|
<< ...back
Question of logic
Abstract
The task of architecture is much broader than the pragmatic satisfaction of man's basic needs. It is not the pure process of producing existential space. Architecture is an intermediary in communications; it creates environments, delivers messages and records its time. Communication thus determines the principal role and nature of the design process as well as the architect's education.
The increased complexity of the human environment went hand in hand with the broadening of the field that architecture is supposed to cover: function, costs, construction, regulations, ecology, systems of signs. Nowadays it is no longer enough to learn a few rules of construction and composition to become a skilled architect. Young minds have to be trained in a number of complementary disciplines that interact with each other and with architecture. It seems like an impossible task and it is extremely difficult.
The dilemma seems to be whether, in the era of electronic communications, we should go on educating an erudite group which has to remain imperfect or concentrate our efforts on the specialized knowledge of an engineer. The real question is: would it not be more logical to disseminate the culture of form to other fields and thus educate a range of specialists capable of creatively cooperating with an architect in the complex process of design?
Architecture appears as an answer to a many questions: How can man's needs be met? How can an equilibrium be achieved between nature and the constructed environment? How can diverse technical aspects of construction be solved? Architects answer the following and many other questions through spatial forms.
If an object or space is to satisfy the user's needs in terms of usability, size and rationality, then any skilled craftsman (tecton) could do the job. Assuming that the object (tectonic) is to be rationally made and to conform to the general standards and norms of the time, we would call for the help of an engineer to provide the builder with needed instructions and solutions. However, if our ambition is to give the object a special meaning or purpose, or to make it exceptional, then we need the advice of an artist.
In the past, all these skills were brought together in one man, a builder or master (archi-tecton). In Alberti's work De re aedificatoria, it is clear that during the Renaissance, almost five centuries ago, the building trade was interpreted in this manner. With the appearance of great states and the creation of hitherto unknown urban cultures, a division into specialized branches began. The Age of Enlightenment already considered the architect to be an artist, a builder of ideas about society, a visionary of new spatial forms, meanings and symbolical expression. In this same period, engineering became a parallel branch, considering great construction works and developing its own aesthetic.
Changes arising over time came to be expressed in the greater number of questions that architects were supposed to be able to answer. The increased complexity of the questions brought with it a broadening of the field that architecture is supposed to cover. The architect came to be considered as a master possessing knowledge of all sorts: from functional organization, construction, costs and regulations through to the complex world of signs. Over time, the architect has become a professional who assimilates huge amounts of information without knowing much in detail.
The task of architecture nowadays is much broader than the pragmatic satisfaction of man's basic needs. It is neither an extremely technical branch, nor is it the simple basic process of producing existential space. In addition, architecture remains, as always, an intermediary in communications. It delivers messages and records its time. These factors determine the principal role and nature of the design process as well as the architect's education.
Shaping experience
Educational process in architecture is about transforming the personal experience and culture of a student toward professional skill and practice (Bobic, 1991). This means, automatically, that tutor/professor takes on a different and specific task when confronted with each student - human being with personal icons that need to be developed and formed following the general agenda and curriculum of the particular school.
Current trends in the world of architecture focus on discovering new visual elements and exploring different models of shaping reality in space, based on the tradition of the total body of human culture, and aimed towards a scenario in which life in the future takes place (Bouman, 1998). The epicentres of these explorations are located in cultures traditionally influenced by new tendencies or new sensibilities in architecture. Various schools, often isolated from problems posed by practical work, easily fall prey to new influences, developing them to extremes. A curriculum for the future lies more often in the focus of the school than the present day problems. Aesthetics, the shifting horizons of reality, new spatial counterpoints and harmonies, dynamism and, above all, graphic language now predominate over all other aspects of architectural creation (Buchanan, 1989).
At the other extreme, we find old fashioned, traditional schools oriented towards creating a correct, well educated engineer who responds pragmatically to what needs to be or should be done. Here the definition of the engineer is more traditional, and the curriculum consists of building construction in general and physics and mathematics in particular. These are two basic models with many variations in between - the emphasis ranges widely from a preponderance of engineering through to a preponderance of philosophy and art. However, in all cases, whether more oriented to art or to engineering, the sensitivity of the student's personality should be the main focus of the teachers.
Students with their background in Manhattan, those coming from Moscow or students from some African village, young people from a protestant persuasion or others from the Balkans, all of them are representatives of different cultures. They bring with them different norms and values, and, even more important to their approach to architectural education, they have already memorized some specific, local, formal and spatial archetypes. Often their experiences and memories will not correspond with the general agenda and the school curriculum.
According to the above definition of an educational process, these students represent different 'material' to be transformed by directing it toward the professional. It seems unlikely that they will all be able to take advantage of the same opportunities for progress. Also, if we were to press them to erase their roots by accepting new values and norms, this would not constitute appropriate educational training at the university level. The definition of university training should be that it offers free translation of professional standards and supports freedom of personal expression within basic theoretical principles and a framework of academic standards.
In my vision, tutors at the university level should put their efforts into shaping their students' experience. The personal experience they have amassed is the fundament upon which students will be designing at the commencement of their studies. From this starting point, through the training process, a young person should be directed, step by step, towards the development of an individual professional and thinking personality. In that sense, the training in architecture is about shaping student experience. In fact, education is a technique for transforming and shaping a student's cultural background. In this view, the role of lateral thinking (de Bono, 1977) and hypothetical exercising play an important role. To develop habits of synthesization and to learn to reduce problems to the basic form of a sign or an ideogram may help the student in defining his/her thinking system, vision and critical standpoint.
The main question is: should we put our efforts into transforming the specific personal background, routes, habits and 'taste' of students so that they follow a common world-wide, cultural, 'current trend', or can we better try to add one new colour to the rich, pluralistic world by opening ourselves to the creative world of each student (Fromonot, 1997).
|
1 | 