Blog post: Worrisome Trends in Architecture Education

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on August 14, 2013 at 8:22am

I applaud this student for courageously allowing his or her work to be critiqued in this way.  I think you struck an even and respectful tone, despite the severity of your commentary.

I think that this discussion is highly relevant, and I plan to share it with the architectural educators I know and work with.  The emergence of computational design tools certainly coincides with a rush of pseudo-scientific terminology in architecture, but I believe that this particular fashion is in fact a continuation of a much broader trend in topical mis-application. During my professional degree studies, which ran from 2007 through 2010, I was struck by how much architects felt the need to justify their work through the lens of philosophy. Our readings included many works of Foucault, Deleuze, and De Landa - among many others - all with the intent of enabling us to inform our architecture with their teachings.

In my estimation, architects should generally strive to excel in their aesthetic judgement, their intuition about spatial effectiveness relative to programmed inhabitation, their knowledge of construction materials and assembly systems, their consideration of performance-driven design properties, and above all, their ability to synthesize these elements into a whole. Architects, to be effective, must be generalists.  And yet, all of these qualities were regularly absent from any reflection on the quality of a studio project, and instead philosophical justifications for or condemnations of different design decisions were proffered by both student and critic. I suspect your already familiar with Sokal and Bricmont's wonderful Fashionable Nonsense? Their concerns about obfuscating pseudo-scientific babble are there applied to philosophy...but they are just as correctly attributable to architects (ironically, many of the philosophers they put to the fire are frequenty referenced by architects as well: twice-filtered quackery).

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 14, 2013 at 11:03am

I haven't read that one yet, thanks for the link. You're right that philosophies (and specifically philosophical sound-bites) are often used in presentations. I'm not particularly well-versed in philosophy though, I have a rudimentary grasp of the Ancient Greeks and modern schools of thought such as Existentialism and Pragmatism, but there is certainly no depth in my understanding. However here the same rule applies. You can quote philosophy all you want, but unless you understand that which you're channelling you can be -at best- accidentally correct.

According to you, these are all vital characteristics:

1. Aesthetic judgement
2. Intuition about spatial effectiveness
3. Knowledge of construction materials & assembly systems
4. Consideration of performance-driven design properties
5. Mad synthesizing skillz

[1] and [2] are pretty much worthless, especially when we're dealing with students. Aesthetic judgement is not something that can be wrong or right. You can hone your aesthetic skills but you cannot cultivate better tastes. Intuition is also problematic. It's basically a stand-in for argumentation. Instead of saying "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of wind/sound/human perception/human psychology/light/shadow/etc. etc" is a far stronger statement than "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of my feelings". Who are you to be trusted? If you have a long and distinguished career backing you up, maybe your opinions carry some weight, but until that point you'd better be prepared to justify your decisions with cold hard logic and data.

[3] is certainly important for certain jobs in construction, but it can be argued that implementation details are not necessarily central to a design. One can design a good computer interface without having to be able to program, and certainly without being familiar with all the idiosyncrasies of a particular programming language. Conversely, one can design an excellent space without knowing exactly how strong certain atomic bonds are. If what you design is physically impossible, then obviously something has to change, but it doesn't mean that the design as an abstract idea was bad. Of course on the other hand one can argue that designing impossible things is not doing anyone any favours. I'm not exactly certain where I stand on this issue, probably comfortably in the middle; YES, students need to learn about what can be build in the physical world, but NO that is not part of design training.

I'm not quite sure what [4] means. 

[5] is true for a lot of professions, not just Architects. I would concede that architects probably have more to take into account than most designers and that it is indeed an important skill to have.

I would say that -especially for students, who have little experience- an incredibly important skill to be able to ask yourself "why am I doing this?" about pretty much every decision you make. Basically you need to get very comfortable applying the Socratic method to everything you do.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on August 14, 2013 at 3:30pm

1 and 2) First of all, I think you're confusing intuitive with arbitrary.  Sure, any intuitive decision may ultimately meet a "why" answered with pure feeling, but any trace of it to and from that point should stand up to reasonable, Socratic interrogation with logical and descriptive rigor. For example, I find entirely credible an architect who suggests that he placed his buildings 20 meters apart because he thought that it would make people more comfortable in light of his reading of the space relative to its environment, materiality, expected time of habitation/circulation, etc.  His "thinking" such things is, for the most part intuitive, and backed by deductive logic.  (Of course integration of wind analysis and other harder readings is obviously desirable) But  I interpret the active denial of intuition's crucial role in design as at the heart of  its current deplorable trending toward misuse of terminology, application of pseudo-science and intellectual over-reach. Architects wade out of their waters precisely when they invoke such things as human psychology or perception.

Furthermore, I believe that architects - student and professionals alike - regularly make formal decisions according to their aesthetic judgement.  To suggest that students aren't qualified to make a design decision during their studies because they think it's formally successful seems exceedingly stingy; likewise, suggesting that a professional architect shouldn't rely on it is puzzling to me.  I find architects' attempts to justify what are obviously decisions based on formal taste using other means often taking the same form of obfuscation that makes architects appear to be intellectual charlatans to specialists in other fields. Taste is taste.  I would agree that it can't be taught. But good architectural design certainly remains at least somewhat grounded in artistic sensibility.

3) I'm by no means advocating that all architects must master every detail in their work.  Rather, that architects have at least a generalist's working knowledge of materials and construction systems.  Floors don't levitate, and windows require depth; rules of thumb count as vital knowledge.

4) I would say that consideration of performance-driven properties falls under basic understanding of how a building will operate in its given environment.  For example, if you've designed a glass house in Arizona, ur doing it wrong.  The more simulation and science you have, the better.  Indeed, I think that such elements - wind analysis, solar gain analysis, structural performance - represent the most solid opportunities today for architects to assert the harder lines of defense in their design decision making...say for example, being able to demonstrate using basic geometry that your shade keeps the sun out in summer, but lets it in when it's cold.

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 14, 2013 at 4:19pm

1 and 2) First of all, I think you're confusing intuitive with arbitrary.

I'm merely saying that to an outsider, it might as well be arbitrary. If you can make the exact same argument for a 21 meter gap as for a 20 meter gap, it's not a good argument.

I fully concede that not every single thing may be backed up by logic. There are simply too many design decisions to make and not enough time to make them rigorously. And I do believe there is place for human intuition and art in architecture, but I also think that artistic (or intuitive, or emotional) considerations should clearly be labelled as such.

When Le Corbusier designed the urban layout of the city of Chandigarh he used his intuition to distribute the buildings and clusters. His intuition however was grounded in European climes and it failed him in India. On hot days it becomes almost impossible to walk the distance between them. Would Chandigarh have been a better place if the maximum distance was defined by the largest walkable distance on the hottest day of the year instead of the unjustifiable intuition of the designer? I suspect it would.

Furthermore, I believe that architects - student and professionals alike - regularly make formal decisions according to their aesthetic judgement.  To suggest that students aren't qualified to make a design decision during their studies because they think it's formally successful seems exceedingly stingy;

There are plenty of rational decisions which are made by tacit processes. People can become very good at mimicking rational behaviour using intuition. And -as I said- if you are an architect with a distinguished career; if you've already proven yourself to be capable of good design then there comes a point where your intuitions can be trusted (to an extend).

But students whose every design has always been virtual, who have not been able to evaluate their decisions by a follow-up study, I don't see how anybody can trust their instincts. Instincts aren't just sitting in someone's brain, they are cultivated by relentless exercise and trial-and-error. Until you actually build something there is no error, only trial, and virtual trial at that.

I find architects' attempts to justify what are obviously decisions based on formal taste using other means often taking the same form of obfuscation that makes architects appear to be intellectual charlatans to specialists in other fields.

I fully agree here. If there are non-communicable aspects to a design, just say that. There's no shame in it as long as you're honest about it and have considered -however briefly- the consequences in case you're wrong.

I'm by no means advocating that all architects must master every detail in their work.  Rather, that architects have at least a generalist's working knowledge of materials and construction systems.  Floors don't levitate, and windows require depth; rules of thumb count as vital knowledge.

I think we're on the same page here. If you want to make a physical building, then there's more to it than pure design. Engineering comes into play. I don't mean to imply that engineering doesn't require creativity or even artistic intellect, but it is a different kind of problem-solving.

I fully agree with your fourth point. I just wasn't sure what performance-driven meant. 

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on August 15, 2013 at 3:23am

I totally agree that any use of intuition should be clearly marked as such.  And I realize that I've been rather too loose in my definition of intuition, and not clear enough in reinforcing that to the highest degree possible I absolutely agree that design decisions should be rationally defensible.

Permalink Reply by Frane Zilic on August 14, 2013 at 11:45pm

I am an architect and I teach. English is not my strongest language so please excuse any mistakes o strange grammatical choices.

I was taught to see architecture as an art in which the intuition and the design intent are the first and most important aspect of the project. It took several years to sink in, I got good at it and it was fun. It took a couple of years outside of the faculty to sink out, to understand that most of it was a way to disguise ignorance and incompetence. If you can't explain what you made then use complicated words to make the listener feel stupid and win the argument. (I never got to the point of doing this consciously)

What I missed then and still miss today is at least a general scientific knowledge of physics, trigonometry, thermodynamics, acoustics, optics and geometry that can inform the design, that allows at least to make educated guesses, hone "intuition" and allows you to discuss with all the specialists without appearing as an intellectual charlatan.  

I believe that the global climatic context has lead architecture to be closer to science and that algoritmic design and digital fabrication have attracted us to more logical, and rigurous ways of designing. Of course in this process a lot will try to use the fancy words and geometries without understanding them, but the fact that it is happening I think denotes the transition to a more informed and deeper understanding (I hope)

Permalink Reply by Emilio Morello on August 15, 2013 at 2:16am

There's a link in David's original post, at the fourth/fifth line of the text.

Permalink Reply by David Rutten on August 15, 2013 at 2:25am

I doubt everything said about this will be available in this thread here, but if there's any other relevant online resources (past discussions, future discussions, individual publications) it would be lovely if someone could add a link to them here. David Stasiuk already posted that link to a book about a similar problem in philosophy.

I've had three people email me style-guides and research instruction documents used at their respective universities. I haven't figured out yet which ones I'm allowed to re-post, but I'll probably upload them here and on my blog once cleared.

--

David Rutten

david@mcneel.com

Tirol, Austria

Permalink Reply by SR on August 20, 2013 at 3:57pm

Style guides are not neutral and come with their own problems (of uniformity, conformism and obfuscation/masking of political positions, end goals and unreflective attitudes).

I have published an article on academic writing in architecture that discusses this (in a limited way, given its length, but with some alternative examples included and a style guide discussed). It has references to some common literature on academic styles too...

By the way, Sokal and Bricmont's efforts also cannot be described as rigorous. Their criticism is often: "As far as we can see, it means precisely nothing" (at the end of the chapter on Virilio). This is hardly scholarly. I also could not understand Grisha Perelman's papers (which I was too curious not to read). They must be meaningless, right? In fact, some "scientists" argued something similar and tried to "rewrite" his "unclear and incomplete" proofs, claiming credit, to the indignation of many (see here). Which, perhaps lead to his rejection of the Fields medal and the million-dollar Clay prize.

It would be more productive if Sokal et al. tried to understand how the texts in question became so popular. What actual roles they perform, where, for whom, etc. What change they cause in the world, etc. That would indeed be revealing but requires focused and informed work extending past already-established opinions.

Stanislav Roudavski

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on August 21, 2013 at 2:50am

"As far as we can see, it means precisely nothing" (at the end of the chapter on Virilio). This is hardly scholarly. I also could not understand Grisha Perelman's papers (which I was too curious not to read). They must be meaningless, right? 

They are in fact experts regarding the scientific terms and theoretical inconsistencies they identify as being misapplied. For example: "The logistic equation is a differential equation studied in population biology (among other fields); it is written dx/dt = Xar(l-ar) and was introduced by the mathematician Verhulst (1838). It has nothing to do with MxV. In Newtonian mechanics, Mx V is called momentum”; in relativistic mechanics, M x V does not arise at all."

Simple, and rigorous.  I understand that the tone of their book is snarky and not particularly scholarly - I think they were writing to entertain a lay audience - but their systematic address of the misapplication of clearly defined scientific terms holds up. Their whole point is that they are indifferent to and don't claim to understand the philosophical underpinnings of a given argument.  These underpinnings are fair game to scientists and mathematicians the moment that a philosopher stakes intellectual claim to scientific theory. The same goes for any field.  If, as an architect, I want to reference Foucault, and claim that my work embodies his ideas, I have well and truly opened my work up to Foucault experts to judge these claims based on their particular expertise. If one correctly points out an inconsistency in the terminology I am applying, it's completely irrelevant for me to say "but you didn't understand the bigger picture" or point to the popularity of my work among other architects.

I don't understand how Perelman is at all relevant here. I don't understand Perelman either, which is precisely why I would never think to pin justification for an architectural decision on his work (the issue with him was much more that other people were trying to poach his ideas and take credit for them)  Sokal and Bricmont aren't trying to take credit for any of the work they criticize...they are simply evaluating references to established scientific terminology.  I mean, Virillo's mistakes are pretty naked...he's messing up entry-level physics stuff - like confusing velocity with acceleration - and pinning his philosophical argumenation to it.

Permalink Reply by SR on August 21, 2013 at 4:02am

David, thank you for the comment.

Virilio's math is pretty humorous, no doubt. My point was that S&B's notes question the credibility of the authors instead of engaging with the resulting effects of their work (that many in relevant communities find useful). Their approach can be useful or petty, depending. The history of the Sokal affair includes a variety of non-trivial/incompatible comments from multiple camps and is in the public domain. In my opinion, their stance is disproportionately distractive. E.g., you cannot show a "misapplication" (your word) of a term if you do not consider the target field.

If we follow Russell (in the History of Western Philosophy): “In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held.”

This seems like more fun to me.

Grisha seemed relevant because Zhu at al. could not get his presentation (and/or logic) either and, similar to Sokal, thought that it invalidated his claim to champagne. I am not sure one can say they were cynically poaching.

But all of that is an aside. What did you think about the arguments in my paper? Closer to architecture and more carefully considered......

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on August 21, 2013 at 5:06am

Hi Stanislav...I have very much enjoyed some of your writing before (Towards Morphogenesis in Architecture). And in "Transparency or Drama?" I like your advocacy for "diversity in research expression" and that "compositional and stylistic choices be motivated by the requirements of a particular situation".  

I think though that I differ strongly that a particular expression of an idea needs to be considered in the context of its target field. There may be a case made for this if an approach or reflection is using deductive logic or argumentation based on interpretations of ideas or systems that are intrinsically subjective, but regardless of the target field, once more objective ideas and systems are introduced as evidence or theoretical foundation - and I am speaking specifically of those in the scientific domain - such claims are no longer validated by the value judgement of an intended audience.

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