Critical Analysis
In this text, the author presents the history of architecture studios, emphasizing the amount of time students spend in the studio itself and the emotionally abusive environment they historically encountered. She presents two alternative models—one focused on collaboration with community, and the other focused on remote learning—and argues that these should be mandatory elements of architecture education.
Early architecture education in the nineteenth century was based on an atelier model, where students focused on learning-by-doing. This was a communal experience, as “older students, or anciens, typically helped the younger ones.” This model moved from France into the United States, but was then superseded by the Bauhaus’ similar entry into the United States. The model of Bauhaus was intense and expectant of students, containing live-in studios and encouragement for spending as much time in studio as possible.
Architecture education in the US meets for several hours a week; “students are expected to work on their projects for many hours outside class, [and] students tend to remain somewhat cloistered in the studio culture.” Some programs have “hot seat” models, as they lack space for dedicated desks, but “school administrators in the US far prefer the practice of permanent studio space in order to create a climate where students mix and mingle and have opportunities to view and critique each others’ work after hours.” While this may have positive learning outcomes, it also breeds unhealthy behavior, sometimes to an extreme—such as an architecture student who died after falling asleep at the wheel, exhausted after two nights in the studio.
Several alternatives to traditional studio culture can be considered. One is a “community design studio” that encourages a large part of design problem solving to occur in the community in which the work will be experienced; these studios “strengthen the discipline by fostering a sense of caring about others with greater needs [and] helping students to become more sensitive to the needs of disadvantaged communities.” Students uniformly view this as valuable. The change in studio culture presents new learning-through-criticism opportunities, where “students must reflect upon their design ideas not only with their instructor but also with the community.”
Another change in studio culture comes with new technology. While students and faculty “continue to grapple with new models of technology,” there are opportunities afforded by remote learning for “enhanced collaboration.” This includes critique from external visitors, and the ability to work from home “rather than being tied to drafting boards in studio. In fact, many students now prefer to work at home. This is not necessarily positive; as a result of working at home, “some design students may appear almost deserted at time—a situation that was hardly the case in years past.”
Even with alternative models available, many faculty resist changing the studio model, “encouraging students to continue to work in studio as much as possible.”
Research Value
The value of this work in informing my own research is that it:
- Equates studio culture to presence in studio
- Offers a concrete alternative for in-studio learning (immersion in the community), and describes the educational value of this form of learning
- Identifies early perspectives of video conferencing, noting that it offers unique opportunities for guest critique, but is isolating