> - - The original note follows - -
>
>From: Dillon J Lin <dl4u+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: College Freshman Looking for Advice
>Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 23:49:39 -0400
Thanks to Dillon for upbeat, and daring, comments. Give him
high marks, forever.
My dream for this list is to get info like Dillon's on what is
going on outside my tiny toxic piece of the planet, especially
from kind souls not yet contaminated by worldly wisdom and
encrusted with cynical narcissism. Hope is my game and need.
In this spirit, I happily post a bit from one of my thankless
alma maters, CU in the C of NY, and humbly ask that others tell
us almost-defeated pratitioners what hope is brewing at the
schools beyond all fully-justified complaints. Maybe even a
few daring statements like that sent for Sci Arc.
What do CU students think of the dean's statement below? All
posted replies shall be our secret: Howard assures me that no
CU poobahs are subscribed. Trust me.
-------------------
>From "Newsline", Columbia University Graduate School
of Architecture Planning and Preservation,
Summer/Sept/Oct '94.
By Bernard Tschumi, Dean
The history of architecture is deeply intertwined with
the history of its educational methods, and today's
changes at Columbia and in many other schools are part
of a much larger evolution. I would thus like briefly
to raise the issue of architectural education and
architecture in terms of the three great breaks or
dissociations that have occurred in the last two or
three thousand years.
THE FIRST DISSOCIATION
>From the time of the pyramids to the end of the
Middle Ages, the architect lives on the building site
and rarely exists as an independent individual. There
are no schools of architecture. In 1670, the first
importantsplit between architecture and construction
takes place. In Louis XlV's France, Colbert
commissions Perrault to translate Vitruvius and
establishes the Academie Royale d'Architecture. The
first school of architecture is also created for
political reasons, to divide and conquer the guilds
by separating theory from practice. The architect does
not learn on the construction site anymore: he (sic)
goes to school.
THE SECOND DISSOCIATION
Two hundred years later, the Beaux-Arts system is
fully in place. Architects design superb
"compositions" in which the logic of two-dimensional
paper aesthetics governs architecture. The logic of
materials ceases to generate construction; it is
replaced by the logic of rendering facades in
watercolor. Viollet-le-Duc hides iron inside stone
vaults. Architects today still occasionally remark: "I
don't care how it is made as long as it looks the way
I want." American architects flock to the Ecole des
Beaux-Arts in Paris: Sullivan, Richardson, McKim, Mead
and White.
Meanwhile the United States construction industry
develops its own construction methods, without
architects' input. In this second dissociation
architects have little control over the definition of
building process. In our litigious society, American
architects are not in charge of "construction
supervision" anymore but of "contract administration
services.") Education flourishes. Schools of
architecture open everywhere. The first is MlT's
architecture department, immediately followed in 1881
by the School of Architecture at Columbia University,
established by William Ware. Ware specifically insists
on approaching architectural education from a
humanistic rather than a technical point of view.
Avery Hall opens in 1912 amid controversies between
director William Ware and C.F. McKim, the camous
architect.
Of course, the Beaux-Arts educational system with its
emphasis on drawing and classical precedents is not
the only pedagogical model. The Arts and Crafts
tradition and the engineering schools both create
brands of architectural education. But in the United
States, the Beaux-Arts system by and large dominates.
Even the enormous influence of the craft- and
production-oriented Bauhaus is translated into
Beaux-Arts terms.
When Bauhaus ideals and architectural modernism
triumph in America thanks to Philip Johnson and
Henry-Russell Hitchcock's 1932 International Style
exhibition), critics accused Johnson of having
stripped the modern movement from its social context.
Yet the show's omission of the Bauhaus emphasis on
construction methodology will have a more enduring
affect on the making of buildings. Columbia evolves
along similar lines. After the distinguished academic
classicism of the pre-World War I era, with the
leading New York professionals as its teachers, the
curriculum broadens dramatically in the early
thirties, incorporating modernism and town planning.
THE THIRD DISSOCIATION
In 1968, almost exactly three hundred years after
Colbert started the first school of architecture,
schools explode worldwide. At Columbia, students'
protests begin over the university's building
policies, with demonstrations against the "bad Miami
Beach decor" of one of its halls and the proposed
construction of a large indoor gym in Morningside
Park, at the edge of Harlem, at a time of tense social
relations between the two communities.
I would like to concentrate on the educational
aftermath of the 1968 events. A new social conscience
emerges. Architects establish advocacy planning and
community workshops. A new critical generation also
begins to develop. On the wall of the Beaux-Arts
studios in Paris in the 1950's, there used to be a
sign saying: "Books are forbidden here." Many
architectural students now read avidly. From
historical studies to the latest developments in
poststructuralism, intense questioning takes place. In
America, the university plays an enormous role, the
architectural student is not isolated in
aprofessional/training school but is acutely aware of
the forces around him and benefits tremendously from
this academic context. Extraordinary work, often
experimental, emerges from the schools. To quote
Rafael Moneo, my former colleague atthe Harvard
Graduate School of Design, it is not the architectural
schools that follow the trends established by the
professional firms; but now it is the professional
firms that follow the trends set by the architectural
schools. Multiple crossovers among art, architecture,
film and linguistic studies encourage complex
architectural proposals in which "theory" becomes a
key word. The notion of "theoretical practice," as
represented by many of the younger practitioners
today, signifies an extraordinary development in the
culture of architecture over the last ten years.
This leads me to the third dissociation. Theoretical
practice does not build, it publishes. We increasingly
witness a split within the ranks of architects between
the "idea" architects, the media stars, and
"signature" architects who do well-publicized sketch
designs, and the near-anonymous firms that do the
working drawings and pay liability insurance.
This situation concerns me, as the architect is more
and more distanced from the forces that govern the
production of buildings today.
To summarize:
1. First dissociation: Architects do not build, masons
and carpenters do.
2. Second dissociation: Architects do not define
construction methods, the industry does.
3. Third dissociation: Will "design" architects not
prepare construction drawings anymore and job
architects do it instead?
>From 1670 on, this evolution would seem inevitable,
accelerated by extraordinary developments in computer
technology that are completely transforming the
theoretical and practical practice of architects
andthe construction industry.
What is our attitude toward this ever-increasing
distancing of architects from the actual fabrication
of buildings and cities? How can we turn such
distancing against itself? I would argue that the
changing role of architects means that they may be
less involved with the technology of construction but
that they must instead be involved with the
*construction of technology*. They have to be
instrumental in the construction of the new
computerized technologies that are already
transforming building and design processes. Moreover,
the third dissociation does not mean that architects
should simply retreat in a laissez-faire acceptance of
today's design conditions, but they should on the
contrary design new conditions.
Beyond the construction of technology, the design of
new conditions for architecture also means new
attitudes toward the activities that take place in
architectural spaces: a new attitude toward programs
and the production of events, so as to reconfigure and
to provide a rich texture of experiences that will
redefine architecture and urban life. The challenge is
enormously exciting.
*One, two, three: jump.*
-------------------
END
>
>From: Dillon J Lin <dl4u+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: College Freshman Looking for Advice
>Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 23:49:39 -0400
Thanks to Dillon for upbeat, and daring, comments. Give him
high marks, forever.
My dream for this list is to get info like Dillon's on what is
going on outside my tiny toxic piece of the planet, especially
from kind souls not yet contaminated by worldly wisdom and
encrusted with cynical narcissism. Hope is my game and need.
In this spirit, I happily post a bit from one of my thankless
alma maters, CU in the C of NY, and humbly ask that others tell
us almost-defeated pratitioners what hope is brewing at the
schools beyond all fully-justified complaints. Maybe even a
few daring statements like that sent for Sci Arc.
What do CU students think of the dean's statement below? All
posted replies shall be our secret: Howard assures me that no
CU poobahs are subscribed. Trust me.
-------------------
>From "Newsline", Columbia University Graduate School
of Architecture Planning and Preservation,
Summer/Sept/Oct '94.
By Bernard Tschumi, Dean
The history of architecture is deeply intertwined with
the history of its educational methods, and today's
changes at Columbia and in many other schools are part
of a much larger evolution. I would thus like briefly
to raise the issue of architectural education and
architecture in terms of the three great breaks or
dissociations that have occurred in the last two or
three thousand years.
THE FIRST DISSOCIATION
>From the time of the pyramids to the end of the
Middle Ages, the architect lives on the building site
and rarely exists as an independent individual. There
are no schools of architecture. In 1670, the first
importantsplit between architecture and construction
takes place. In Louis XlV's France, Colbert
commissions Perrault to translate Vitruvius and
establishes the Academie Royale d'Architecture. The
first school of architecture is also created for
political reasons, to divide and conquer the guilds
by separating theory from practice. The architect does
not learn on the construction site anymore: he (sic)
goes to school.
THE SECOND DISSOCIATION
Two hundred years later, the Beaux-Arts system is
fully in place. Architects design superb
"compositions" in which the logic of two-dimensional
paper aesthetics governs architecture. The logic of
materials ceases to generate construction; it is
replaced by the logic of rendering facades in
watercolor. Viollet-le-Duc hides iron inside stone
vaults. Architects today still occasionally remark: "I
don't care how it is made as long as it looks the way
I want." American architects flock to the Ecole des
Beaux-Arts in Paris: Sullivan, Richardson, McKim, Mead
and White.
Meanwhile the United States construction industry
develops its own construction methods, without
architects' input. In this second dissociation
architects have little control over the definition of
building process. In our litigious society, American
architects are not in charge of "construction
supervision" anymore but of "contract administration
services.") Education flourishes. Schools of
architecture open everywhere. The first is MlT's
architecture department, immediately followed in 1881
by the School of Architecture at Columbia University,
established by William Ware. Ware specifically insists
on approaching architectural education from a
humanistic rather than a technical point of view.
Avery Hall opens in 1912 amid controversies between
director William Ware and C.F. McKim, the camous
architect.
Of course, the Beaux-Arts educational system with its
emphasis on drawing and classical precedents is not
the only pedagogical model. The Arts and Crafts
tradition and the engineering schools both create
brands of architectural education. But in the United
States, the Beaux-Arts system by and large dominates.
Even the enormous influence of the craft- and
production-oriented Bauhaus is translated into
Beaux-Arts terms.
When Bauhaus ideals and architectural modernism
triumph in America thanks to Philip Johnson and
Henry-Russell Hitchcock's 1932 International Style
exhibition), critics accused Johnson of having
stripped the modern movement from its social context.
Yet the show's omission of the Bauhaus emphasis on
construction methodology will have a more enduring
affect on the making of buildings. Columbia evolves
along similar lines. After the distinguished academic
classicism of the pre-World War I era, with the
leading New York professionals as its teachers, the
curriculum broadens dramatically in the early
thirties, incorporating modernism and town planning.
THE THIRD DISSOCIATION
In 1968, almost exactly three hundred years after
Colbert started the first school of architecture,
schools explode worldwide. At Columbia, students'
protests begin over the university's building
policies, with demonstrations against the "bad Miami
Beach decor" of one of its halls and the proposed
construction of a large indoor gym in Morningside
Park, at the edge of Harlem, at a time of tense social
relations between the two communities.
I would like to concentrate on the educational
aftermath of the 1968 events. A new social conscience
emerges. Architects establish advocacy planning and
community workshops. A new critical generation also
begins to develop. On the wall of the Beaux-Arts
studios in Paris in the 1950's, there used to be a
sign saying: "Books are forbidden here." Many
architectural students now read avidly. From
historical studies to the latest developments in
poststructuralism, intense questioning takes place. In
America, the university plays an enormous role, the
architectural student is not isolated in
aprofessional/training school but is acutely aware of
the forces around him and benefits tremendously from
this academic context. Extraordinary work, often
experimental, emerges from the schools. To quote
Rafael Moneo, my former colleague atthe Harvard
Graduate School of Design, it is not the architectural
schools that follow the trends established by the
professional firms; but now it is the professional
firms that follow the trends set by the architectural
schools. Multiple crossovers among art, architecture,
film and linguistic studies encourage complex
architectural proposals in which "theory" becomes a
key word. The notion of "theoretical practice," as
represented by many of the younger practitioners
today, signifies an extraordinary development in the
culture of architecture over the last ten years.
This leads me to the third dissociation. Theoretical
practice does not build, it publishes. We increasingly
witness a split within the ranks of architects between
the "idea" architects, the media stars, and
"signature" architects who do well-publicized sketch
designs, and the near-anonymous firms that do the
working drawings and pay liability insurance.
This situation concerns me, as the architect is more
and more distanced from the forces that govern the
production of buildings today.
To summarize:
1. First dissociation: Architects do not build, masons
and carpenters do.
2. Second dissociation: Architects do not define
construction methods, the industry does.
3. Third dissociation: Will "design" architects not
prepare construction drawings anymore and job
architects do it instead?
>From 1670 on, this evolution would seem inevitable,
accelerated by extraordinary developments in computer
technology that are completely transforming the
theoretical and practical practice of architects
andthe construction industry.
What is our attitude toward this ever-increasing
distancing of architects from the actual fabrication
of buildings and cities? How can we turn such
distancing against itself? I would argue that the
changing role of architects means that they may be
less involved with the technology of construction but
that they must instead be involved with the
*construction of technology*. They have to be
instrumental in the construction of the new
computerized technologies that are already
transforming building and design processes. Moreover,
the third dissociation does not mean that architects
should simply retreat in a laissez-faire acceptance of
today's design conditions, but they should on the
contrary design new conditions.
Beyond the construction of technology, the design of
new conditions for architecture also means new
attitudes toward the activities that take place in
architectural spaces: a new attitude toward programs
and the production of events, so as to reconfigure and
to provide a rich texture of experiences that will
redefine architecture and urban life. The challenge is
enormously exciting.
*One, two, three: jump.*
-------------------
END