Architect and educator Tom Wiscombe has made major inroads as SCI-Arc's BArch chair to establish a stronger connection to the humanities and critical theory in architecture education, founding the school's Liberal Arts Program last year and bringing in contemporary philosophers and theorists to spark new dialogues. We discuss his role in the southern Californian architecture culture (particularly in regards to MOCA's 2013 New Sculpturalism show), how he prioritizes theory in architectural practice and education, and his ongoing Main Museum of Los Angeles project in the city's enlivened downtown.
Listen to One-to-One #14 with Tom Wiscombe:
Special thanks to UCLA for helping coordinate the interview, after Tom gave his Distinguished Alumni Lecture in February.
Correction: this post originally thanked SCI-Arc for helping coordinate the interview – in fact it was UCLA that put Tom in touch with us for the podcast.
18 Comments
OK, pause. Tom just said that the 5-year BArch program is over, that the model doesn't work any longer.
I'm skeptical, as a huge fan of the BArch! But I'll keep listening and see what he says....
That caught me too. Especially when I've been railing against those idiotic 4+2 programs, and the unsustainable debt that comes from these boondoggles.
^ Now why do you think an entrenched academic would say such a thing...?
It seems to me that he is responding to three ideas/issues-
1- The Architect is no longer the master builder/ or a builder in general. Think of the number of times you've heard that comment in threads. At times someone will respond with a "evolve or die" comment and then it gets entertaining.
2- The Architect is more than the master builder. I think this a critical assumption in the proposal. The tools have changed, the way students learn has changed, the fact the projections of climate change and material expenses increasingly replace historical precedent as the foundation for learning is a huge factor in all of this.
3- The tuition is too damn high. If the role of the architect has changed so much, why not reduce the curriculum to four years? Is five year really needed, or is it an excuse to retain an old fashioned thesis process where you learned how to draw under the tutelage a protege of a master (who taught them how to draw at the masters level)?
I think it's an interesting pitch. It's not for everyone, but it's an interesting pitch.
its a much simpler point - Academia does not service the profession, so why bother with a Professional degree.
I like your analysis, Marc. I can see Tom's meaning, I think: generally, because the world is changing so quickly, architects need to be far *more* than just good at technical skills, and forcing the education into five years means there is much less room for liberal arts classes (the kind that make good thinkers).
I stopped short when I heard MVRDV say this recently: ...renders are used as a translation of the architect’s core business, the technical drawing...
Emphasis mine. Are technical drawings really our core business? I think I could easily argue that yes, as master builders, they are. But I could just as easily argue that the more important work architects do is the broader cultural synthesis that every tech-school-trained draftsperson I know can't seem to grasp.
That said, I still love the BArch. I think architects do need to have *some* understanding of technical skills and business. For some architects, the artistry lies in the practice. For some architects, cultural criticism via built and/or theoretical work is the artistry.
Olaf, are you suggesting that architecture shift to a educational model that is purely about the apprenticeship?
I'm a little confused by the MVRDV quote because it throws so much of their work in the trash can- unless they are expanding the definition of what a technical drawing is. Some of the planing research, like farmax is really developed, but it does't produce a drawing set per se.
I think this is an example of that expanded role of architects. Shaping cities by creating tools to project performance and impacts instead of limiting process to describing form at the limits of the parcel.
Design education is far more important than technical education. The university is not a vocational school. The technical aspects of the profession are important, but without a strong foundation in design they are useless. Design is the only value the architect has. There are plenty of others who can create perfectly competent buildings in leau of an architect. Design is why people hire architects. The other stuff is expected. As I've said before, you don't seek a chef because you have a lesser chance of getting food poisoning, or because he washes his hands properly, or because he doesn't burn the eggs...you pay extra for a chef to get an exceptional meal not a competent meal.
But jla-x doesn't the chef need basic competencies first in order to create that amazing meal? And aren't there chefs that can make the most heart-breakingly delicious food you've ever eaten but don't know how to price a drink so they bankrupt their own restaurant?
I'm not arguing either/or. I'm saying we need both kinds. Yes is more.
If you go the the CIA (in Hyde Park, not Virginia), the 1st thing students are concerned with walking out the door is the "Certificate of Sanitation," not the degree, so I'm not sure that is the correct analogy.
Hahaha excellent, Marc!
Yes Donna we need both, but a strong Design/Theory/History base is necessary. Even in law school one learns basic legal theory and constitutional law before the learn how to write a motion for a DUI. Doctors learn basic biology before they learn how to treat strept throat or how to bill the insurance comp for a prescription. Academia is for academic knowledge not vocational knowledge.
You have to start with the broad stuff first.
marc - either you get a license after 5 and its a competent program, or you simply allow 3 years apprenticeship regardless of degree to get license.....the latter seams more possible these days and would not hamper with the "radical" and "free thinking" that goes on in academia
Our B Arch studios were right next to the grad student studios during our 4th and 5th years. We all used to go over and introduce ourselves and ask the grad students to ask us if they had any questions, ha ha. We'd been doing it for years.
the BArch I had was more like condensing undergrad into one year and doing advanced study for 4 years. It was really good.
B-Arch is good, but from what I've seen 3+ studio work is generally better. It may have to do with the age diff. Barch students often start at an age when they are more easily persuaded to adopt the given profs/schools/local celebs style or doctrine. The 3+ students are usually less susceptible to the cultish stuff and generally more critical. Also, the older students are often paying for their own education which makes a big difference in their overall seriousness.
Not to be a pessimist, but I think Olaf's approach would lead to the 3y as the sole academic degree. There's no need to complete a degree in 5 with a license and little to no client base only to work at the bottom rung in and an office when you can basically do the same in a 4yr (or as to bs) with 3yrs in an office.
Those who are "serious" would later go on to the 3 year.
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.