Exploring studio proximities: Space, time, being

Critical Analysis

A design studio environment in a university looks different than a traditional classroom, and so it is easy to assume that the physical differences are what distinguishes one way of teaching and learning from another. That assumption is partially correct. The physical space has no “front,” which challenges perceptions of power; typically, a professor holds the stage, and students facing the front are observing a play (observing implying passivity.) A studio has more visual noise through things on desks and on walls, which makes it appear less organized and more vibrant than a traditional classroom. Studios reflect the way “being creative” has been portrayed in popular culture, and creates a sense of exclusivity (which may not necessarily be viewed positively—as the exclusivity may imply play rather than seriousness of learning.)

However, viewing physical differences as the extent of the unique pedagogy of studio is incomplete, and recognizing that incompleteness is important for teaching and learning effectively, and for communicating the value of studio learning, which is often at odds with demands for larger classes in smaller spaces.

Derek Jones presents the design studio as an overlap of Time, Space and Being, three qualities that are not captured by a simple glance at a space. These qualities are present in the space, supported by the space, and are “ingredients” of a pedagogical approach.

Academia, like many formalized environments, operates on a fixed and objective sense of time. Classes start and stop at designated moments, and learning is “chunked” to fit into those spaces. If learning means top-down knowledge dissemination, a professor can strategically organize those chunks over the course of a semester or quarter in a logical manner. But if learning is embodied, contingent and emergent (which is a large claim of studio pedagogy), organized time requires a looser conception of how long activities might take, and how time-on-activity is inevitably different for each student and situation. Jones presents end-points, such as “critical or key events,” as somewhat inevitable, but planned and unplanned events and interactions are constructed, and are often prompted by multiple students working at the same moment. This moment-based interaction is described by Jones as “both planned and unplanned because of its contingent nature, such as advising a student to do ‘smaller’ or ‘larger’ bits being entirely dependent on the circumstances.” Recognizing Time as a fundamental part of studio means equating Time to an Experience.

Space is an element of studio that is both proximate and semi-proximate. Jones makes a distinction between proximity and physical space, but that distinction is less clear than his view of time as experience; in fact, proximity is related to the space in which work is done, and he indicates that semi-proximate spaces in physical studios “depend on arranged or semi-formal local organization.” Proximity is not fixed, although territory may define exclusivity and delineate spaces where proximity is discouraged. Jones notes that the metaphor of space, physical or conceptual, does not translate successfully to online experiences, where simply calling a class in Zoom a “room” does not make it so.

Being is about being present, and Jones describes that “being present is to be engaged cognitively, emotionally, and/or bodily in space and time.” The “and/or” is important, because students may exist in one or more states, and may shift between states throughout learning. Presence is communicated through many different non-verbal methods. Simply participating in a class by offering commentary does not equate to a fully engaged state of learning. Presence is encouraged in a studio and offers space for non-traditional ways of teaching and learning, such as “listening in” in the context of small-group or even professor-to-student creative exploration.

Being also transcends the studio, even in “traditional” educational models, where homelife may find its way into learning. In a studio, however, the “studio leaks out,” although it is unclear what Jones means and how this is unique from a more formal lecture.

Space, time and being are not easy to discuss or to quickly see and understand, and so they are often ignored in the discussion of the unique nature of studio learning as a place and a pedagogy. But Jones argues that these are fundamental differences to the way creative fields like design are taught and learned. These differences make obvious pragmatic challenges, as studio collides with simpler views of pre-chunked time and fixed interactions. It’s necessary for proponents of studio pedagogy to find ways to discuss ambiguous ideas like space, time and being in simple and clear terms, if studio is to be effective.

Research Value

The value of this work in informing my own research is that it:

• Presents specific qualities of design studio that separate it as a pedagogy from more traditional ways of learning
• Introduces time as experience, which is a unique way to think about how studio is a round peg in a square hole of higher education