Independent from aesthetics, what I typically saw in pre-thesis/terminal studios was a distribution like this:

50% adherence to constructability and program, 35 to 40% adherence to constructability but not the program, and 10 to 15% sculptural work done by the freer thinkers, for which they just went on to complete it ... and in an incomplete way to be considered a building.

The student is paying for a crit not sponsoring the peter eisenman show.

I kinda agree with what he is saying, just not how, but I guess I'm partial to the Mr. Miyagi style of teaching over the Joe Pesci style...."Hey Spider, what's the fuckin diff between Palladio and Bramante you mumbling stuttering prick...." 

Sure, that AA education the student is paying for is just about the crit, and nothing to do with preening, aging architects; you keep telling yourself that. Hey, and maybe that free tuition at Cooper Union will last far into the next century too, right?

Clearly, in the history of architectural education, some student along the way has had the courage to defend his or her project against the attacks of a visiting crit or, should I say, cretin.  What happens to the student?  Or, what do you think happens?

Yep, and that's why we don't know her/his name.

Yep, and that's why we don't know her/his name.

Meaning what?  That they didn't become a starchitect?  Or that they didn't become an architect or were at least graduated?  If a person was "humming along" in architecture school, with a slate of portfolio projects, and grades, to indicate that, and what I theoretically suggested went down, the school ought to be in deep shit if they enforced some kind of disciplinary sanctions against the student.  That's why campuses have ombudsmen.

observant - Let's see if I'm understanding you.  Are you saying that there's sort of an overall span of what is acceptable in studio designs, and that renegades and nonconformists stand their ground with their profs and other students, and push their design project through until the end?  Even in a conventional school, that happens.  What I've seen happen is that, most of the time, they do get ripped at the end, when crits seeing it for the first time are introduced into the mix, and on a rare few occasions, they are lauded for their "innovation."  Some quirky projects are in fact good.  Most aren't.

I'm saying their are no clear "conformists."

This thread's getting heated... I need some popcorn.

 

Can you imagine a real master like kahn or ando acting this way?  As an architectural atheist I have a really hard time stomaching these self proclaimed gods.

Don't know about Kahn, but I have seen and heard Ando in a student competition jury wrap-up.  It was time wasted, and he made Eisenmann look polite.

^

I like the term "architectural atheist" very much.

the refute of Petey's second point, I actually posted the crit video. for some reason it doesn't appear here  http://archinect.com/news/article/75371/vado-up-gears-again

You think this is abuse? You think this is abuse, you sock cutters? You can't take this, how can you take the abuse you get on a crit?

"I can go out there tonight- with the materials you got- and make myself fifteen architectural models. Tonight! In two hours! Can you? Can you?" Go and do likewise, kids. AIA! Get mad, little wet-in-the-britches, get mad! You know what it takes to make architectural models? It takes brass squares to make architectural models:"

https://www.fine-tools.com/praezisionswinkel.html

guess this necro will happen every few months?

^ Worse when it's a spam

"curtkram" is aptronymic.

Get back on those redlines, Archie!

What's going on here?

classic, but only relevent in its simulacra simulation of architectural design theory irrelevancy. its like debating fake news.

I thought it was going to be much worse, but it's a bit rich to hear Eisenman talk about Borromini after giving us such bullshit for so many years.  The problem is the profession let's people like him get away with just about anything.  There's no logic or common sense to most of the stuff that comes out of schools, so how can you expect anything but this?

I attended a lecture of his at Pratt in the 1980's when he was doing his decon stuff and he called everyone in the audience an idiot.  I left after that and biked through Park Slope to wash my mind of his nonsense with beautiful architecture and urbanism that non-neurotic people enjoy, and to learn from it.  I hope this student does the same.

Its curious how Eisenmann's theory and practice has turned into arrogance. Wondering if this will happen to all.

I've heard him rip others as well and he pretty much has a form letter spiel:

1. "Its better than anything I can do... Hate it"

2. "I'll talk to the audience instead of the presenter, make him/her feel insignificant"

3. "Make sure my sycophants and I wear black to let everyone know I'm serious"

4. Remember to reference the monkey/typewriter or some other tired cliché.

I'm not surprised he did that to a student. To be fair I've had clients that have hated what I've presented but nothing he said was constructive.  I hope she realizes few outside of the field/community knows who he is and to let his nonsense just dissipate. 

Fascinating interview to see how its done: In Honor of Zaha Hadid: A Conversation with Frank Gehry, Peter Eisenman and Deborah Berke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0itDZeBaUU

I had a professor like him, who was old and called all of the students: mindless zombies. 

I had my fair share of bad crits and most of them were because I didn't put quality work into the project and I assume responsability for it. Sometimes, I did put in the work, but I understood some things in a wrong way or simply could not express myself in a effective and coherent matter. In both cases, I could take the criticism and learn from it (in most instances, I already knew what was wrong or missing). 

BUT, what I am troubled with bad crits is when the attitude of the professor is like: he is an absolute all-knower and the student is an object that you can put a label on it. I personally think that is bad pedagogy. When from the professor's attitude all you understand is that you're stupid or lazy or both, and when he/she doesn't treat you like a live human being who can actually evolve and learn about things and develop, then that's when I put a question mark. 

Crits still perplex me and it's hard to see their value, especially when a guest crit comes in and dominates the conversation with their own agenda irrespective of the studio learning objectives.

I came to arch school from a different field, in which it was expected that the "discussion" part of a presentation actually consisted of a back and forth between the presenter and the audience. I was really surprised when I did my first few crits and they told me I was "being defensive" any time I'd try to add to the conversation. Which kind of brings me to this Eisenman clip: why isn't he talking directly to the student? Why is he having a sidebar conversation? In so many other disciplines this would be considered unprofessional.

as the presenter, it's up to you to steer the conversation. there's absolutely no reason to trust your professor to understand what the important issues are for you

I’ve had worse... I went home crying that day. This was 8 years ago. I remember crying in front of my father I felt like a real loser. My peers all left me hanging and It was pretty dark time. Guess you know who your friends are. Unfortunately I didn’t have any. I remember eating a pita after my crit during lunch break and not anyone came to sit next to me. That chapter is long gone... and I look back and say look where I am now. Something that was so trivial and stupid at that time I was making it as if it was the end of the world. There is a lot worse in life than a bad crit. Plus School is all bullshit anyways. That’s all it is! It teaches you nothing about the professional world. I’m licensed now... and exposed to the ins and outs of a small firm... it’s really depressing this profession if you so choose the traditional path of architecture. I am looking for a way out of this profession in all honesty I hate it. I hate clients, I hate cynical bosses who treat me as a pee on. I hate my wage I am making, I’m grossly underpaid. I have never felt in my life that I am chained at my desk for 8 hours! I want to be free! Fuckkkkk 

You know its your worst crit when your studio prof fails you and makes you repeat that studio the next semester.  Not that I've had to repeat studio.  I've had my fair share of terrible crits but I know they're nowhere as bad as the classmate who had to repeat studio ;)