Myths of Studio Culture
I have come accross an interesting excerpt from page 6 of the AIAS (American Institute of Architecture Students) Studio Culture Task Force Report that lists some of the myths of studio culture. It's interesting because I can relate it to my experiences as an architecture student in the Philippines where the design studio is equally elevated - perhaps sometimes too much - in importance.
Just where do I go off saying that something might be given "too much" importance? Can that even be possible?
There is no question that the studio culture is the back bone of an architectural education. However, when you live the studio culture in a way where other areas of your life suffer, maybe then we can say that it's given too much importance.
I sort of know this first hand because I am one of those guys back in school who would rather spend the extra time making my boards just a little bit closer to perfect rather than doing the "less important stuff" like eating and sleeping.
I've also been witness to the end of a number of friendships sometimes brought about by the dynamics of some studios. Vocal and physical tussling and back stabbing are not uncommon when people are confronted with their perceived deficiencies in the time they are physically present in studio regardless of the amount of their contribution.
This is not surprising when one thinks that in architecture school, where one's reputation is oftentimes married to the number of hours he spends in the studio, that is the status quo.
If it shocks you to realize that the importance given to the studio culture may be more myth than fact - or that you actually need to eat and sleep to live and that keeping friendships might be better than a good looking board- you might want to read the excerpt I found. You might even want to add to it. Here it is:
Studio culture can (be)characterized by the myths it perpetuates. These myths influence the mentality of students and promote certain behaviors and patterns. The following prevail within many design studios, if not within every school:
- Architectural education should require personal and physical sacrifice.
- The creation of architecture should be a solo, artistic struggle.
- The best students are those who spend the most hours in studio.
- Design studio courses are more important than other architecture or liberal arts courses.
- Success in architecture school is only attained by investing all of your energy in studio.
- It is impossible to be a successful architect unless you excel in the design studio.
- Students should not have a life outside of architecture school.
- The best design ideas only come in the middle of the night.
- Creative energy only comes from the pressure of deadlines.
- Students must devote themselves to studio in order to belong to the architecture community.
- Collaboration with other students means giving up the best ideas.
- It is more important to finish a few extra drawings than sleep or mentally prepare for the design review.
- It is possible to learn about complex social and cultural issues while spending the majority of time sitting at a studio desk.
- Students do not have the power to make changes within architecture programs or the design studio.
4 Comments:
Context means everything... different schools / studios will have different normative dimensions with regards to studio culture, but here are some sentiments that I carry PERSONALLY withe regards to these "myths"
- Architectural education should require personal and physical sacrifice.
>>> I AGREE
- The creation of architecture should be a solo, artistic struggle.
>>> BULLSHIT... Architecture is a non-linear process that involves the channelling of forces back and forth between many different entities... such a belief is naive and immature
- The best students are those who spend the most hours in studio.
>>> Depending on the situation... though there is a TENDENCY for this to be so in certain contexts.
- Design studio courses are more important than other architecture or liberal arts courses.
>>> If all you have is the design studio, if it's the be-all, end-all, what then stimulates the creation within it?
- Success in architecture school is only attained by investing all of your energy in studio.
>>>A BIG part of it lies in the studio, but it's not HINGED there
- It is impossible to be a successful architect unless you excel in the design studio.
>>>BULLSHIT... 95% of the "successful" architects out there can't design worth shit, you think they actually were any good in the studio?
- Students should not have a life outside of architecture school.
>>> Ideally, this should be the case... unfortunately not necessarily so in many situations
- The best design ideas only come in the middle of the night.
>>> This depends on the person
- Creative energy only comes from the pressure of deadlines.
>>> Creative ideas also come in the middle of great sex, no pressure there
- Students must devote themselves to studio in order to belong to the architecture community.
>>> Depends on the context of the studio
- Collaboration with other students means giving up the best ideas.
>>> Collaboration is an exchange, it means giving some to get some, in most cases, it does more good than bad... quit being a selfish bastard!
- It is more important to finish a few extra drawings than sleep or mentally prepare for the design review.
>>> Depends... on the person talking, the person drawing and the person reviewing the design
- It is possible to learn about complex social and cultural issues while spending the majority of time sitting at a studio desk.
>>> It's possible... limited but possible... depends a lot with context as well... but hey, if you can afford to go out every now and then and see the world - do it!
- Students do not have the power to make changes within architecture programs or the design studio.
>>> *architecture programs* and *design studio* are 2 different realms... they should NOT be seen as the same thing... choosing to do so is naive and immature.
It is hard to accept with oneself when something that is held important is found to have clay feet. I guess we'd rather hit our own head than wake up to reality.
Growing older and more experienced, I have personally found that the myths of studio culture are actually just that: myths. It's hard to swallow but I accept that.
On the flipside of things, some teachers defeated the purpose of studio time by simply not having them. They are the ones who just give out assignments and collects them at a deadline they set. You don't even get to see them or consult with them in between the day the assignment was given out and the day of the deadline. Some of the more extreme cases you didn't get to see the teacher at all. They would just post their assignments on bulletin boards and would have you leave your boards at some drop off point at the deadline.
The value of Studio is actually doing the work there and creating a dynamic exchange between instructor and classmates with regards to transmission of knowledge, presentation of work and and participation in critiques.
In short, it is the process of Studio which gives it value. It is then a grave injustice to architectural education when teachers do not engage their classes in this process in what are supposed to be studios.
to quote raymond "design is overrated... if everyone were a designer, would anything get built???"
in the pursuit of most things great and noble, there must be some level of sacrfice. "great love and great success involve great risks." it's not just about great architecture. it's about greatness, per se. if you want excellence, there are things you have to give up to achieve it. architectural education does not require personal and physical sacrifice. the pursuit of excellent architectural education does. if you don't care about your education, you don't need to live like a zombie. yes?
this does not necessarily equate to less sleeping hours, more studio hours = successful designer/ design student. some people are just really gifted in design. some need more time to work on it. some days you're inspired; other days you have to force yourself to sit down and squeeze something out. but the most DEDICATED people in the profession spend more time in the studio. they keep on wanting to improve. they are not satisfied with just traditional solutions. they experiment and push the limits. and they do that within the studio context. (supposedly, anyway.)
the best designs are the ones which are sympathetic to its context. i.e. those that consider actual circumstances that surround the project. architecture is about space FOR PEOPLE. to design good architecture, you need to know its users. and you can only find out if you get out of the studio and do some leg work! sure, you can do phone calls, study statistic, read papers... but the essence of the space is IN the space. you have to BE THERE to know what it's about. and you have to know what it's about before you propose to do anything about it. or your design solution will fit like a glove on a foot.
what makes architecture such a noble profession is that it involves people. the people who use your building, the people who build your structure, the people you work with to create your architecture. it's all about human dynamics. i find that the best way to grow is through human interaction and the exchange of ideas. the thing with knowledge is that its value does not diminish when it is shared. the more you share, the more value it attains. because more people can benefit from it. so quit being a self-absorbed know-it-all and share your ideas!!! personally, i find more fulfillment in successful designs that are a result of collaborative effort, rather than solo work. but that's just me.
again, these are just personal opinions. feel free to disagree.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home