LETTER TO THE HEAD OF A NEW SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
Sir,
Thanks for the briefing on Wednesday. As you know, I find
the five-minute thinking blocks of a ‘butcher paper’ event a little restrictive
when matters need some more careful review and reverie. I believe that such
events are now called ‘think tanks.’ Is this because everyone is drowning
underwater, flailing around aimlessly, seeking the surface in an attempt to
make some sense out of nothing? The setting up of a new school is exciting. It
offers an unusual new beginning and a real challenge to implement different
structures to suit our times. The Bauhaus model has been reproduced for many
years now. This is a great opportunity to see if some different approaches
might be fruitful - to bring the Gropius enthusiasm for education into this
century so that it can play a role in shaping the next one hundred years.
It could also be the time to take a look at other models.
The Beaux Arts comes to mind, and the role of the esquisse that seems to have
faded into more singular, extended programmes. Studio work is another matter
that has become less structured - as well as the ‘crit.’ I came into
architecture just as the course was changing, so I experienced a little of the
‘old school’ programme, but never had to render the orders. One recalls how
frequently an idea has sometimes to be quickly documented and presented to a
client - tomorrow! The esquisse training could be useful here. It would also
assist in understanding student capabilities and give fast feedback. What else
did the Beaux Arts hold that might be worthwhile implementing? What other
potentials are there? We tend to discard concepts just too easily without much
concern. There is a lot of local experience that could be involved in reviewing
possibilities for a new model - experience that also has roots in years of
practice. This is an aspect of understanding that I think is critical for any
educational base if theoretical games are to be avoided - well, let go astray
and out of context, to be played with for their own delight.
I scribbled a few notes to myself during the morning. One
was that the visiting specialists could turn the school into a carnival of
‘outside’- out-sourced - entertainment. One has to make sure that the school
has its own internal necessity, (as Kandinsky spoke about art), with the
visitors only arriving to enrich this. Rather than seeking out distant experts,
one might hope that they seek out the school to be a forum that they might find
useful for themselves - one that they choose to be part of. I have always
believed in aiming for the sun, (or moon), rather than being happy with easy,
quick results. A new school provides the opportunity to create a place that
others will want to share in - from anywhere - if only we might choose to make
the effort. It is interesting to recall that the Bauhaus employed and housed
its full-time staff of skilled lecturers/tutors and that everything, even the
posters advertising events, and the building itself, was approached as a design
opportunity that is still admired today. What will the new school do?
The concern with outsiders was highlighted for me as I
waited to be picked up at the main roundabout after the morning workshop. As
cars of all smart, imported, European and other designs and multi-colours
flashed by, it occurred to me that the school needed its own quiet centre, a
little like the circle of lawn that shapes the core and the roundabout. It is
too easy to invite the flashy outsiders in to get a quick reputation. There was
an annoyance and entrancement in the ever-passing and mesmerising motion that I
found disconcerting when perceived as a metaphor. The school should have its
own rigour and reputation - its own quiet centre. It needs to avoid giving the
impression that everything of quality comes from elsewhere - interstate or
overseas - never from the school itself. One has to overcome this ‘cringe.’ It
will not attract students. The extreme alternative is not necessarily
parochialism if one is aware of and is in control of the situation. We are much
better than this. There is an abundance of quality local experience in
architectural education, (I can think of over sixty years of experience in just
three people that has not been harnessed, these same three with over eighty
years’ experience in practice), that could be involved. On the flip side, I
have seen just too many ‘accents’ arrive to a fanfare and turn out to be less
than ordinary - and no one is allowed to say so.
I see the school as having to establish its reputation
through hard work, commitment and persistence rather than in gathering external
egos. It is too easy to seek to gain from other reputations, A core rigour is
needed. The aim has to be to establish this with ideas and quality outcomes
that might encourage others to want to be here. Fashions need to be avoided - a
danger with new school of architecture buildings too!# I can recall a time when
we had one school leading the way - when students wanted to come to us: one
person changed all of this. Success is a fragile circumstance, so it has to be
managed carefully - with drive and purpose. The new school needs to create this
excitement with the ordinary, not the astonishing, giving the place an inner
strength. It is too easy to grab the extraordinary buzz and listen to the noise
in a self-congratulatory manner.
On a book - your request for all to identify an important
book: I can recall some significant books in my early career but I am reluctant
to presume that others might also have the same experience or enthusiasm for
these. Paul Grillo’s What is Design? comes to mind, as does Naum Gabo’s On
Divers Arts - both of which are now probably out of print. My question
about old books, raised in the discussion on future library purchases, comes
from these and other experiences where I have discovered a lot from the old.
Even Howard Robertson’s The Principles of Architectural Composition
seems useful for me today. It provides a ‘raw’ basis for understanding
architecture, even if it is not very popular - it is certainly seen as ‘old
fashioned’ - today. My complaint is that education races ahead into the ever
new and into areas ‘perceived-as-clever,’ while it forgets the old, when we
need the old to offer guidance and review to understand where we are at - and
where we might be going. Practice itself is kinder to the old than theory and
talk. Here the ordinary is a useful guide too. Is it our culture that sees no
value for the aged in society that allows educational matters to be considered in
this manner?
On first semester: I see aesthetics as being risky. It is
important but perhaps should arise in other contexts. Without falling for the
cliché - ‘those were the days’ - my first year included: Chemistry, Physics,
Mathematics, Structures, Geology, Design, History, Studio Work, Town Planning -
and maybe more? - with all ‘outside’ courses being given as part of the first
year of Geology, Chemistry, Mathematics faculties, etc., (all part of their
full first year courses for their students), never as a ‘special’ course for
architects. It is this rigour that I think is lacking in the present structure.
I am not saying that we should now do all of these courses, but I do note that
there appears to be a weakness in the ‘thinness’ of the proposed course - all
specially manicured for architects, perhaps apart from the ‘standard,’ required
segments that I fear may be promotional rather than critical. Care needs to be
exercised here to ensure that there is depth and meaning in the course work. It
occurs to me now to ask: where do the students learn about materials,
detailing, documentation, etc. when they are expected to go into offices, (and
apparently be useful), after just two years? We once attempted to have office
work assessed as part of the course, (arguing that the students spent more time
in offices than at college, and that college time would be better used
otherwise), but we met with an enormous scream from the offices. The fear was
that we were assessing the offices - or checking up on them - when all we
wanted was the best for the students.
I mentioned a couple of DVDs only because I have watched
these recently and have commented to colleagues that I think every architect
needs to see these. One ‘complete box set’ is not only informative - it approaches
architecture, (yes, both old and new), in a factual way that astonishes,
intrigues and enchants. The set is called simply Architecture - the complete
box set - a five DVD collection by Ovation, (a good name). I would think
this set might be more useful than trying to guess at a response to a book from
an unknown individual coming into the course. The set has been produced for the
general public - those interested in architecture. Then there is the DVD of
Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy’s work - again seen only recently: Andy
Goldsworthy, Rivers and Tides - working with time by Docudrama. Have a
look at his web site. His work is dazzling and charming, emblematically using
materials, structure and aesthetics in a delicate and surprisingly memorable
manner. I would feel happier recommending these DVDs rather than any
publication - they will possibly be more enjoyable to view: less effort, which
seems to be a positive modern trait. Oh, and then there is another recent
viewing: Frank Lloyd Wright, a DVD by Ken Burns and Lyn Novik - an ABC
production. It is very good, and comes complete with classic old footage. The
viewing of these DVDs might make the beginning of the course less of a
threat too - and less intimidating.
I must admit that am a little puzzled and concerned when I am unable to see the full
picture of the course that is due to begin in a few weeks. I have always
believed in the establishment of an overall vision to shape and guide all action that can
then allow for an ad hoc, flexible response to provide the required challenges
to the student/group as the opportunities arise. This is the ‘deep end’ that I
referred to where the lecturer/tutor/staff is in a learning/discovery
situation as well as the student/group, with everyone exploring ideas in
different ways, but all with the same ambition. To do otherwise is not education but dumb repetition: “O’Grady
says, do this,” and we all look to check if everyone has complied.
These are a few thoughts. More time is needed to refine
these and to explore more ideas.
Regards,
NOTE (added some six months later): This communication has
never been recognised or responded to. Such is life - and education.
The silence has been maintained to this day. Open debate on
ideas appears to be seen as an anathema.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.