When asking questions about how to teach architecture, we have to understand what architecture is as a profession. The profession, as the academy understands it, no longer exists. The service of architecture can largely be separated into two fields: design architecture and executive architecture. Design architecture is concerned with the design of space, and executive architecture with the delivery of that design. Pedagogy today attempts to prepare students for both of these roles, and in that way prepares them for neither. Contractors and fabricators are already comfortable executing architecture, and extra-disciplinary creative agencies (advertising, graphics, branding) take on the design of architecture without hesitation. This is indiscriminate to whether or not those who do the work were trained as architects. This will only continue.
Perhaps there should be two streams within architectural education: one for designers, the other for executors? Let’s be real, most offices that say they do both of these things employ people who are one or the other. Those that say an architect can be both an artist and an engineer are living within an ideological fantasy blind to the fact that labor, licensure, and liability make this impossible. Neither artist nor engineer should be privileged. We only believe that attempting to put square pegs in round holes is a waste of our students’ time, money, and effort.
Vocational training might best be assumed by industry through apprenticeship models. Architectural labor is not as skill-intensive as the profession thinks it is. Especially as automation allows architectural trade craft to get simpler; models similar to masonry and electrical work could make it much easier to be an architect. It’s probably harder to lay brick than to use Revit.
Training designers is in large part training desire, that is, learning how to reconcile competing ambitions, agendas, motivations, etc.
Training designers is in large part training desire, that is, learning how to reconcile competing ambitions, agendas, motivations, etc. Students need to be encouraged to think for themselves and empowered to have agency over their work and their ideas. The fear based model of education that is so ubiquitous within design studios imposes rules, techniques, and styles to be followed and emulated by students for success in the studio and the profession, but fall short of equipping students with the ability to confront challenges which are new and unfamiliar. Students leave school adept at performing the latest tricks, but—to be clear—these tricks have little to do with originality, authenticity, or progress. Rather, they are about satisfying a looks and styles demanded by the market. Fear follows dogma. We would do well to take more risks and give ourselves more space to fail.
[1] The general public is misinformed about what architects do. Depending on perspective, this can be good or bad. The reason the public is misinformed about what architects do is that we, within our own profession, lack consensus. But, maybe that’s okay?
[2] Our collective agency extends beyond image production. It is dangerous to assume that our students are only focused on making images for media consumption, and even more dangerous to assume that we are teaching this. Rapid consumption of imagery through social media is unavoidable. It is valuable that students are exposed to the work of others, and if they are given the tools to think about and judge these images then this sphere can be one of learning. We all need to (re)learn what it means to look and to see, or at least look without the social media filter of “Like.” Liking something is not a judgment; it is a default.
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'.
6 Comments
We won't solve a lot of the problems in the profession until we take the ego out of architecture. When we stop training everyone to be starchitects. When we teach teamwork. When we teach concern for the community as a means to help people and not just to become famous and win awards. When we acknowledge the hypocrisy of rewarding a Mastery level in building design to people who can't tell a curtain wall from a window wall. Etc
The pedagogy particularly has a lot of unnecessary fat that needs to be trimmed off before we can offer lean beef. The fat is delicious, but not healthy.
T
Stupid article written by someone who hasn't stepped into a real office in years. Stop poisoning the kids with your completely useless drivel. Most of us need to make a living in this profession.
Very much agree with this. The academic model at most universities is a recipe for disaster. No one is teaching students how to support themselves or others, only how to speak intelligently about issues that don't matter to anyone outside the academic world.
Um, bullshit.
"Those that say an architect can be both an artist and an engineer are living within an ideological fantasy blind to the fact that labor, licensure, and liability make this impossible. Neither artist nor engineer should be privileged."
"Students need to be encouraged to think for themselves and empowered to have agency over their work and their ideas. The fear based model of education that is so ubiquitous within design studios imposes rules, techniques, and styles to be followed and emulated by students for success in the studio and the profession, but fall short of equipping students with the ability to confront challenges which are new and unfamiliar."
You're both off on some serious bullshit.
I disagree with the notion that an architect can't be both artist and engineer. Certainly a person can exist with high degrees of both technical knowledge and aesthetic sensibility. Is the traditional architecture education the way to get there? Probably not.
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.