College of the Arts Portland State University knightsc@pdx.edu Why study Architecture? I guess we can rule out to make money, to enter a stable career path and to gain the respect that comes with professional status. So, why study Architecture? Maybe, to learn how to make it. But then, why make architecture? What contribution does it offer its culture? Well, most obviously architecture offers a place in which to reside thats fit for a purpose. I would call this the pragmatic or instrumental aspect of architecture, its embrace of the mundane architecture as a great piece of equipment for getting the job of habitation done, producing a tight fit between human activity and its accommodating vessel, eliminating ambiguity for a singular, conclusive solution. But also, perhaps less obviously, architecture offers a place to affirm or challenge the fitness of that purpose, that pragmatically accommodated human activity, in the quest for the good life. In other words, architecture can ask Should we be acting like that? I would call this the poetic or representational aspect of architecture, its gesture towards the profound - architecture as an engaging piece of insight into what the good life ought to be, prompting questions, producing revelations such as I hadnt thought of a life like that before. Im suggesting that the instrumental function of architecture accommodates us technically and efficiently in place, whereas the representational function of architecture moves us intellectually and emotionally to a better place. Of course this characterization of architecture as a duality, as two-sided or double-edged, is an affliction of modernist culture - one in which the instrumental, being most explicit, quantifiable, predictable and therefore manageable, has overcome and annulled the representational because it is ambiguous, somewhat rogue and susceptible to, indeed reliant upon, interpretation. This dualism afflicts the other arts much less since they have become sadly, steadily removed from the contingencies of everyday living, to be harbored and caressed adoringly in the protective environment of the museum, the concert hall, the gallery, the movie-theater and so on. In these sanctuaries they still revel in their representational role, issuing insightful
projections of contemplation.
our
culture
for
our
pure
Architecture, of course, is right out there in the
thick of our lives, in fact it sets the scene, configures the layout for our everyday life at the same time that it offers the setting in which those other arts find their place. But getting back to the first questionwhy study Architecture? I would answer: to learn how to imagine and represent the good life on behalf of our cultural co-habitants, our community. Now this begs the further questionHow do you teach architecture having recognized this, essentially, ethical responsibility, a responsibility, I would argue, that all artistic enterprise must acknowledge and address? How do we encourage students firstly, to acknowledge a responsibility toward the common good, to accept that their work will not be about themselves as individuals but about others, about the community they share? Secondly, how do we encourage students to recognize, with confidence, that they have worthwhile insight, that they have the capacity to imagine the good life, to comprehend the way things are and to propose the way things ought to be? And thirdly, how do we encourage students to discover and practice the means of effective communication, the capacity to frame and to argue for a particular vision of the good life? At PSU we see making architecture as, fundamentally, such an act of communication before it is a technical enterprise, or a realty investment or a professional service. Figuring out what matters to the participants of a setting and translating this into a transformational possibility in which what matters is re-figured, stated anew, re-laid, reformatted, articulated over again through a new configuration of materials this is the instructional task at hand, and I really do mean AT HAND. To this end, from the beginning design studios on, we aim to foster in each student an irresistible desire to communicate their unique response to the question of what matters, to require them to tap into their already active and engaged sense of responsibility and to articulate it to others through the expressive capacity of handmade material artifacts. Students are not dumb novices to be initiated by incremental learning into the realm of specialist
architectural knowledge. We dont set out to train,
to produce mere functionaries. Our students are potent, positioned, opinionative, deeply ensconced cultural agents. They have things to say, and they want to say them with architecture. At school, we assist them in finding, gathering and manipulating the appropriate media to get their messages across - forging the artifact as intermediary between an I that proposes and a we that responds with affirmation and critique. Our design studios are not taught with a linear methodology of knowledge and skill acquisition but rather by unfolding thematic emphases that stimulate a contest of opinion. Studio themes identify familiar cultural territories that are animated by a series of primary questions posed to instructor and student alike. We begin by asking What is a drawing? and How does the body of the draftsperson in the act making, and the choice of media, influence possibilities for the projection of meaning? Students engage from the start with the fundamentally creative act of translation, in refiguring the unfathomable depth of human experience into graphic marks and artifacts. Asking themselves, their peers and their instructors: How are we oriented in both the mundane context of everyday life and the profound context of a life worth living? What is it like, what should it be like, and how do you employ the metaphoric capacity of drawings and artifacts to tell it to each other such that we might discuss and agree? Second year studio themes focus this orienting endeavor by asking firstly, how does the animate human body situate itself in relation to the natural orders, to the vastness of the region, to spatial horizons presented by topography and landscape, and to temporal horizons presented by hunger, fatigue, the cycle of the seasons, the beat of the heart, the rhythmic heave of lungs and the inescapable fact of mortality. Second year studios continue by asking questions of the other arts, the artwork we gather around together and valorize. How can architecture set the scene for this collective experience? How can architecture support and contribute to the expressivity unique to each art form, begin to share agendas, conspire to enrich the environments we inhabit and integrate this work better into the places where we live? And finally these intermediate studios ask if analogies can be drawn between human group dynamics and the fabrication and assembly of disparate parts into a unified whole. Here the tectonic complexity of an architectural work is
equated with the social complexity of a
community. How can participation in acts of design and building inspire a deeper sense of belonging to a community? And how can this be embodied and revealed in the work the group makes? Upper level and graduate studios tackle the realities of urban experience through questions concerning the predicament of dwelling in the city, orienting a home in the city and the negotiation of shared territories; discerning the identity of the city through multiple acts of mapping - again a depth brought to the surface by the graphic enterprise, in this case mapmaking. These studios also address the literary contribution to our understanding of architecture as a form of conceptual mapping, where written texts, theories and histories, manifestos, poetry, narratives, and published criticism frame a possible architecture. This revelatory student journey through our program culminates with the self-motivated, deeply researched, cultural polemic that we call the Masters Design Thesis. Here students will articulate and pose critical questions as impetus for a 9-month exploratory response formed through drawing, fabrication and writing. The zenith of a formal schooling in architecture should never be about architecture itself, should never conclude within the already defined limits of a discipline predominantly determined by a technical competence and less and less, these days, by a cultural or humanistic competence in relation to what matters. We aim to challenge this, in the best sense, by activating what we believe to be the true role of the academic setting on behalf of the discipline of architecture and the culture it represents: to pose difficult questions, to invite conversation and to encourage innovative response, to re-figure its practice over and over and over. We all have things we care about passionately; its part of what makes us vital human beings. It is only by expressing these things that we can discover the degree to which what we care about is common to others. Communication makes community. We gather around communicative acts and the artifacts they bear in search of agreement. They embody a locus for what matters. They make meaningful places. This making activity is architecture, and this is what we try to teach at the Department of Architecture, in the School of Fine and Performing Arts, at Portland State University. Presented to a public forum in Portland Oregon, th on 5 October 2009.