|
<< ...back
Question of logic
Some disadvantages
According to the curriculum of a number of schools reveals that we are often about first choice. School budgets, numbers of classes and hours of practical work, even hours scheduled for direct communication between student and tutor are often limited if not insulting. Under these circumstances, we cannot expect better results. Even worse is that education becomes indoctrination and schools are transformed into a sort of 'educational machine' (Ghirardo, 1989). This has at least two damaging consequences.
First, it is frustrating for students and makes them unable to 'free their minds'. In other words, the creative aspect of architecture under such circumstances remains out of reach for some students is far from mind. Students are pressed to do what is expected instead of putting their effort into the creative interpretation of the many aspects of a task which leads to an architectural design. The necessary critical view of the student is missing, as are some of the most important training tool - for example, the sharpening of the facility for critical evaluation.
Second, the final school product (as in the case of machines) seems to be uniform, consistent with a variation on the theme as the highest achievement possible and this is reserved for the most successful, talented and stubborn students. Standardization takes over. The normative aspect of education takes priority over creativity. An examination of the curriculum of famous schools reveals clear families in the educational classification. We see not just variations on one formal style but also a consistent thinking pattern.
However, the same didactic system, ideology and academic training process could lead to very different results. Every personal background forms the basis for more than one aspect of a human being. Our roots are often deeper and more complex than we imagine. Our extent of will to protect and effort expended in protecting our own personality (memories and cultural background) corresponds to this complexity. Students will always find some way to survive, whether they satisfy their own sensibilities and ambitions or not. Most of the time, a balance between the student's personality and the educational system can be achieved. But this sort of balance can be reached everywhere, in all fields of human activity and in all phases of human life. I would say that the chance to undertake advanced education has an exceptional importance in a person's life and development. For this reason, one must question what the advantage of university education is when, occupying as it does a most important period in the life of the young person, it is not devoted to selecting and developing his/her best potential and talents.
But we want to speak about real creative shift. And, of what the role of engineering is in such a context?
The role of engineering
A precondition for good design is that the persons involved in a design team understand the spirit and logic of the project, including its conceptual framework and goals. Only then they can successfully and creatively participate in the team. Understanding means translating the logic of someone's idea into a different cultural and professional matrix. Since members of the design team are different professionals with different experiences and ideas about architecture and about their particular tasks in the team, their mutual understanding must come about by surmounting their problems in defining the common goal.
If common knowledge, common values and culture are missing, misunderstandings are sure to take place. In addition to visual culture, verbal expression forms a fine base for good and effective communication, cultural understanding and exchange. Meaning, signs and habits, common experience - in short, the associated aspects of common morphological language (Hillier and Hanson, 1984) - are necessary means to achieve effective and full understanding among people. For communication among architects and other members of the design team, professional vocabulary plays an extraordinarily important role.
Even professionals of the same sort (architect or engineer) will not always communicate effectively. They will, as good professionals, exchange information. Constructive communication of full dimensions as well as creative development will always be the base behind communication that guarantees sufficient and correct instruction for production. Poor communication leads to imperfect understanding; without complete understanding, the necessary creative cooperation between the architect and the engineer cannot be expected. Here we are not speaking of intellectuals, but of well educated and well trained craftsmen. For the sake of clarity, be assured that I am not against craft and skilled craftsmen. The history of modern architecture is based on schools like the Bauhaus and Moscow's VHUTEMAS which advanced production training and design to run parallel. To experience real material, its texture and the principles for assembling and constructing it, offers the student creative inspiration as well as self confidence.
Virtual 'real life'
To a certain extent, technical knowledge is necessary for design. Basic information and principles are tools that play an important role in architectural design. The most popular belief is that teamwork in the educational process, that acts as a training in virtual 'real life' situations, prepares students for future reality. This idea influences most schools and is represented by the model of the interdisciplinary design studio. Different profiles of tutors, assistants and professors concentrate together on the student's project. During teamwork, the student has to solve all the problems top to toe in a 'real life' simulation process. Many specialists are available for different topics, all having a certain academic scope, knowledge, system, goal, task, methodology and, of course, having their own professional ideals and preferences. Because these people are not alike, students are often confused when confronted with their remarks and advice. Student proposals and ideas could be welcomed by tutors of 'pure design' and strongly criticised by others, or vice versa, not because their proposals are 'bad', but because they do not fit in with the schedule, topic or affinity of the others.
Tutors and students are not equal in all respects. Tutors are able to dismiss students' 'inappropriate' proposals. Under these circumstances, students try to survive by compromising, following more powerful tutors or adapting in some other way. Often a student will turn to a simpler, catalogue like solution, an archetypical or prototypical scheme. Thus student work, instead of becoming a real project, becomes a hybrid of all sorts of different influences exerted during the teamwork. From that moment on, the whole idea of teamwork seems senseless. But the team runs on, sprinting towards the last moment - the final project. This can be well balanced, well coordinated and seriously elaborated but is often nothing more than a conventional design product.
Does this fulfil the basic goal of higher education and successfully acquit team training? I think not. The whole process and the idea behind that process is based on the same pattern one sees in the training of some craftsmen: repetition of activities, gaining of experience, exercise and control - the basic methodological touchstones in the training of a craftsman.
It is well known that at least two or three years of practice are necessary as preparation for the moment that a young architect may truly participate in a team based on such a conventional model. Also, for each project, especially if it is ambitious or possesses a complex programme, a range of suitable engineers must be involved in the team. However, most of the time it is not the case with team work. Finally, in most cases, students learn what must be learned and retain the knowledge until the moment of the exam. Afterwards they forget it.
By means of this discourse, I hope to make clear that I do not have much faith in establishing appropriate virtual 'real life' education. University education should offer knowledge and stress students' abilities and talents. For that purpose, I feel that some radically different method should be employed.
|
