Photo of Exhibition. Photos by Liz Galvez w/ Abby Stock, Michael Ferguson, Valeria DeJongh

This week we talk to Elizabeth Galvez who is was the 2018-19 Muschenheim Fellow at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College.

Fellow Fellows is a series that focuses on the current eruption and trend of fellowships in academia today. These positions within the academic realm produce a fantastic blend of practice, research and design influence and traditionally within a tight time frame. Fellow Fellows sits down with these fellows and attempts to understand what these positions offer to both themselves and the discipline at large. Fellow Fellows is about bringing attention and inquiry to an otherwise maddening pace of refreshed academics while giving a broad view of the exceptional and breakthrough work being done in-between the newly minted graduate and the licensed associate. 

Which fellowship did you do and what brought you to that fellowship?

I was the 2018-19 Muschenheim Fellow at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College. I was especially excited about the fellowship program at Taubman College due to the diverse range of faculty at the college. The opportunity to interact with colleagues at all stages of their careers and also the wide range of research topics that they tackle was a major draw as well as the legacy of their fellowship programs. Lastly, it also felt like an advantage to come into the fellowship as a small cohort of three, as Taubman offers The Muschenheim, Oberdick, and Sanders fellowships to three early career applicants every year.

What was the focus of the fellowship research?

The focus of the fellowship evolved from proposal to implementation, but originated with the idea to study and re-construct domestic water use. This is a larger project that I continue to work on which I like to call Domestic Hydrology. Originally, I was interested in studying the constructs of water-usage within the suburban home and the particular layouts of the water-using elements of the home, such as the roof, lawn, swimming pool, kitchen, and bathroom. Eventually, I focused on the study of the bathroom in particular, especially in understanding and challenging how domestic bathrooms are typically designed (or not designed).

What did you produce?/teach?/and/or exhibit during that time?

Actually, the course that I was teaching at the time, of the first semester of my fellowship was titled/themed “a-construct: the World According to Architecture.” The students were to propose a new vision for the Ann Arbor City Hall, that not only described architecture, but the type of government that would ensue, should such a proposal be built. We tackled the studio through the understanding of a series of ideological constructs that are at work in the city hall’s parts and pieces. We began via a precedent study of parts to wholes by drawing each precedent through its constituent parts so that we could examine apples to apples on two axis: program and time. That is, we could examine programs within a building, but also find common traits for programs across precedents of differing cultures and ages. This information served to formulate understandings of certain ideological constructs, while leveraging the strategic opportunities to intervene in the system.

My previous research and examination of the suburban house through a study of its individual pieces influenced the pedagogical outlook of the studio, while the studio reciprocally influenced my decision to focus the research project on a single space within the home – that of the bathroom. For the research project, myself and a team of three graduate students began the process of redesigning the domestic bathroom. We designed “9 spec-ulative bathrooms!” each exemplifying a differing ideological take on lifestyle – hygiene, pleasure, environmental concern, and so on. Some bathrooms were all consuming. Consuming both adjacent spaces and available water supply, while others were frugal. The takeaway from the various bathrooms, hints on the fact that– the way of the world is certainly not predetermined.  

The project was exhibited as part of the Fellowship Exhibition, which we titled, “Things Around Us,” and was co-curated with Peter Yi and Gabriel Cuellar (The Sanders and Oberdick Fellows, respectively). We sought to theme the exhibition on the topic of architects looking to the things around us, be they tools or artifacts – the tools of the architect- for both inspiration and the possibility for the architectural discipline to find formats for agency.  

How has the fellowship advances or become a platform for your academic and professional career?

One thing that I became interested in as the fellowship research took charge, was to ‘actually’ and ‘deeply’ examine how bathrooms (and by association) many other spaces in our architectures were designed in practice versus in the classroom. I had been working in practice for two years following graduation, and I had ‘designed’ a few bathrooms. Coincidentally (or not) my very first design project in Architecture school had also been to design a bathroom, one devoid of any other programs, adjacencies, or contingencies. In perhaps a subconscious way I began to compare the differences and similarities between these experiences – as well as to examine the shift in how I might now go about the task. I knew that the project would be built in exhibition format, which added certain freedoms.

In many ways doing a fellowship can feel transient as positions often last between 1- 3 years. You have to be open to where future potential opportunities may lie. 

I decided that based on what I know now: the reality of things, but also the desire for architects in practice to find more agency, I would try to subvert (or not so much subvert, but use to my advantage as a design tool in itself) the logic and essence of the specification. I had certainly spent my fair amount of time in practice not only looking at objects in catalogs and ordering material samples, but also carefully selecting and curating their existence through both drawings and spreadsheets.

In a way, playing with the catalog and instruction format was very exciting in terms of the potential prospects for influencing architectural practice and construction. The idea was simple – to rejoice and design through the contemporary tools of the architect in practice - often tools or formats that architects are not looking towards with excitement, but rather banal objects such as spreadsheets and so on.

What were some struggles (if any)? What negative sides to a fellowship do you see (if any)? 

The biggest struggle for me throughout the fellowship project has been in terms of location and uncertainty in terms of leveraging where I would want to live and practice. In many ways doing a fellowship can feel transient as positions often last between 1- 3 years. You have to be open to where future potential opportunities may lie. 1-3 years may not be enough time to set roots or create a supportive community outside of work-life balance.

One thing that is very nice about the fellowship at Taubman is that you come is as part of a cohort and this helps to seed potential friendships. I’ve been very thankful for my fellow fellows - Peter Yi and Gabriel Cuellar - at Taubman and the opportunity to curate this year’s fellowship exhibition: Things Around Us, alongside them.

What is the pedagogical role of the fellowship and how does it find its way into the focus and vision of the institution that you worked with?

Pedagogically, I feel the role of the fellowship at Taubman forms a bond between the students and the faculty. I think in general Fellows, as early-career faculty member s are only a few years out of school and can connect with students and share in their struggles. Additionally, The fellowship candidates bring fresh perspectives, ideas, and balance the pedagogical needs of the school in any given year. We also have strong ties to various pedagogical tendencies and trends from across the international spectrum – this, in general, helps to cultivate Taubman’s promise of a wide-ranging faculty with no single perspective and an openness to diverse views.

Where do you see the role of the fellowship becoming in the future and how does it fit within the current discipline of architecture?

In a way, the fellowship operates a bit as a post-space for intellectual pursuits to the M.Arch degree. Due to the nature of practice and the M. Arch working as a terminal degree within the field– there are few opportunities for recent graduates and early practitioners to find opportunities for teaching and research. Fellowships across the US and abroad create the opportunity for funding more exploratory and research practices that may just be starting out. They provide a great opportunity to have time to develop and mature ideas from graduate scholarship through discussion with faculty colleagues, mentors, and students. I also find it very helpful to find mentors and colleagues that are more experienced, yet were not necessarily your teachers in the traditional sense. For me, I see the fellowship as ‘opening a door’ into academia and towards the possibility for alternative modes of patronage within the architectural discipline.

In a way, the fellowship operates a bit as a post-space for intellectual pursuits to the M.Arch degree. 

What support, and/or resources does a fellowship supply that would be hard to come by in any other position?

The fellowship provides grant funding, which is unique for early career lecturers. Additionally, you are exposed to a plethora of inspiring colleagues! Yet, for me the greatest resource is the ability to examine formats for dissemination through the classroom or studio setting. I truly valued the opportunity to work with students. I like to think of studio or courses, as yet another way to challenge your particular project as you examine it through different modes of dissemination, making, and communication.

What is your next step after the fellowship?/How will this inform future work?

I like to think of myself leading a small, yet experimental and impactful design firm. For now, I hope to continue teaching while pursuing alternative paths to the traditional design office and commission system. I see a moment where architects are looking around and wanting more, more design, more autonomy, more agency. I believe that in order to do this we will need to challenge the current state of design practice and look carefully at established modes that cater  architecture towards limited clienteles and profit models. To regain agency the discipline will need to both reassess and expand design-values.