This is in response to David Sheer, AIA:
I wonder about the notion of bathing architecture students in theory for 4-6 years and expecting them to transform into productive, knowledgeable licensed architects; is this a realistic model in the 21st century? In regards to what Ryan Smith said, I think his recommended direction toward a more collaborative-oriented studio is a good one, in part. In my opinion, a successful architecture curriculum cannot be either/or- all Theory or BIM/IPD infused with history/theory/culture/art- but must be both as well as add a third component, that of better instruction on construction methods and materials.
In Mr. Sheer's post to Ryan Smith, he stated:
"He goes on to advocate a greater focus on collaboration, especially interdisciplinary work with students in engineering and construction management programs. I'd like to say a few words in defense of traditional architectural education, centered on the design studio with coursework that emphasizes architectural thought and history. The aim of architecture school has never been to simulate practice or even, strange as it may seem, to specifically prepare students for the world of practice. "
I think the latter statement is why we've seen almost an epic failure in the advancement of the architecture profession at large- the huge firms are doing well, it's the rest of us that struggle with the day to day mundane- and the misperception of us by the general public.
A curriculum based on theory alone results in turning out professional "artists of the built environment," aka "building designers." Which is great; we need that. However, not everyone will become a starchitect, sadly.
In support of your theory-based stance, I would assert that "art is not a collaborative endeavor." For example, I cannot imagine Leonardo di Vinci consulting anyone during the four years he took to paint the Mona Lisa- which is now kept behind thick glass in the Louvre museum with thousands of people flocking to see it everyday.
And I doubt Michelangelo consulted with anyone on how to depict the stories of Genesis on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel; he did have help in constructing the scaffolding that he designed and he did receive help from his assistant who developed a better plaster that would not give way to mold.
On collaboration, and in support of both your and Ryan Smith's essays, the great architect Zaha Hadid has said, in an interview available on Youtube, in effect, that "architecture is a team endeavor."
So, based on the above, I believe architecture schools do need to continue to teach the beautiful theory and history of architecture, merging it with the laws of physics, and to provide laboratories of collaborative engagement with related emerging professionals as they learn what makes buildings stand up and how to communicate using BIM and IPD technologies. I think they should still freehand sketch, learn how to letter, use a t-square/parallel rule, build physical models using balsa wood, foam core and glue, and learn Revit, too.
As I noted in my private reply to you, Mr. Sheer, your education is quite complete as you have 6 years in physics prior to 6 years in architecture (2 of which were under the direction of Peter Eisenman)- a total of 12 years of study prior to practice. Isn't it easy for you to say that the architecture curriculum should remain as it is? :)
In visiting various conventions and summits recently, I have heard several architects agreeing with your stance, however. And this has been echoed by the Deans of some of the colleges saying that they are being told to teach the student how to "design poetry."
So, my question to the profession is this: how are interns going to learn what it takes to practice architecture?
Who has time for an MBA or 3-5 years of trial and error in the IDP program (if one is lucky enough to secure work right away); and why reinvent the wheel every time a graduate gets his diploma?
It seems to me that in this rapid paced society, we need equally rapid-paced sharing of technology and information, construction techniques, and how to construct good buildings as well as maintaining the art and beauty of architectural design.
Therefore, I advocate a program similar to the medical profession- where IDP is elevated to a more elegant internship equal to that of a physician in training. This would require firms to be more committed to the interns they hire, for architecture students to be more disciplined in studio (to then get selected by top firms for a more intense, well-paid internship program). It is important to keep in mind, however, that even medical interns are often unintentionally "sleep deprived" and not necessarily given the red-carpet treatment due to the nature of the work.
There is no substitute for hard work in this effort.
If it takes 12 years for a person to become a licensed Family Practitioner or other medical specialty, and as challenging as architecture is- and if true facts and records were revealed- I'd say that it takes almost the same time for one to become a licensed architect (10-12 years).
The question remains, how best to teach the brave new architecture?
-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-19-2011 17:18
From: David Scheer
Subject: A Reply to Ryan Smith
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Technology in Architectural Practice Knowledge Community Advisory Group and Technology in Architectural Practice .
-------------------------------------------
Prof. Ryan Smith recently posted a thoughtful article on architectural education and integration (http://network.aia.org/CenterforIntegratedPractice/Home/OnEducation/ ) He writes, "[i]n order to prepare students and service the profession in the new integrated paradigm educators and administrators in schools and colleges of design need to revamp the traditional studio model that focuses on one-on-one formal manipulation." He goes on to advocate a greater focus on collaboration, especially interdisciplinary work with students in engineering and construction management programs. I'd like to say a few words in defense of traditional architectural education, centered on the design studio with coursework that emphasizes architectural thought and history.
The aim of architecture school has never been to simulate practice or even, strange as it may seem, to specifically prepare students for the world of practice. The primary goal of architectural education has traditionally been to inculcate the values of architecture in students. These derive from the unique place architects hold in the building industry. There are values that society wants taken into account in our built environment that have no natural advocates in a market-driven design-construction process. As is the case with all liberal professions, architecture exists to bring these social values to its domain. This is what makes architects unique among the members of a project team. This is the defining quality of architecture.
The time students can spend in school is limited compared with the knowledge they should ideally possess when they graduate. A curriculum must make hard choices. School is where they learn to be architects, as distinct from more specialized designers, engineers, contractors and owners. The essential content of an architectural education is ideological. An architecture school has five or six years to ingrain in its students the notion that they must be the advocates of social and humanistic values in building. The collaborative interdisciplinary work recommended by Prof. Smith may help them learn how this might be done in a team environment- a useful exercise to be sure. However, before they can do this, they must believe that doing it is essential and have a well-formed idea of what values they wish to bring to their work. That must be the primary emphasis of architectural education. In other words, the "what" must precede the "how".
Before architects become collaborators they must know in their own minds what they want to see happen and, to the extent possible, why. Architects must bring the the central ideas to the design process- no one else can or will. Doing this well requires a great deal of practical knowledge of construction and skill in working collaboratively with other people. But first it requires having ideas worth realizing. Prof. Smith's vision of the architect as " the key collaborator or facilitator of a building process that oscillates between stakeholders" may be an accurate description of our daily work, but it is not why we are there. We are there to give voice and potency to ideas that create a built environment that does more than reflect economic, technical and organizational constraints. We are there to bring ideas and values to the creation of a built environment that reflects our societies' deeper needs and place in history.
This will seem like idealistic nonsense to some. Precisely.
-------------------------------------------
David Scheer AIA, AICP, LEEDap
TAP 2012 Chair
Principal
Scheer & Scheer, Inc.
Salt Lake City UT
-------------------------------------------