Blog post: Worrisome Trends in Architecture Education

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nathan Miller on August 16, 2013 at 1:17am

“As mentioned, I’m not aware of the context of this work; what the brief was, how much time was allotted, which semester it represents. In a way it doesn’t matter.”

While I find myself sharing many of the opinions articulated in this piece, I fail to see how the student work provides adequate support to your claims. Nor do I feel that a stern, public critique of one student’s work without context is productive for furthering a discourse that might lead to real solutions or change. For me, an assessment of the contextual issues matter greatly if we are to seriously take the work as an indication of what is passing/failing as legitimate research, successful design, or meaningful applications of technologies.

As a technology consultant for architecture and design professionals, I am often tasked with providing guidance and evaluation for improving a company’s implementation of ‘all this new stuff’. The first tendency is to look at the models and products. But really, failures at the ‘product level’ are often just symptoms. The real problems (and potential solutions) will be tied to an organization’s larger approach to culture, process, knowledge, and resources. Specifically, this might equate to evaluating things such as a company’s use of standards, execution plans, team organization, available expertise, and strategic goals. Of course, looking at these aspects is not nearly as fun as reading into a ‘sexy’ pink rendering…

So… How was this work framed within the overall course syllabus? What was the criteria for evaluation? Was the exercise 1 week, 1 month, 1 semester? Did this project receive a passing review given the constraints that were set out? Was the student satisfied that they were able to successfully deliver on the project requirements?

Even more broadly, how does the course agenda sit within the larger design/research institution’s curricular goals? Has the course itself been evaluated under those terms?

If we are not able to address these questions, in my view we are only complaining about a headache… And we are no closer to treating what may or may not be the flu.

-Nate

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 16, 2013 at 2:35am

Hi Nate,

those are interesting questions within the context of this one piece of work, but despite the fact I focused on ████████'s project, this isn't really about this project. I'm merely saying this project is reminiscent of many others and I therefore used it as a proxy. I know that is unfair as I provide no proof that this is indeed the case, but given the response so far I'm certainly not the only one who found this to be true.

It is the faculty's responsibility to ensure that students and teachers are academically up to snuff. Systematic research into the quality of student's work and teacher's grades should be a matter of course. An outside investigation would also be very welcome, but I'm certainly not claiming my post is that.

If we are not able to address these questions, in my view we are only complaining about a headache… And we are no closer to treating what may or may not be the flu.

I concur. I'd be very surprised if my post made the slightest bit of difference. I'm not in a position to follow-up as it isn't in my employer's best interest to fund this sort of research, no matter how much they may or may not agree with the observation.

But at least now that we are talking about this, let's keep talking and let's do some actual research so we can figure out how much of this is real and how much I imagined. Because if I'm right, we're in serious trouble.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by Nick on August 16, 2013 at 11:11am

David,

I was doing some thinking yesterday and wondered how much of this also applies to other fields of study...

It would be interesting to see if this is strictly an architecture education issue or and education at large issue. In my personal experience, I seem to recall less and less academical writing / presentations practice as the years progressed. Didn't we use to have more essays, oral debates, books to read and report on back in the day?!?

Permalink Reply by Nathan Miller on August 16, 2013 at 11:26pm

David Stasiuk was wise to reference Alan Sokal in the first comment above. You may be interested in the "The Sokal Affair". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

From Wikipedia....

"The Sokal affair, also known as the Sokal hoax,[1] was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. In subsequent publications, Sokal claimed that the submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".[2]"

Perhaps it would be prudent take a close look at published architecture research journals to see if your assumptions about "worrisome trends" hold up. I know you and your colleagues attend many conferences that sometimes include peer reviewed proceedings. Perhaps an investigation into what passes for research in architecture will yield better support for your claims than excerpts from a design exercise.

-Nate

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 17, 2013 at 12:12am

And then there's this: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by Daniel Davis on August 17, 2013 at 12:39am

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Permalink Reply by Nathan Miller on August 17, 2013 at 6:51am

Ha! Do not forget the Landscape Urbanism Bullshit Generator when you need a title.... http://www.ruderal.com/bullshit/bullshit.htm

Permalink Reply by Nathan Miller on August 17, 2013 at 7:30am

David,
There is also a remark that you made in a comment to Daniel that perplexed me. When Daniel proposed that individuals, like yourself, play a more active role in the critical discourse... Your reply was: "I think that’s an excellent idea. I’m probably not the guy you’re after though, after all I’m not in fact an Architect. I’m not involved in practise, nor in academia. There must be thousands of people better suited for this job than me."

1. Why so quick to recoil after creating a long editorial on a blog followed by designers and architects?
2. Who says that you need to be an architect to meaningfully critique and contribute to a discourse of architecture and related works?
3. As a non-architect, you actively provide tools to architects and designers that have had impacts on how they think and work. So why 'wash your hands' of the critical discourse after you have clearly posed questions about the "ethics of computational design" which have impacts over how the tools are taken up and implemented?

-Nate

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 18, 2013 at 11:08am

Hi Nate,

either I misunderstood Daniel's suggestion or you misunderstood my reply. All I did so far was point the finger, which is easy. In order to start fixing the problem you need someone who is well versed in academic methodology, academic politics, (architecture) education and ideally also architecture practise itself. I don't even fulfil one of those criteria.

I'm happy to keep pointing fingers (in public lectures, on my blog, during private crits/presentations) but if you're looking to me to suggest solutions then you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by Nathan Miller on August 18, 2013 at 1:49pm

All I'm saying is that I'd gladly buy a book called "The Ethics of Computational Design" by David Rutten.  'Qualifications' be damned :)

-Nate

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 18, 2013 at 3:12pm

Well, that would take a lot of research for which I will not get paid. It is something that sounds very interesting though and I'd probably enjoy working on it.

However given the trouble I'm having getting my first book off the ground it may be a while before I get around to this :)

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by RWNB on August 17, 2013 at 6:28am

i do not know if this discussion  passes on the reality.
no wonder there are very talented and ambitious people,
but they are usually an exception.
you should not be understood yourself as the role.;)

quality comes "for most" at a price.
especially in the anglo-Saxon schools. that should you know!
and even there is competition between the classes, and so the prices.
you pay for quality, orientation and in particular networking.

if your view is directed to those schools that offer a better requirement for quality,
then there is nothing to add.

--

" maybe for orientation"

the question what is architecture, is something more exciting.
recently i flew two books, which have dealt with this question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pqh77TnLoQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfAgl4dhuFs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jkTBDOwqQI

patrik schumacher succeeds to determine the architecture as a specific function.
however, i find that something is lost there. this loss is a value,
that architecture borrowed from the philosophy an the art.
this value is also described as avantgarde. in contrast to patrik,
avantgarde is more than progress and the creation of something new.
the avantgarde is in my opinion more a socio-critical instruments.

in contrast to patrick succeeds lars Spuybroek to refer exactly to this value,
even if somewhat dusty.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page