CRITICISMS
ON CURRENT ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION
A Commentary Bibliography
Hüseyin Tolga Koyuncugil
huseyint@bilkent.edu.tr
INTRODUCTION
Architecture has always been a field of diverse discussions. This is because
architecture is not a self-sufficient discipline, it is like a web between
the disciplines (Eekhout 11); it is a field which is multi-dimensional.
Therefore, it is criticized from different points of view. As a consequence,
its education is also a very argumentative field; a lot of criticism is
made on architectural education. These criticisms are generally based
on the relationship between architecture and other disciplines, and on
the interrelationship of the components of architecture itself.
This commentary bibliography aims at presenting some works which criticise
current architectural education. The articles are grouped according to
the similarity of the criticisms, under the following headings: those
based on design approaches, on knowledge sources, on student-instructor
relationships, and on teaching methods.
CRITICISMS ON DESIGN APPROACH
Bing’s criticisms are focused on design approaches to introductory design
education, which limits the creativity of design process because of the
separation between process of introductory design education, and the process
of the architectural design. He suggests an integrated design curriculum
to create a holistic design experience by combining different introductory
design approaches into the design studio (35). As a part of his criticism
focused on design approaches, Harris criticises the theoretical approaches
to architectural education, because they separate architectural education
from the site, and suggests to integrate the site during the design education
(111-2).
From a different perspective, Coyne criticises the objectivist approach
to architectural education as the only approach to the architectural education,
and suggests a metaphorical approach as a more creative way for a design
approach (113). Steemers names the objectivist approach as the scientific
approach, and criticises the reductionist understanding of this scientific
approach. However, he suggests a more theoretical approach for design
education, as the opposite of the criticism of Harris (92-3).
Fowles criticises the designer oriented approach, and suggests a user
oriented approach in which the participation of the user, and the community
group in the architectural education are the basics (113-15). In another
attitude, the designer oriented approach is defined as a formalist design
approach, and criticised by Gelernter, who also suggests a more scientific-objectivist
approach which is based on the building cost, building regulations, etc.
(26-7). However, this scientific-objectivist approach which is suggested
by Gelernter, contrasts with the ideas of Coyne and Steemers which is
based on the criticisms on the scientific-objectivist approaches to architectural
education.
Burtonwood criticises the global approaches to architectural education,
because of their disregard of the cultural richness of multi-cultural
society, and suggests the inclusion of cultural diversity as a beneficial
phenomenon (205-06).
CRITICISMS ON KNOWLEDGE SOURCES
Usage of Some Sources
Brierley criticises the focus on knowledge sources of architectural education
as the dilemma faced by designers when considering the attribution of
sources for their design decisions. By concealing the possible influences
upon a design, the means of stimulating further ideas may be less easy
to achieve (39). As a part of the criticism of Brierley, Naylor and Knights
criticise the focus on physical knowledge (project's site, client, and
brief) in terms of quantities, and observed facts, which are enough to
develop a rich, and meaningful architecture. They also criticise the doctrine
of the analytical method of architectural education which separates the
unity of the architectural design into six facets (69). As another part
criticism of Brierley, Otxotorena and Gonzales-Presencio criticise the
focus on technical knowledge which is based on the understanding of the
design process as the mathematical equation which results as the only
technical solution of the quantitative factors (75).
Lack Of Usage of Some Sources
Varnelis criticises the non-existence of history as a knowledge source,
as the result of his belief that architecture is eternal truth outside
of the any context. The ideal of the innocent eye is criticised, because
it creates reduction of architectural education in to its basic spatial
components (212-13).
Allen criticises the non-existence of technical knowledge as a knowledge
source, which is based on the rupture between the architectural education
and the practice of the profession (92-3). As the part of the criticisms
on the technical knowledge, Bovill criticises the non-existence of material
knowledge, and the understanding of material as a constraint for the design
process, also suggests this knowledge as a requirement for creativity
(84-5). Similarly, Ashley criticises the non-existence of the construction
technology knowledge, and criticises the rupture between the design studio,
and the construction technology (17-9).
Stability of Knowledge Sources
Stamps criticises the stability of the knowledge sources in the architectural
education. He claimms that the knowledge sources are rapidly changing
in information-based, multicultural societies, but the knowledge sources
of current architectural education do not reflect this change (105-06).
From similar perspective, Brady criticises the stability of the knowledge
sources, in which the basic concern is the change in society, as it affects
the sustainability of the architectural education (32-3). Holder criticises
the stability of the knowledge sources in the architectural education
by criticisizing the idea that "[a] lot of people would say that life
in our schools has changed in the last few years." Therefore, "What has
changed, and how might it be measured?" are questions posed by Holder
(299-313). Liebeskind shows a reason for the stability of the sources
of architectural education, as being the instructors, because they do
not give a chance to the students to benefit from the knowledge sources
in the changing society (89-90).
CRITICISMS ON THE STUDENT-INSTRUCTOR RELATIONSHIP
Hopkins and De Kay criticise the dominance of the instructors on the students,
and they claim that it creates a dependence between the students, which
shows itself as the self-identity problems, and design solutions which
are authoritatively acceptable, but not individual solutions (54).
Frederickson criticises the racial and gender bias of instructors in the
juries, which is because of the gender, or race difference between the
instructors, and the students. These biases are measured by using ethnographic
observation, and survey data (38-49), as the part of the criticism of
Frederickson. Anthony criticises the teacher's gender based bias, esspecially
in the comparative model of the design juries which is the result of the
male dominant model. The competetion model is not criticised, but the
unequal competetion between males, and the females in the juries is criticised
(165-66). In a similar vein, Davis criticises the racial bias in curriculum
preparation, which becomes clear after the warning of the Afro-American
students, and this warning creates a basis for the re-organization of
the new curriculum (30-1).
Ward criticises the cultural bias in juries; this cultural bias is based
on the diversity between the dominant culture, and the sub-ordinate cultures
in the architectural education around the multi-cultural settings (136-37).
A close criticism on the cultural bias in the design juries is made by
Stevens, which deals with the symbolic power that dominates the juries
(105-06).
CRITICISMS ON TEACHING METHODS
Salvestrini criticises the trial and error method of the current architectural
education method. He identifies this method as the biggest problem of
introductory design education, because it hides the inability of instructors
to teach the design which is based on the explanation of what design is,
and how one designs (81). Delage and Marda criticise the current architectural
education method for its lack of success in the transformation of the
preconceived images of the beginner architecture students into the introductory
design education (81). Eekhout criticises the same subject from a different
point of view: current architectural design education is defined as being
intuitive. A systematic design approach is suggested as a requirement
for the practice of the architecture (82-3).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Edward. "Second Studio." Journal of Architectural Education 51.2
(1997): 92-95.
Anthony, Kathryn H. Design Juries on Trial. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
1991.
Ashley, Judy. " From Ground to Integration." in Cairns. 17-21.
Bing, Judith. "Beyond the Kit of Parts." in Eldridge. 35-36.
Bovill, Carl. "Intention , Form, and Execution."Journal of Architectural
Education. 48.2 (1997): 84-85.
Brady, Darlene A. "The Education of an Architect." Journal of Architectural
Education 50.1 (1996): 32-49.
Brierley, E. S. "The Design Theory Apologia Program ." in Eldridge, 39-40.
Burtonwood, Neil. "Beyond Local Cultures." Journal of Art and Design Education
14.2 (1995): 205-213.
Cairns, George (ed.) Perspectives on Architectural Education. York, UK
: University of York, Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, 1997
Coyne, Richard, Adrian Snodgrass, and David Martin. "Metaphors in the
Design Studio." Journal of Architectural Education 48.2 (1994): 113-125.
Crysler, C. Craig. " Critical Psychology and Architectural Education."
Journal of Architectural Education. 48.4(1995): 208-217.
Davis, Regina. "Writing Multiculturalism into Architecture Curricula."
Journal of Architectural Education. 47.1 (1993): 30-35 .
Delage, Corine and Nelly Marda. "Transformations." in Eldridge, 43.
Eekhout, Mick. " Design Methodology in Teaching." in Cairns, 81-89.
Eldridge, Karen L. (ed.) Beginnings in Architectural Education : Proceedings
of the ACSA/EAAE Conference, Prague, 1993. Washington, DC : Association
of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, 1994.
Fowles, Robert. "Participatory Design and Architectural Education." in
Cairns, 113-118.
Frederickson, Mark Paul. "Gender and Racial Bias in Design Juries." Journal
of Architectural Education. 47.1 (1993): 38-49.
Gelernter, Mark. "Sources of Architectural Form." Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1995.
Harris, Melissa. "Social Dynamics and Built Form." Learning by Building.
Ed.William J. Carpenter. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1997.
Holder, Brian. "The Changing Culture of Five English Art Schools." Journal
of Art and Design Education. 14.3 (1995): 299-313.
Hopkins, Arlene and Mark De Kay. "SOS: The Self- Organizing Student."
in Eldridge, 54.
Liebeskind, Daniel. "Observation on Education of Architects." Educating
Architects. Eds. Martin Pearce and Maggi Toy. London: St Martin`s Press.
1995, 88-90.
Naylor, Phil and Clive Knights. "Upon Interpretive Awakenings." in Eldridge,
69-70.
Orbaşlı, Aylin. "A Methodology for the Course Evaluation." in Cairns,
9-14.
Otxotorena, Juna and Mariano Gonzales- Presencio. "The Initiation of Design."
in Eldridge, 75-76.
Salvestrini, Giovanni. " Communication." in Eldridge, 77-78.
Stamps, Arthur E. "Jungian Epistemological Balance." Journal of Architectural
Education 48.2 (1994): 105- 112.
Steemers, Koen. "Design as Research and its Relationship to Scientific
Investigation." in Cairns, 91-95.
Stevens, Garry. "Struggle in the Studio." Journal of Architectural Education.
49.2 (1996):105-122.
Varnelis, Kazys. "The Education of the Innocent Eye." Journal of Architectural
Education. 51.4 (1998): 212-23.
Vestuti, Emile. "Learning by Doing." in Eldridge, 75-76.
Ward, Anthony and Wong Liu Shueng. "Equity, Education, and Design in New
Zealand." Journal of Architectural Education 48.2 (1996): 136-155. |
