Studio as a Critical Performance

MIMED Forum IV: Flexibility in Architectural Education Edited by Beyhan Bolak Hisarligil, Sevgi Lokce and Oktay Turan MIMED Forum IV: Flexibility in Architectural Education, Edited by Beyhan Bolak Hisarligil, Sevgi Lokce and Oktay Turan This book first published 2013 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2013 by Beyhan Bolak Hisarligil, Sevgi Lokce and Oktay Turan and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-4265-6, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-4265-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures............................................................................................. ix List of Tables............................................................................................ xiii Contributors.............................................................................................. xiv Acknowledgements ................................................................................... xv Sevgi Lokce Preface ..................................................................................................... xvii Gulsun Saglamer Section I: Flexibility in Architectural Education: General Remarks Chapter One................................................................................................. 2 Flexibility in Architectural Education: An Introduction Beyhan Bolak Hisarligil, Sevgi Lokce and, Oktay Turan Chapter Two ................................................................................................ 7 Flexibility – Resilience - Informality Kim Dovey Section II: Flexibility in Architectural Curricula: Global and Local Perspectives Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 14 Flexibility in Architectural Education in Europe Herman Neuckermans Chapter Four.............................................................................................. 37 Power is Knowledge: A Critique of the Behaviour and Education of Architects Based on the Sociology of Basil Bernstein Conall Ó Catháin vi Table of Contents Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 62 (Re) Constructing Architecture Education in Uganda: Changing Strategies and Approaches in Teaching and Learning Mark R. O. Olweny Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 77 Why Can't (Even) Architectural Education be Flexible in Turkey? Ugur Tanyeli Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 89 Architecture: A Non-Curriculum Education in the Near Future...? Ferhan Yurekli Chapter Eight............................................................................................. 95 Doctoral Education in Architecture with Special Reference to ITU Gulsun Saglamer and Fatma Erkok Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 110 Architectural Education in the Globalizing World: The Experiences in Yıldız Technical University Rengin Unver, Cigdem Polatoglu and S. Mujdem Vural Section III: Flexibility in Architectural Design Studio Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 134 Student-Teacher Relationship in the Studio: A Phenomenological Insight Iris Aravot Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 148 Constructing an Archi-tectonic Dress: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Architectural Design Education Acalya Allmer Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 164 Design Exercise in Minimal Existence Sigrun Prahl Chapter Thirteen...................................................................................... 177 Studio as a Critical Performance Sevgi Turkkan, Aslihan Senel and Burcin Kurtuncu Flexibility in Architectural Eduction vii Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 196 Thinking in the Box: The Role of Thinking in Constraints to Provoke Creative Thinking Sait Ali Koknar, Ozlem Berber and Funda Uz Sonmez Chapter Fifteen ........................................................................................ 212 Playing with the Settings of the Receivers/Transmitters in Architectural Education: “Feeling the Blanks” - “Fill in the Blanks” Akin Sevinc Chapter Sixteen ....................................................................................... 230 Form Follows Flexibility Danelle Briscoe Chapter Seventeen ................................................................................... 247 Reculer Pour Mieux Sauter: How to Extract Knowledge from the Past Kurt Gouwy Chapter Eighteen ..................................................................................... 262 Housing Design Studio in the Age of Google Earth: Planimetric Studies through Superposition of Site with Case Studies Aydan Balamir Chapter Nineteen ..................................................................................... 280 Planning Curriculum Elements for an Integration of Digital Design Knowledge to Design Thinking Arzu Gonenc Sorguc, Mine Ozkar, Basak Ucar and Semra Arslan Selcuk Chapter Twenty ....................................................................................... 298 Architectural Design Education through a Workshop: Experimenting With Digital Media Urs Hirschberg, Ahu Sokmenoglu, Esra Gurbuz, Sema Alacam, and Gulen Cagdas Postscript Chapter Twenty-One ............................................................................... 314 The Thinking Hand- Embodied and Existential Wisdom Juhani Pallasmaa viii Table of Contents Chapter Twenty-Two............................................................................... 338 Rethinking City Planning and Utopianism Kojin Karatani Afterword Chapter Twenty-Three............................................................................. 350 Scientific Meetings as a Medium for Understanding Each Other through Dialogue Sema Serim CONTRIBUTORS ALACAM, Sema ALLMER, Acalya ARAVOT, Iris ARSLAN SELCUK, Semra BALAMIR, Aydan BERBER, Ozlem BOLAK HISARLIGIL, Beyhan BRISCOE, Danelle CAGDAS, Gulen DOVEY, Kim ERKOK, Fatma GONENC SORGUC, Arzu GOUWY, Kurt GURBUZ, Esra HIRSCHBERG, Urs KARATANI, Kojin KOKNAR, Sait Ali KURTUNCU, Burcin LOKCE, Sevgi NEUCKERMANS, Herman Ó CATHÁIN, Conall OLWENY, Mark OZKAR, Mine PALLASMAA, Juhani POLATOGLU, Cigdem PRAHL, Sigrun SAGLAMER, Gulsun SENEL, Aslıhan SERIM, Sema SEVINC, Akın SOKMENOGLU, Ahu TANYELI, Ugur TURAN, Oktay TURKKAN, Sevgi UCAR, Basak UNVER, Rengin UZ SONMEZ, Funda VURAL, S. Mujdem YUREKLI, Ferhan CHAPTER ONE FLEXIBILITY IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: AN INTRODUCTION BEYHAN BOLAK HISARLIGIL, SEVGI LOKCE AND OKTAY TURAN The notion of flexibility in architectural education is the subject of fresh and vital debate. This debate is based on whether flexibility is achieved by the inner dynamics of architecture, or the external dynamics that have a broader impact on it. However this debate seems null and void since the dynamics of both sides seem to necessitate flexibility in architectural education at almost the same level. Hence the attitude that the prerequisite for creating flexibility according to the inner dynamics of architecture depends on the protection of architectural education from the coercive effects of external dynamics is no longer a relevant issue. Furthermore, architectural education as a role model in such a debate becomes more important not only in a monotyping global context but also in the local social context as well. Herein lies a fundamental dichotomy arising from the fact that because of globalization – if the Bologna Process can be seen as a reflection of it – curricula may face the risk of becoming uniform. However, what actually causes the notion of flexibility to arise in architectural education is the debate itself. Any effort to overcome this dichotomy in such a debate seems vital. For instance, omitting certain topics from the context of this dichotomy first and the creation of a flexible context aftermath would be a viable option in such a process. However, then the question arises whether such a dichotomy, which turns architectural education from an autonomous discipline into a quasiautonomous one, makes architectural education into a rather political issue. Moreover, it should also be kept in mind that such a transformation may have inevitable or even unpredictable results. It is also possible to conclude that such a transformation may put architectural education into a more conservative position. Flexibility in Architectural Education 3 As long as the issue of flexibility in architectural education based on curricula and globalization is discussed, the role of architectural education in social structure will be questioned. In terms of globalization, there is a debate on how local preferences respond to the notion of globalization. If the autonomous nature of architectural education resists globalization, the question of the manner in which this resistance occurs and what impact it will have on architectural education seems of the utmost importance. *** This book begins with a chapter by Kim Dovey in Section I. He draws a general framework for the notion of flexibility in architectural education and discusses the issue in three different ways: the flexibility required of architectural education in a rapidly changing world; the flexibility required of effective school environments; and the need for architects to understand flexibility of form and process in the practice of architecture and urbanism. From global and local perspectives, Section II focuses on Flexibility in Architectural Curricula. This section begins with Herman Neuckermans giving a fresh insight on the general idea of the European perspective on architectural education and its policy modes based on the Bologna Process, and Conall Ó Catháin discusses architects’ behaviour in his retrospective chapter with an emphasis on Basil Bernstein’s sociological insights. In a chapter on the Ugandan experience, Mark Olweny talks about the adaptation of a new architectural curriculum and its challenges. In the next chapter, Ugur Tanyeli asks the question "Why can't (even) Architectural Education be flexible in Turkey?” and discusses the Turkish experience with an emphasis on the challenges of flexibility in architectural education in the actual context of Turkey. Following this chapter, Ferhan Yurekli asks a rather challenging question with an emphasis on the possibility of non-curriculum architectural education and gives insights on possible experimentation. Gulsun Saglamer and Fatma Erkok, in their chapter on Doctoral Education at Istanbul Technical University (ITU), discuss the issue from a broader perspective emphasizing a globalized world view and its impacts on doctoral education. In the chapter focusing on architectural education in a globalized world, Rengin Unver, Cigdem Polatoglu, and S. Mujdem Vural discuss the issue and its various aspects on experiences at Yildiz Technical University (YTU). In Section III, which focuses on flexibility in architecture design studios, Iris Aravot talks about the phenomenological (and hermeneutical) essence of architectural design in the studio. She discusses the framework 4 Chapter One of the studio, emotionally laden due to “inherent tension” in the quadruple relationship of teacher, student, space of experience, and horizon of expectation. For her, the endeavour undertaken in the studio has a broad affinity with typical phases in phenomenological research on the one hand, and, on the other, it is still extensively dominated by architectural phenomenological approaches. Acalya Allmer introduces an interdisciplinary approach to architectural design education which aims to interpret and represent existing forms and concepts in another language at a different scale, mainly related with fashion design. While designing a three-dimensional model in order to represent the key buildings of the twentieth-century, the challenge for the students is that models ought to be wearable, meaning that they have to serve like costume models in this design studio. Sigrun Prahl talks about her studio experience known as “Minimal Existence”, an exercise that can act as an icebreaker and initiate or continue a process of becoming a creative design individual. “Minimal Existence” makes design students think about the minimum required to live or to exist within a manageable scale which crosses borders between architecture and landscape design, product design and technology; even biology and sociology, and it walks the line between the vernacular and high tech. Among the chapters on first year architectural design education, Aslihan Senel, Sevgi Turkkan, and Burcin Kurtuncu discuss their architecture design studio practices through the narrative of a performance, which describes the whole process via a set of “acts” and “evaluations”. While seeing the design studio as a gathering place for various practices, which include (re)producing, (re)presenting, and evaluating, they believe that focusing on these practices takes the burden off the end product and puts the emphasis on the thinking process behind production. Sait Ali Koknar, Ozlem Berber, and Funda Uz Sonmez discuss possible ways to nurture open minded, self-confident, flexible architecture students through a seemingly inflexible constraint-based studio model using their experiences of a first year architectural design studio. Contrary to the traditional educational approach “for beginners” (a small-scale topic, a territory with easily read problems and data, a step by step design process where questions -and thus answers at large- are identified by the educator, and presentations based on well-known architectural drawing or modelling methods), Akin Sevinc’s studio experience seeks a different “peculiar to beginners” approach for designers working on their first architectural project: an alternative, experimental educational and playful process based on each student’s imagination, where the design content (topic, territory, Flexibility in Architectural Education 5 questions, inquiry and answers), design scale, and depth are constantly questioned, studied, defined, changed and turned upside down, and different ways of presentation are sought. Within the context of flexibility related to the digital studio, Danelle Briscoe discusses a new credo, “form follows flexibility”, and imparts the technology of parametric modelling (or flexible constraints) with rapidprototyping to advance design thinking in the discipline of architecture. For her, architects are again being called to question how they envisage form in design, and are thus questioning the place of studio methodologies in academia. Thus, students are prompted to think critically about ‘form following flexibility’ where form is consequential to architectural studio pedagogy and, as flexibility can also mean the absolute range of responsiveness, a BIM approach can be achieved with a momentary effort alongside a willingness to compromise on the part of the student. Following the French expression “Reculer pour mieux sauter” that can be translated as “taking one step backwards in order to make a better leap forwards”, Kurt Gouwy attempts to extract some basic principles which can help to formulate a design methodology aimed at extracting knowledge from existing buildings (precedents), not in order to mimic them, but instead to trigger unexpected and authentic solutions based on two different design cases. Aydan Balamir introduces a housing design studio where planimetric surveys through the superposition of case studies with the student’s own design work, helps toward self-training and criticism, by means of comparing different design situations and strategies in the age of Google earth. As digital modelling is considered as an isolated state in the generic design process, Arzu Gonenc Sorguc, Mine Ozkar, Basak Ucar, and Semra Arslan Selcuk discuss the instrumentality of the digital medium in design processes as experienced via the hands-on construction of physical models developed from digital models. In the studio, the task given to the students involves fabricating a physical model with utmost precision applying their geometric and computational knowledge. Sema Alacam, Gulen Cagdas, Esra Gurbuz, Urs Hirschberg, and Ahu Sokmenoglu introduce algorithmic/parametric architectural design experiments into architectural design studios with reference to an international workshop titled “Adaptive Urban Furniture” which experimented with novel methods of design by using scripting and rapid prototyping and by making use of a collaborative design platform. In addition, the chapters by Juhani Pallasmaa and Kojin Karatani appear as a postscript and an afterword by Sema Serim discusses the 6 Chapter One notion of scientific meetings as a medium to understand each other through dialogue and analyses, giving as an example the fourth Forum on Architectural Education organized by MimED (the Association for Architectural Education) featuring the theme “Flexibility”; this meeting gathered scholars and practitioners from all over the world in order to open a discussion on the flexible nature of architectural education.