237. Emphasis added. A similar argument appears in the following essay of the series: “Attached to every problem is a sphere of human interest and endeavor related to The Present. Put the student in contact with that sphere, give him [sic] a chance to rub elbows with the world, let him, with a mind more open to new impressions than his [sic] teacher, cast the deciding vote as to how much of the physical past shall be taken along into the future by his generation.” Frederick L. Ackerman, “The Relation of Art to Education, Part III: Architectural Schools,” Journal of the American Institute of Architects 4, no. 7 (July 1916), 284. While Ackerman’s larger point is remarkably pertinent to contemporary discourse, his presumption of the male pupil dates the commentary to a specific historical moment.

[6]  Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 58. Noam Chomsky and others have made similar arguments through the metaphor of a “leaky vessel.” As Chomsky notes, this model is manifest in numerous educational initiatives, including “no child left behind,” “teaching to test,” and “race to top.” Noam Chomsky, “The Death of American Universities,” Jacobin: A Magazine of Culture and Polemic. https://www.jacobinmag.com/201... (accessed May 30, 2017). 

[7] Ackerman, “The Relation of Art to Education, Part III: Architectural Schools,” 281.

[8] Ackerman, “The Relation of Art to Education, Collaboration,” Journal of the American Institute of Architects 4, no. 11 (November 1916), 457.

[9] Our own present condition is characterized by a range of socio-cultural, technological, and environmental shifts. For instance, globalization, digital technologies, and climate change have each significantly influenced the trajectory of architectural education over the past two decades. In addition to these external factors, a notable transformation has also occurred within the structure of American education. Scholars like Noam Chomsky and Benjamin Ginsberg have commented on the corporatization of the university, citing the rising percentage of administrative positions, the increased reliance on adjunct faculty, and the tendency to treat students as consumers in a competitive marketplace. The confluence of these external and internal dynamics produces a complex situation–one that prompts further reflection on the larger ambitions of architectural education. For more on the corporatization of the university, see Noam Chomsky, “The Death of American Universities,” Jacobin and Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

Cross-Talk is a new recurring series on Archinect that endeavors to bring architectural polemics and debate up-to-date and up-to-speed with the pace of cultural production today. Each installation will feature four responses by four writers to a single topic. For this week's iteration, the topic is 'pedagogy'.