We're taught the 'how'
I have only been an architecture student for my graduate degree, so I cannot speak for everyone. But since starting this path, I have been shown the star architects, the main theories that dictate our studio structure, and what architecture should strive to be. As someone who didn't have a background in architecture, I (mostly) blindly listened to the advice of the professors and tried to use precedents to help me articulate my thought process. I never asked why. I wasn't taught to and it never occurred to me that what I was taught wasn't always right. However, when I was learning under a Spanish architect I started to finally understand what asking 'why' meant.
De Carlo's quote, "by concentrating on the 'how', they played into the hands of the power structure. In neglecting the problems of 'why', they lost track of the most important reasons for their cultural commitment" really hit home for me, as I've always felt like my thought process or how we think of architecture was missing something.
Not to throw my project under the bus, but we're developing a childcare center for our final studio project and the professors are pushing for my partner and I to add this large ramp to force this idea of heading toward the docks in the design, to make it very apparent. And I'm not sold that this is a good design choice. My big question is why? Why is this a good solution? Have you ever pushed someone in a wheelchair up a 200 foot ramp? Is this what we should be designing? Regardless of how much they love the Zucker building, I don't think I need to imitate another design for my project to be successful.
Is studio teaching the right ideas about architecture?
But it's all about the A, right?
Jenn, your experience about asking the “why” for studio projects is something I hope every architecture student can break through at some point in their education. I want to say I learned from the same professor with the BAC you’re mentioning. For the project I developed in his studio, we pitched an unconventional design choice that was pretty polarizing for the visiting critics during our final review. My studio partner and I had designed with the professor every step of the way, and he was on our side of the argument that came out of the review. I remember him standing up for us against a rude n brutal reviewer. Don’t get me wrong, we had some crummy drawings to prove our point, and I think we were relying too much on the studio professor’s kindness. But it helped me learn the lesson that unconventional should be a-ok and welcomed into design - you’ve just got to raise good arguments and be prepared to roll with the punches.
ReplyDeleteThis goes along with some of my thoughts as well -- we aren't taught the reality that we are to be public servants of sorts, rather, we are told to imagine beautiful designs that are often more unrealistic than we are even aware. I know that we are being taught to "think", but I think it's also important for us to "think" about why this all matters in the first place. We make school about "our" projects when in reality, architecture was never meant to be about us at all.
ReplyDeleteJenn, I find the point you make very interesting because out of 6 years I have been studying architecture, this is the first year that they have asked us to define a 'premise' that will be the main focus and purpose of our project. I changed it a couple times and through research I came to the understanding of why my premise was important and why it needs to be a big part of the design. In past years I have had an initial idea for my project that gets forgotten through the process of designing something 'pretty' and ultimately forgetting the reason as to why the project existed in the first place. It is easy to forget the 'why' when in architecture school they put such a big emphasis on the 'how.
ReplyDeleteThaly,
DeleteI have the same feeling that it is easy to forget our initial idea through the lengthy design process and sometimes turn to another direction. And we like to look forward to achieving the goal rather than going back to see "why" we do that or design something like that. During the process, we got something new; simultaneously, we sometimes lost the initial purpose of the design. The premise is an excellent way to help us keep the design principle.
The why should always be important in architecture. Otherwise, we as architects lose our motivation to be innovative and to continue to strive for design solutions. I think the best way for us to move forward as designers is to find something we are passionate about and design to defend that mission. It is no different than us finding the architects we love and the ones we hate and being able to defend why we think that way. Coming from an architectural history background, I have learned to respect "why" architects are important without always agreeing with their "how." I think it is just a matter of finding your own perspective and being willing to go down to the mat to defend it.
ReplyDelete