[K. Michael Hays] represents an approach to teaching architecture and architectural theory that has held sway in the American academy for at least a generation. This approach doesn’t simply treat architecture as a discipline separate from the rest of the world, with its own passwords and protocols. It guards that separation with its life. — The Los Angeles Times
A spirited Christopher Hawthorne reviews Harvard GSD's first online course as taught by K. Michael Hays, who appears to prize obfuscation and condescension as teaching methods (Hawthorne does explain the history behind this autonomous pedagogy, which resulted from architects of the 1970s needing to break away from corporate/political control). Still, the question of whether online courses are actually any different than the level of instruction you would receive in a classroom appears to be trending toward no, at least in substantive terms. The medium isn't the message, especially if you're taking instruction from a lecturer who thinks speaking at you, rather than engaging with you, is the way to go.
Julia Ingalls, with all due respect, all I ask is that you look at more than one unit of the course, "The Architectural Imagination," before you start spouting accusations. It is not YouTube. It is not just a videotape of classroom lectures. It is a course which we have put an enormous amount of thought and time into and of which we are proud.
To say that I appear "to prize obfuscation and condescension as teaching methods" is totally irresponsible. It is infuriating. You don't know me. You have never taken any of my courses. And "it appears" you haven't even watched the online material you are referring to and pretending to report.
Stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
This, from the Hawthorne piece;
“We might say,” he concluded, “that the imagination organizes the sensuous manifold according to organizing principles that can be received by the understanding.” The old K. Michael Hays was back!
By the second module, he’d been joined by his colleague Erika Naginski, who extended the discussion of Wittkower in less impenetrable but more telling terms. Wittkower’s continuing importance, she explained, is linked to his belief in an architecture that could construct “its own world within a world,” that could emerge as “self-reflective” and — drum roll, please — “an autonomous project.”
And what one solitary piece of writing were we asked to read for those first two weeks? An essay by Hays, of course: “Architecture’s Appearance and the Practices of Imagination,” from a journal known for publishing wooden prose and called — you can’t make this stuff up — Log.
Hays’ piece, though mercifully short, was predictably hostile to the idea that any neophyte might effectively grasp what he was trying to say. And this is a course, remember, designed largely if not directly for neophytes; it marks the school’s widely promoted first attempt to engage a broad digital public.
It was reassuring, in a way. The old order was restored. Hays had fashioned another piece of writing into a hood to slip over the heads of his unsuspecting readers. I felt strangely comforted. I felt perversely at home.
I like your writing, and no doubt, would enjoy your classes. As challenging as they might be. But, you're out of line, especially if you think by responding to this piece, and not to Hawthorne is going to buy you any sympathy. You're being a bore.
All 6 Comments
There's a case to be made that politics and design are related but not in the social narratives that dominate discourse today. There's always professors who go more one way and those that go the other. Hawthorne appears to be using the class to say something about politics, but has nothing really to say. If "the academy" is out of touch (where is that, Yale or Harvard?) then at least they are keeping the subject matter alive, as opposed to the popular media which has abandoned architecture all together. Hawthorne should know better than to play that game, popular with old white male architecture critics grasping for relevance.
Theres plenty of architecture lectures on YouTube, not seeing what the point of this is.
Julia Ingalls, with all due respect, all I ask is that you look at more than one unit of the course, "The Architectural Imagination," before you start spouting accusations. It is not YouTube. It is not just a videotape of classroom lectures. It is a course which we have put an enormous amount of thought and time into and of which we are proud.
To say that I appear "to prize obfuscation and condescension as teaching methods" is totally irresponsible. It is infuriating. You don't know me. You have never taken any of my courses. And "it appears" you haven't even watched the online material you are referring to and pretending to report.
Stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
This, from the Hawthorne piece;
“We might say,” he concluded, “that the imagination organizes the sensuous manifold according to organizing principles that can be received by the understanding.” The old K. Michael Hays was back!
By the second module, he’d been joined by his colleague Erika Naginski, who extended the discussion of Wittkower in less impenetrable but more telling terms. Wittkower’s continuing importance, she explained, is linked to his belief in an architecture that could construct “its own world within a world,” that could emerge as “self-reflective” and — drum roll, please — “an autonomous project.”
And what one solitary piece of writing were we asked to read for those first two weeks? An essay by Hays, of course: “Architecture’s Appearance and the Practices of Imagination,” from a journal known for publishing wooden prose and called — you can’t make this stuff up — Log.
Hays’ piece, though mercifully short, was predictably hostile to the idea that any neophyte might effectively grasp what he was trying to say. And this is a course, remember, designed largely if not directly for neophytes; it marks the school’s widely promoted first attempt to engage a broad digital public.
It was reassuring, in a way. The old order was restored. Hays had fashioned another piece of writing into a hood to slip over the heads of his unsuspecting readers. I felt strangely comforted. I felt perversely at home.
I like your writing, and no doubt, would enjoy your classes. As challenging as they might be. But, you're out of line, especially if you think by responding to this piece, and not to Hawthorne is going to buy you any sympathy. You're being a bore.
It's not clear here if Julia Ingalls is reviewing the online course, or reviewing the review.
If reviewing, then do some actual work. Tell us you watched the entirety, and give us a point-by-point critique, as CH does.
Or, if merely posting a link to CH's review, fine, just do that.
But to link to the essay with nothing but a few snarky comments piling on to the negative review is not only lazy, it's mean. ("Way to go, Chris, I think he sucks, too!") Come on.
I think Hawthorn misses the mark a bit. Hays's response in the comments section of the article is worth reading. I think the issue is not really whether architecture is its own "autonomous" discipline or if it should instead always be thought of in its socio-political context. That's what Hawthorne talks about, but I think the real issue at stake is whether architecture ought to have its own high-level intellectual discourse. Some people seem to think architecture should always be "popular," that writing about architecture and even university-level classes on the theory of architecture (!!) should be accessible to everyone. Yeah, unnecessary jargon is unnecessary. But why is it such a surprise that people are thinking and talking about architecture in complex, convoluted, difficult ways? Isn't that a good thing? It's actually fun to try to wrap your head around something you care a lot about (like architecture), and it's nice to have people out there (like Hays) as guides along the way.
Full disclose: I'm a student of Hays, if that wasn't obvious by now :)
I think this class was wonderful and it has really opened my eyes to the world of architecture and I'm thankful for all the hard work and finances that went into creating it.
It is true though the communication style of the lecturer can be improved by a slightly simpIer language. I had to stop at least at every third sentence and look up certain words but thankfully the IPad's "look up" feature helped a lot to expedite that. What in my opinion was the hardest to understand was the required reading of 50 pages of the book by John Sallis called "Stone". Interestingly to me as a native German speaker that book sounded a bit like it was originally written in German and then word by word translated into English without any regard of German / English idoms. Some of the phrases actually made more sense when translated back into German. Luckily I found a German edition of the book. That helped a lot.
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.