Playing Architect
In "The structure of the ordinary", John Habraken proposes that while architects from Palladio through to the modernists have designed like the artistic genius–grand, visionary, and effectively separated from its environment, contemporary architects find themselves needing to act more tactically, responding to the moves of other players in the city around us.
SO--
my question is, why aren't we playing games in studio?
The brilliant part about studio is that instead of just telling students what to do, students practice on imagined commissions, thereby learning what knowledge they need, how to find it, and how to apply it in a single process. The imagined commissions, however, exist in an even greater vacuum than the one Habraken suggests practicing architects need to stop pretending they're in. What sort of games should we play?
There are a number of architectural/development/space-making video games out there, from stuff like "Roller Coaster Tycoon", to "The Sims" or most recently "Minecraft". Now I'm not saying part of the core curriculum needs to be a semester playing Bjarke Ingels's favorite video game, but I think there's something to be said for having to react to factors in a game instead of a running set of comments from faculty. In Minecraft, for instance the player lands in the world and begins exerting control on his environment. Now if the player ignores his characters needs (e.g. food, shelter, tools) then he'll have a hard time realizing any objectives he has. One of the interesting things about Minecraft, however, is that players very rarely play to "win". They want to design. The game, however, tests all their design in real time. It's not the same issues a real building would face–strategies for handling zombies and exploding zombies look much different than passive heating and cooling systems, for instance–but the method of operating, that is, responding to an emerging problem in an exploratory way may have more in common with best practices than the strategic, isolated approaches we practice in studio. Maybe.
This idea of playing with architecture is intriguing with the looking into how studio culture and our learning environment would accept this curriculum. The light playful nature may sound good at the initial stages of design school, but it may lose the connection to real problems and a resentment for things like sustainable site design which are factors that may not be as emotionally dynamic as killing zombies.
ReplyDelete"may not be as emotionally dynamic as killing zombies"
Deleterofl I'm hanging onto that one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you're on to something. Architecture school is the best way (currently) to learn how to become an architectural designer, and also the worst way to become an architectural designer. We only do things that WE want to do, for the sake of OUR interests, because that's all we can do. We imagine how it would fit the imaginary client, but we actually don't have a damn clue most of the time.
ReplyDelete