A study of ideologies and methods in contemporary architectural design teaching: part 1: ideology

A study of ideologies and methods in contemporary architectural design teaching: part 1: ideology Keith Billings and Samer Akkach, Faculty of Architecture, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

This paper reports on a survey of aproaches to architectural design teaching, which involved architectural design educators from Australia and New Zealand. The purpose of the survey was to obtain data on individual approaches to architectural design teaching, and to find out whether certain common elements of understanding were present in such teaching. Participants were asked two questions; firstly what is their 'Ideology' or set of principles which they believe in as the basis for creating an architectural design, and secondly what 'method' do they use to teach that design ideology to groups of students. This paper focuses on the first question, recording the preliminary findings of a study of the responses. Initial analysis shows that the ideologies held are as varied as the teachers, ranging from objectively expressed sets of principles to expressions of personal preferences. While certain common elements can be observed, much clarification and understanding will be needed to relate the findings to any intelligible and operative model for teaching. Keywords: architecture, design, teaching, ideology, method

T

hings produced by people, however simple, always involve a

range o f mental activities. The most basic of these activities relates to the purpose for and the way in which a thing is produced. This involves the thinking of an appropriate form to fulfil the purpose, and of an appropriate technique to produce the chosen form. The chosen form can be thought of in terms of its meaning as well as in terms of its practicality. These and other related mental activities operate within a 'mental matrix' - woven from a web of principles, ideas, values, axioms, doctrines, myths, etc. - which shapes the mental framework or world view of an individual, tying him/her to the context in which he/she exists. When this 'mental matrix' develops and an individual becomes aware of its articulated elements, it takes the form of an 'ideology'. The term 'ideology' may accordingly be defined as, A particular state of mind based on a set of principles, doctrines and any other form of mental concepts, which concerns a particular matter, and within which framework this matter is viewed and appreciated. (Note 1.)

0142-694X/92/030431-20 (~) 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

431

The production of buildings is basically similar to any other human production, however, it includes a specific and sophisticated mental process called 'architectural design'. Although the nature of this specific mental process, in that it concerns the composition of forms, does not differ from one individual to another, the principles employed and the methods followed differ widely. Variations are due to different ideologies held by individuals, who differ in their personalities, cultural background, professional trainings, and hence, ways of thinking. The ideology of an individual is inextricably bound to the intellectual context from which this individual receives the data of his/her knowledge. In a unified cultural context, almost isolated from alien intellectual influences, where the pace of change is slow, as in traditional societies, people share, to a greater or lesser degree, the same world view or ideology. This is reflected in traditional art and architecture, which has a strong identity determined by its related ideology. But as never before, people are now exposed, through Information Technology, to a whole range of ideologies and ways of thinking, which relate to many cultures not only throughout recorded history but also those which are currently evolving. This exposure is reflected in contemporary art and architecture, which is characterized by variety and change. The wide variety of formal expressions in contemporary architecture owes its heterogeneity to the rapidly changing ideologies of architectural design.

1 Design ideologies." designing and teaching design Contemporary ideologies of architectural design evolve in relation to two distinct yet closely related activities: designing and teaching design. Although they have many common principles, designing is somewhat different to teaching architectural design. Designing is primarily concerned with formal expression, that is, the production, quality and meaning of architectural forms, whereas teaching design is, in addition to that, concerned with the setting up of an appropriate environment for nourishing and developing the students" design skills. Architectural design teachers may hold ideologies concerning either or both of designing and teaching, depending on their awareness of the differences between these two activities. These ideological positions, which determine the kind of knowledge teachers impart to students through design studio programs, derive from the context of contemporary ideologies that underlay the present architectural affairs in both practice and academia.

Designing - studio and practice Many of the ideologies of contemporary architectural movements which concern designing still revolve within the sphere of modernism, including those which have reacted against or are passing beyond modernism. The

432

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 October 1992

modern movement contained many groups who created new sets of ideas on which to base their architectural concepts, but who ~liffered, to a greater or lesser degree, on what should constitute the premise or hypothesis of their ideas (Note 2). The basic ideology underlying the modern movement with its various branches was centred on a return to simplicity, on a desire to reduce design to pure principles, and to allow for the materials and structure to be expressed within the parameter of abstract concepts concerning mass, space and light. The translation of practical and functional needs into spatial forms (form follows functicJn) also formed an important part of the ideology of the modern movement. Modernism, however, could not withstand the rapid ideological changes, thus other contemporary streams of thought, such as Postmodernism. High-tech., Deconstructionism, etc. have emerged from the formulation of new ideological positions which address varying issues of architectural design. Each stream has focused on certain aspects. Postmodern architecture, for example, has focused on the lack of meanings in architectural forms and compositions; it has been concerned with the loss of historical references and with the absence of representation in modern architecture, which had eventually resulted, according to the postmodernists, in many designs becoming meaningless manipulations of forms (Note 3). The leading postmodernists claim 'that the architecture of Modernism eschewed ornament, emphasized the expressive potential of functionalism only, and denied both history and the human element in architecture, while Postmodernist buildings celebrate ornament, historical allusions, colour and humanity." (Note 4.) On the other hand, high-tech, architecture, having building performance as its main goal, has focused on the power of modern technology. For Norman Foster, a leading high-tech, architect, postmodernism was no more than 'a game for consenting adults in private only." (Note 5.) High-tech. architects have considered the built-form as an appropriate means to express the current state of technology, seen as the very basis of modern advanced society (Note 6). Influenced by the deconstructive method of analysis of poststructural philosophy, deconstructive architecture has emerged with an ideological position that is concerned with questioning the present attitudes to architecture, the way we perceive and understand architecture, and the very order which makes a set of elements a work of architecture. (Note 7.) The following conversation between Peter Eisenman, a leading deconstructivist, and Charles Jencks illustrates the basic conviction of deconstructivists,

Architectural design teaching

433

PE My work attacks the concept of occupation as given, it is against the traditional notion of how you occupy a house. CJ Right, and the holes in the floor in the room attack the notion of how you occupy and how you step across thc living room? PE And having a column in thc middlc of the bedroom so you could not put a bed in it certainly attacked the notion of how you occupy a bedroom. (Note 8). There are also other movements in contemporary architecture primarily concerned with issues of a global significance rather than formal representation in architecture. Humanist architecture, for example, eschews ideologies at the philosophical level in favour of realist forms designed for pragmatic needs; and ecologically responsible architecture questions the way buildings are currently produced, presupposing a different (ecologically compatible) set of principles or ideological starting point. These are some of the basic principles of the most common ideologies of architectural design currently prevailing in the West. They provide a background, an ideological underpining or intellectual context to which the mental matrices of many architectural design teachers in the West are connected.

Teaching design In addition to the ideological positions concerning the production, quality and meaning of architectural forms, i.e., the what of design, there are principles which concern the nature and process of designing, i.e. the how of design. These principles relate more directly to teaching design than to designing, and thus underlay the teaching ideologies of teachers whose main concern is teaching students how to design. The most common teaching ideologies in contemporary architectural design education seem to be those which are based on the analysis-synthesis and hypothesistesting models. These models are inherited from the physical sciences and attempt to rationalize and systematize the design process, which appears, when contrasted with scientific methods, to be erratic, inexplicable and unpredictable. According to these models the design process is divided into two main stages: first, the stage of collecting information, analysing it and perhaps establishing a hypothesis; and second, the stage of synthesizing architectural forms and testing the hypothesis. (Note 9.) The aim of this design methodology is 'to generate just the right kind and amount of information to reduce the level of uncertainty to the point at which design decisions can be made.' (Note 10.) The bridge between the two stages of analysis and synthesis, however, has remained for many people a mysterious one. 'One dissatisfaction frequently voiced by design teachers is that the analysis of problems by students is not incorporated into their

434

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 October 1992

synthesis. Jurors sometimes comment on the discontinuity of thought between early analytic diagrams and the final design proposal.' (Note 11.) An increasing interest in design and designing activities in recent years has manifested new ideologies, whereby the perspective of design has been broadened through the involvement of a wide range of disciplines: architecture, environmental sciences, artificial intelligence, education, industry, philosophy, etc.. Disciplinary and interdisciplinary investigations have thrown new light on the nature and process of designihg, questioning the very logic of the present scientific methods of designing and challenging many of the premises of the current attitude towards design. As a result, a new understanding of design is now emerging, which has already started to show its traces in architectural design education. (Note 12.) Some architectural design educators seem to have moved away from the logical methodologies of studio design, believing them to be disabling rather than enabling. (Note 13.) For they no longer believe that the design process proceeds step by step in a linear, systematic manner, in other words, design does not emerge from the aggregation of objectivelyderived facts. Rather, design is viewed as a dialogue between the designer and the design situation: a dialectic between pre-understanding or preconceived solutions and the facts of a design task. The dialectic or dialogical process goes in a 'circle' where the designer tries to interpret and understand the design situation within the parameter of his own preconceptions. (Note 14.) This view derives from hermeneutics, which can be defined as 'the study of the interpretation of meanings.' (Note 15.) The basic tenet of hermeneutics is that any acquisition of knowledge occurs only by following the dictates of the so-called 'hermeneutical circle.' This hermeneutical or interpretative circle commences with projective anticipation of meaning and proceeds through the dialogical-dialectical mediation of subject and object. (Note 16.) Design process thus viewed is not a problem-solving activity but an interpretive search for an appropriate, not correct, answer. An approach based on hermeneutical understanding has been articulated to account for the dialogical nature of designing. (Note 17.) Focusing on the problems associated with the analysis-synthesis model, a cyclic approach to architectural design, which recognizes the way in which individuals perform while designing, has also been proposed to replace the systematic, logical methods. (Note 18.) The wide variety of ideologies currently prevailing in the field of

Architectural design teaching

435

architectural design theory (of both designing and teaching design) naturally leads to the question: on what is a teacher of design to base his/her teaching ideology? The study on which this paper is based attempts to investigate this question.

2 Survey: purpose and method Teaching experience reveals that teachers of architectural design rarely limit their activities to the general guidelines of their schools' objectives and in some cases ignore such parameters. Each individual teaches according to his/her own set of principles and in a manner supposedly distinct from others. A study in architectural design teaching was undertaken by the authors in the first half of 1990. The purpose of this study was to obtain data on individual approaches to architectural design teaching in order to identify, if possible, amongst the variety of contemporary ideologies, certain recurrent elements which may be considered essential for an understanding of the nature and process of teaching architectural design. These elements may be viewed to constitute a kind of 'normative model,' which ought to be understood not as a rigid instrument, but rather as a flexible framework against which teachers can clarify their own positions in their pursuit of teaching architectural design effectively.

Assumptions It was considered axiomatic that the holding of an ideology, or an understanding of ideologies, together with the ability to apply them to design should be a prerequisite for architectural design teachers. (Note 19.) It was assumed that effectiveness in teaching is based partly on a clear expression of thoughts, a statement which is no less true for architectural teachers than for any other disciplines. As words are a means to convey meanings, clarity of thoughts and common understandings are based on the clear and succinct use of terminology. It was also assumed that many of the responses, whether they included some postmodern derived beliefs or not, would come mostly from persons of 35 years or older, whose initial education, and hence studio instruction would have been about and from people, now retired or departed, who themselves were the products of, and adherents to, the modern movement and its satellites. It was anticipated that the mental framework of teachers would vary in its intellectual rigour from being emotionally, through rationally, to philosophically based, and that most persons, even if showing a bias toward

436

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 October 1992

one or other of these positions, would also have some of the others in their ideology.

Questionnaire and interviews To achieve the purpose of this study it was felt necessary to concentrate on the individual approach to architectural design teaching, that is, on the

what and how' each architectural design educator actually teaches in design. Since only a few design teachers normally express their approaches by way of publications, the only way to obtain such inforniation was by direct contact with each teacher. Two ways .have be.en used to achieve this direct contact: firstly, by questionnaire, and secondly by personal interviews. A questionnaire with the title Survey of approaches

to architectural design teaching was administered to known design teachers. The questions were prefaced in the following manner, Keith Billings and Samer Akkach are collecting examples of approaches to architectural design teaching. To achieve this we need to find out what is important to you in architectural design and how you teach it. We know that each School of Architecture, in its handbook, describes the overall aims of the degrees and design courses, and that against each degree and year of study, the requirements of the design course is also described within some of the objectives of the School. However, we think that each individual teaches according to his/her own set of principles, and in a manner that is distinct from others. This perception of the individual teaching of architectural design has lead us to undertake this research. We need to collect as many individual examples of teaching approaches as possible. We ask for your help. What we want you to do is to go past the general level of your School's objectives and focus on what you, personally, teach in the architectural design studio.

Recognizing the possible diversity of beliefs and methods of expression only two questions were posed. These two questions concerned (1) ideology (set of principles); and (2) method (a way of doing something). The reasons for posing only two questions were: 1) the fact that believing and doing- the basic elements for production are in this context synonymous with ideology and method 2) the understanding that the study is dealing with intellectual matters of an unquantifiable nature, which cannot be valued by the numerical methods normally used in some surveys 3) the belief that the greater the number of specific questions asked the more influenced the results may become. The first question, which is the subject matter of this paper, was subdivided to recognize the teaching environment of each ideology and

Architectural design teaching

437

the possibility that it might be varied to suit different circumstances. The second question was presented in a simple manner stressing the specific method of teaching design in order to see in what way a teacher's ideology relates to his/her method of teaching. Questions 1 and 2 were presented as follows We would like you to relate your answers to your design teaching in the studio in the context of the following (1 and 2): l Ideology (set of principles or set of rules that you believe in) - please describe the ideology in which framework you perform in your architectural design studio. A If you have a set of principles (deriving from your ideology) which you teach irrespective of the type of project or year being taught please give your answer within that frame of reference. B I f your set of principles varies according to the type of project or year being taught please use one or both of these elements as the basis for your answer. C If you teach with a common set of principles (as in A) and also make your teaching project or year specific (as in B) then please give your answer through both A and B. 2 Method (a way of doing something) - please describe your specific method of teaching which you follow when working through an architectural design exercise with a group of students, from the introduction of the problem to the appraisal of the result. The number of persons teaching architectural design is not known, however, copies were sent to all schools of architecture in Australia, New Zealand and P N G . At the time of writing this paper 30 responses have been received mostly from full-time staff, and more have been promised. A few interviews centred on the same questions have also been conducted with teachers of architectural design at various universities.

3 Method of analysis An initial reading of the responses to question 1) on ideology, revealed a plethora of ideas, diverse uses of terms, and many differences in what constitutes the individuals' ideologies and methods. The analysis of the responses of individual ideologies and methods, obtained from questionnaires and selected interviews, was conducted by both investigators analysing each response independently. The two sets of findings were then compared and all similar parts of the responses were grouped for type of responses, ideological setting and frequency. During the grouping of the responses a careful reading of each was undertaken, recognizing that both questions were framed as open ques-

438

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 O c t o b e r 1992

tions. No attempt was made to prejudge the type of responses likely and, since the survey was not numerically grounded, no formal ¢oding frames were devised. The answers to each question were classified into categories and, in the process, transferred to the other set of responses if, for example, a response to Ideology was in fact referring to Method (according to definition, p. 4). All answers and their parts were retained and displayed, firstly by respondent, and secondly by category. No response was omitted, even for a single response, since some significance might be detected later. The Ideology response analysis involved the grouping of the parts into categories of, (1) whether the ideological position could be clearly identified, called Position (2) what principal terms were used, called Terms and Expressions (3) what were the main concerns of each ideology, called Basic Principles

Position was either clear or not. Terms and Expressions included terms such as, educational objectives, sense of place, conceptual base, idea, nothing, pursuit of finesse, values, effectiveness, social responsibilities and spatial and temporal order. Basic principles included such phrases as 'design should involve not one idea, but several ideas;' 'structure, form and space are the critical elements and the primary formal means by which one creates and understands architecture;' 'users take precedence over form'. The frequency of the terms and expressions and the basic principles were noted and then each set of variables was listed in order of frequency for both sets. However, since the responses had been deliberately divided into the two sets of variables in order to identify Terms as against Principles, the two frequency tables were then combined to see which variables were the most commonly occurring overall. The notions of idea, context, order and quality predominated, and were therefore considered as most generic to the sets of principles of most respondents. (Note 20.)

4 Preliminary findings Most respondents did not identify their positions clearly as to whether they have a set of principles or not, or whether such principles are variable or not. Despite the lack of clarity, however, it can be inferred from the content of the answers that the majority of respondents do have a consistent way of reasoning, which governs their approaches to architectural design and according to which they teach, as expressed in the following examples

Architectural design teaching

439

Variation with project or year will not imply deviation from principles . . . The beliefs, goals, aims and aspirations for architecture should be the same for all levels of teaching/learning and practice, however, one can only design and produce at the level of one's knowledge, experience and capabilities. At one end of the scale of clarity of expression a few responses were ambiguous and poorly articulated; the ideological positions of these could neither by identified nor inferred from the content of their answers. In contrast, at the other end of the scale a few responses were clear, well articulated and, with varying degrees of rigour, highly intellectual; the ideological positions of these were clearly identified as being based on an unvariable set of principles, although the teaching of each might be project and year specific. The sphere within which the majority of respondents" ideologies revolve is the sphere of modernism (identified by functionalism, structuralism, aesthetic formalism, etc.). The following is an example, Architecture and landscape design are both art forms created for man's use and pleasure but, as such, they must be functional as well as aesthetically pleasing. The current state of uncertainty, which resulted from the passing of modernism and the rise of a range of new schools of thoughts with conflicting principles, can also be strongly felt in some responses. It is shown in a lack of clearly expressed principles - beyond the idiosyncratic sphere of one's personal preferences - that underlay the ideological approaches to architectural design. The comprehensiveness of the ideologies varies significantly with the majority of teachers individually viewing the architectural endeavour from a particular perspective. One respondent insisted that design cannot

be taught, while another declared to have no ideology. There were more responses concerned with the practicality of a work of architecture than with the theoretical foundation. At least one response addressed the question of ideology thoroughly and comprehensively, providing for the practical and theoretical aspects of both the traditional and modern approaches to be integrated within a coherent system. The responses also revealed the use of a wide range of terms and expressions, some were clear and others were not. Although inconsistent uses of terms by teachers made communication quite difficult, certain basic design principles recurred in most responses. For example, certain

440

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 October 1992

notions were c o m m o n , including that architectural design should have an

idea or a conceptual base, and that buildings should relate t o t h e context in which they are built. However, there appeared to be several definitions or interpretations of the terms 'idea' and 'context'.

Teaching ideologies Although a b o u n d a r y between an ideology of designing and of teaching architectural design was not sharply marked by the respondents, clear differences certainly exist. A n ideology of teaching architectural design concerns, as already mentioned, the setting up of a particular intellectual atmosphere for students to pursue their design activities, while that of .

designing concerns the production, quality and meaning of architectural forms. Some respondents specifically addressed the issue of teaching, whereas others were solely concerned with the issue of designing. But for the majority such a distinction was quite vague: their ideological position included a mixture of principles of both designing and teaching design. It was clear from the responses that the majority of teachers of architectural design still follow one of the methodological or systematic approaches borrowed from the field of the physical sciences. The analysis-synthesis and hypothesis-testing models, the linear process of problem solving, and the striving for objective expressions still form the basis of many teaching strategies. However, there were a few voices declaring those teaching ideologies to be no longer valid, and proposing instead new approaches. Speaking of the principles of his teaching ideology, one respondent wrote, There are two [principles], one negative, one positive. The first principle is that attempts at 'objectivity' in the studio are misguided. Students bring preconceptions and presupposition to the design task. In total opposition to the positivist position, I do not believe it necessary, desirable or possible to eliminate these prejudices, but that students should be taught to bring them to awareness and then open them to questioning so as to differentiate the true from the false, and then on the basis of the knowledge embedded in true prejudice, enlarge the students' horizons of prejudice. The second principle is, then, to regard the design studio as a place where students expand their enabling prejudices, by way of an encounter with the traditions and language of the architectural profession. From another stand-point, others also wrote, Design cannot be taught! Design is an intensely personal process of self-critical assessment! As an educator I find it unwise to indicate my preferences for one or other 'ideology'. Rather I attempt to lead the students into an understanding of what they are doing; to elicit the talents of the individual; to guide them to the resources that are available and to the wealth of different approaches; and to encourage their problem solving capacities through enquiry and innovation.

Architectural design teaching

441

I don't believe that design is a linear process, does anyone any more, but rather than the design emerges from a protracted dialogue betwen hand and brain. Hence I try to get my design students drawing or modelling as quickly as possible. I do not believe that there is any sensible purpose served in beginning a design education in the Bauhaus mode with a series of abstract design exercises a la Itten or Albers. The discussion of teaching ideologies leads naturally to the discussion of methods of design teaching, which will be the content of the second paper (Part 2: Method).

Basic principles o f design ideologies Teaching architectural design involves, in addition to the strategic principles which concern solely the teaching approach or position, design principles which relate directly to the production of architectural forms. One of the aims of this study was to discover whether the diverse ideological positions of architectural design teachers include c o m m o n design principles, although they may be viewed from different perspectives. Some design principles are rudimentary, so it is possible to find teachers with different teaching ideologies speaking about the same design principles. The responses revealed, as mentioned before, a few recurrent notions or principles directly relating to the production of architectural forms, yet they were viewed from various stand-points. These basic design principles concern idea, context, order and quality•

Design idea Most respondents agreed, directly or indirectly, that an architectural design should have an idea, aim, intention or conceptual base. The studio adopts the perspective of architecture as the embodiment of ideas. Articulation of architectural intentions is thus a critical part of the design process.

•

.

.

Architectural form is potentially enriched by its relationship to an underlying

set of values [the designer's ideas/design philosophy] however idiosyncratic . . . A correct architecture must establish aims, or conceptual intentions, addressing the needs, desires and aspirations of the human being• Designing for architecture is value-bound. In articulating their ideologies, however, respondents did not use the terms 'idea, 'intention' or 'aim' synonymously and consistently to denote the same meaning, nor did they understand them at one and the same level. They nevertheless indicated that ideas, aims and intentions deal

442

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 October 1992

with the conceptual domain. The uses and illustration of these terms revealed a multileveled, hierarchical structure of inter-rela~'ed meanings. Some used the terms to mean 'mental concept,' referring to 'the reason or rationale behind the production of a particular architectural form', while others referred to 'mental configuration,' or 'a particular arrangement of forms in the mind.' S o m e understood the element 'idea' as a materialized composition in the mind of an architect; others understood it as an immaterial intention yet to be materialized in several stages. Some saw architectural ideas as subjective thoughts and feelings developing from one's own personal experience, others as abstract, objective and impersonal principles. The following quotes illustrate these opposite views as well as the various meanings ascribed to the term 'idea' in architectural design, An idea for an architectural work is based on precedent and/or experience and means the single or multiple thought on which the whole design is based. The idea may be derived from precedent where the use of a form or shape, such as a courtyard, is used to establish the framework of the development of the design, where such a form is recognized as relating effectively to the building type, context or the ideology of the designer. The idea may also be derived from experience where that knowledge indicates to the designer that a particular form or shape, or element in design will be the most suitable on which to develop the design. In the generation and development of architectural propositions, all projects will require the use of explicit architectural vocabulary, i.e., clear ideas and consistent architectonic language. Aims are immaterial and unrealized intentions. In fulfilling aims, art crystalizes intentions; it manifests concepts and actualizes ideology. The immaterial nature of aims have significance at a multitude of levels: symbolic, cultural, political, rational, emotional, and so on. Design is an intensely personal process of self-critical assessment. The design of buidings is more subjective ]than planning], personal and erratic, and not particularly susceptible to the application of generalized theory. Ideas belong to no-one person but to all who think. Any given idea can be expressed semantically, mathematically, poetically, musically or s p a t i a l l y . . . Architecture translates ideas into space through the designation of spatial qualities and elements. Kollar, in his book On the Architectural Idea, understood and used the term 'idea' in the Platonic sense as an 'intelligible principle determining its

Architectural design teaching

443

sensible e m b o d i m e n t . ' (Note 21.) H e distinguishes three levels or stages in the design process: 1) the level of conceiving of a pure idea, 2) the level of formulating an architectural idea, and 3) the level of embodying the architectural idea in a sensible form. (Note 22.) The former two levels deal with the intelligible domain, and the latter deals with the sensible domain. ' . . .

The architect,' he says, 'is called upon to build two bridges,

one from the pure to the applied and specific, the other from the intelligible to the sensible.' (Note 23.) Design context Context is the most recurrent issue of architectural design discussed by respondents. Respondents unanimously believe that buildings should, in one way or another, relate to the context in which they exist. (Note 24.) The context - physical and social in the broadest sense - is one of the three basic elements which makes up the information on which an architectural work is based. The other two elements are the description of the client needs and the ideology of the designer. The physical context means the immediate site characteristics and the surrounding e n v i r o n m e n t from the urban context down to details of roads, landscape, etc.. The social context means the importance of the site and its surroundings in terms of its historical, symbolic, religious, etc. connotations, such that all of the nonphysical values of the site and its place are recognized and respected. .

.

. Site planning, architectural design and landscape design cannot be separated

from one another, as the fabric of the land, the building forms placed on that fabric and the spatial volumes in which they are placed together create the built environments which we perceive and experience . . . Elements and facilities should be located on the land in functional relationships and in a manner fully responsive to the characteristics of the site and its region. . . . Architecture is about creating space through the deployment of material and technology. All of that is acted upon by the things which impinge on the location of the building. The majority were also aware that context is a complex and multidimensional concept, demanding from designers a consideration of all aspects of a context - physical, historical, cultural, social, morphological, etc.. It is a c o m m o n ground that sensitive response to climate, to the cultural setting, and to the social needs are amongst the basic elements of good architecture. My aim is to familiarize students with the process of designing, in the context of the language and tradition of architecture. This aim subsumes a host of others: locating the design task in a social context; developing an awareness of the site; clientdesigner interactions; material, construction, structures, style; cost; history; etc.

444

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 O c t o b e r 1992

Context as a design modifier, determinant, or cue is of considerable significance where one examines its scope: historical, cultural, physical, political, economic, natural, typological, morphological, etc. Kollar considers the relation to an architectural idea to the context in which to be realized to be the basis of the second bridge between the intelligible and sensible domains. ' . . . The architectural idea,' he writes, 'must fit the contexture, the environment, understood in the broadest possible sense; if there is no fit, or only a very partial fit, even what seemed otherwise a fine architectural idea will be irrevocably lost. Strictly speaking, the fit we speak of is not the characteristics of the idea itself, but the characteristics of the relationship between the idea and the contexture. (Note 25.) The notion of environmentally responsible design, which demands that buildings should stand in harmony with the natural systems, has also formed part of a few ideological positions. A basic understanding of the functioning of natural systems is an essential part of any design on the land to ensure that any modification of these systems does not have a long-term adverse effect on the site or the surrounding environment. Design should be environmentally sound.

Design order Many respondents spoke about order in various ways, suggesting its essentiality in architectural design. Some viewed architectural design as the con-struction of settings: the ordering together of meaningful and significant spaces. Others considered the practice of architectural design as involving ideas, language and meanings, where order is the grammar of a language which gives composed architectural elements their unifying meanings. Ideas deal with the conceptual domain; language involves elements, relationships and ordering; and meaning grows from embodied experience. Morphology, context and typology are ways of looking at the relationship of ideas, language and meaning. Order can be seen as the foundation of unity, and unified formal organization is the basis of much good architecture. It is the principle whereby many elements or parts, separated and isolated in themselves, can form a qualitative whole that is distinct from its constituents. The employment of the traditional principles of the one and the many, the whole and the parts, or unity and multiplicity is one way of ordering in architectural design.

Architectural design teaching

445

A whole is both one and many, simple and complex, static and dynamic• A whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A whole is structured according to hierarchies involving rational coordination and cooperation between part and part, and between whole and part. A whole which is healthy demonstrates dynamic self temperance and proportionate analogy amongst its parts. A whole is susceptible of multiple interpretations due to the interactive complexity of its order and hierarchical structure. A c c o r d i n g to these philosophical premises, the aims of an a r c h i t e c t u r e , which addresses the needs, desire a n d aspiration of h u m a n being, • . . must be ordered, co-ordinated and structured as a conceptual whole in which the one and the many, the simple and the complex, the same and the different, the continuous and the discontinuous, are structured as a totality exhibiting unity and diversity. O r d e r is the u n d e r l y i n g principle w h e r e b y structure, form a n d space - the p r i m a r y formal m e a n s by which o n e u n d e r s t a n d s a n d creates a r c h i t e c t u r e - are p r o p e r l y tied t o g e t h e r in a good design. Spatial o r d e r can be a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h g e o m e t r y , s y m m e t r y , hierarchy, r h y t h m , etc., which are the m e a n s of formal o r g a n i z a t i o n . O r d e r is also viewed to e x t e n d b e y o n d formal expressions to all design issues, which s u b s u m e o t h e r parts or e l e m e n t s , by way of d e s i g n a t i o n or hierarchical a r r a n g e m e n t s a c c o r d i n g to o n e ' s ideology. O r d e r - as ideology, method or shape for a building - is an integral part of Idea and Context. Order as the proportioning of the importance of the parts of an Idea or the parts of a Context is an indispensable part of the process of deciding and controlling the priorities of design. Order means establishing a hierarchy of elements into a symmetrical/asymmetrical set or whole, where that hierarchy displays and expresses the parts of the Idea or Context in the desired order of importance.

Design quality T h e quality of architectural

design was also the c o n c e r n of m a n y respon-

dents. Excellence in design is of the essence of architecture . . . Pursuit for finesse (in integrated design) is the essential obligation of architects. No d o u b t all t e a c h e r s a n d s t u d e n t s of architectural design seek work of good quality, h o w e v e r , in the p r e s e n t context the search for quality has n o clearly d e t e r m i n e d p a r a m e t e r s . T h e criteria by which quality is m e a s u r e d intimately relate to the ideology of the e v a l u a t o r . T h u s the r e s p o n s e s revealed

446

a wide r a n g e of m e a s u r e s :

which c o n c e r n the quality of

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 O c t o b e r 1992

architectural forms and compositions: that are as varied as the ideologies of the teachers. The Quality of a product (viz. a building) relates to demand, can be identified, and effects both the design and technology stages of creating (making) that product. Quality consists of both constituents required in the design and constraints that control its parameters. Both can be identified and measured, and the points of their interaction are the measure of quality. Quality can be both real and symbolic, and when present in the right amount can increase the acceptance of a product• Architecture is more than the illustration of a set of ideas. Architectural quality is dominantly [perhaps sometime exclusively] judged by visual criteria. •

.

.

Design quality is inextricably bound to the previously discussed principles of design, idea, context and order. The judgement of the architecture quality is fundamentally affected by the physical context of the building under consideration. Order can also be seen in the pursuit of Quality, in terms of ordering the importance of both the constituents and the constraints in the design, and where a mix of the two make up the resultant Quality. In comparison with the other principles, however, quality may be seen as an inevitable result rather than a determining principle. It is a result of the application of the principles idea, context and order to architectural design. Theoretically speaking, a thoughtful design with a strong conceptual base that is properly ordered and well related to the context in which it exists, is a work with good architectural quality. This is expressed by the following quote Good architecture almost invariably evolves from, Integrity of structure and form; Integrity of materials and form; Sensitive response to climate; Building which is attuned to the culture; Response to social needs (territorial, economic, etc.); Unified formal organization.

Quality relates not only to the level of formal expressions but to all levels of one's ideology. A n y principle or position adopted in architectural design - designing and teaching design - is basically to determine the final quality of a product. Therefore, the more comprehensive one's ideology, the more refined one's design becomes. The following quotes illustrate a few diverse ideological p o s i t i o n s , which c o n c e r n the q u a l i t y of architecture design,

Architectural design teaching

447

The practices of architecture should be based on egalitarian concepts, and exercise social responsibility by responding to emotional and behavioural expectations of the many. Architecture is a social art and architectural form is inevitably charged with meaning• I have difficulty with architectural projects which fail to acknowledge that buildings are containers of both human activity and/or meaning. • . . Architecture should address, fulfil and serve the whole human being- spirit, mind and body - and the whole contexture - intellectual, mental and physical . . . Architecture should be founded on theoretical and conceptual intentions developed and determined as a consequence of these aims.

5 Conclusions The responses revealed no discernible regional differences in terms of cultural background. The ideological principles of individuals seem to derive from international trends of thought rather than from a particular culture or region. Some educational institutions, however, have developed distinct teaching strategies, such as 'problem based learning,' which are reflected in the individual approaches of their staff members. Yet these teaching strategies reflect the intellectual development in the field on an international level rather than on a cultural or regional level. The responses revealed a wide variety of ideological positions, reflecting the spirit of the present time. They showed that it was reasonable to have expected, in view of the varied and sometimes incompatible views expressed by western architects over the last 70 years, equivocal thoughts in some of the responses. (Note 26.) The massive exposure achieved by modern technology has stretched the horizons of contemporary designers and teachers of design, providing them with an extensive range of possibilities. This rapid exposure, however, has been associated with an increasing drift away from certainty, and brought about an intense desire, an eagerness, for continuous change. People are now always in search of something different, something new, something novel. Change rather than permanence is what characterizes the spirit of our present time, and the ideological positions of contemporary architectural design teachers reflect that to a great extent. The most remarkable tendency this survey revealed is the breaking away from the logical and scientific approaches to design. This tendency is becoming more apparent at the international than the local level, where only a few seem to have captured the essence of this world-wide ideological change. But even those design educators, who do not seem to be fully aware of the current ideological shift, are also in search of alternatives. There seems to be a growing dissatisfaction with design

448

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 October 1992

methodologies which imitate the approaches of the physical sciences. Design is now in the process of being liberated from the linear, step-bystep procedures, and from the diagramatic and tabulation matrices. This is one of the reasons why we refrained from developing the recurrent elements of design - idea, context, order and quality - into an operative model supported by diagrams and tables. We preferred to see them as unmodelled elements of design that take their distinctive shape in every design situation. We believe that design educators should be fully aware of these underlying elements in a manner that suits their individual ideological positions, and should be presented to the st.udents.in a similar manner. If the majority believe that certain things are fundamental to the making of an architectural design, in terms of beliefs, then each teacher must be able to articulate them. The question on Ideology revealed at once diversity and commonality in the ideological positions of architectural design teachers. Idea, context, order and quality are elements of commonality, yet viewed, understood and expressed in a diverse manner. Diversity presupposes both richness and confusion: it is rich when it derives from a unified base and confused when it expresses pure multiplicity. The above elements of commonality may constitute a unifying base for diverse approaches to teaching and practising architectural design, however, further research is needed to give these elements their due dimensions.

Acknowledgement This project was funded by the Key Centre of Design Quality, University of Sydney, Australia.

Notes 1 In simple terms, an ideology is 'a way of reasoning' - Ior an individual 'a correct way of reasoning' - which is that logic for thinking and doing in a certain way. The Macquarie Dictionary (Australia) delined 'ideology' as, 'the body of doctrine, myth, and symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group,' and as, 'the science of ideas.' 2 The reasoned arguments or positions ranged from the early 'classical' modernists, such as Corbusier and Gmpius who held beliefs, or ideologies, based on a need to return to simplicity, through the promoters of modernism as an international style, such as Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson, to the various functionalist groups represented by Mies van tier Robe. See Le Corbusler, Vers une Architecture, Crbs, Paris (1922); Groplua, W. Die neue Architektur un das Bauhaus, Mainz and Berlin (1965); see also Klotz, H. The History of Post.Modern Architecture, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1988). 3 See Jencks, C. The Language of Post-modern Architecture, Rizzoli, New York (1984), (4th edn); H. Klotz, op. cit. 4 Ghlrardo, D. 'Past or Post Modern in Architectural Fashion,' Journal of Architecturel Education, Vo139, No 4 (1986), 2-6. Postmodern architects, such as Michael Graves, Charles Moore and James Sterling have, however, addressed the problems of modernism in an ironic manner, which has lead to a kind o! amhitectural eclecticism or historicism. 5 N. Foster cited in Sudjlc, D. Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, James Stifling. New Directions in British Architecture, Thames and Hudson, London (1986), p. 39 6 But where exciting attempts have been made to relate buildings to the present economical and technological context, liffie sympathy was shown towards the meaning of formal compositions. 7 On deconstruction in architecture, see the special issue of Architectural Design on Deconstruction in Architecture, Vol 58, No 3/4 (1988); on deconstruction in general, see Norris, C. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice, Routledge, London (1988) 8 Eisenman, P. 'An Architectural Design Interview by Charles Jencks'. Architerctural Design., op. cir., p. 50.

Architectural design teaching

449

Deconstructivists have been too concerned with the formal expressions - trying to deconstruct the present image of and attitudes towards amhitecture - to the extent that their buildings become no longer functional or practical. 9 See Thornley, D.G. 'Design method in architectural education,' and Jones, H.C, 'Method of systematic design,' in Conference on Design Methods, Pergamon Press, London (1963). 1 0 Derke, M 'Teaching Design Methods,' RIBA Journal Vol 75 No 1 (1968) 29-30. 1 1 Ledewltz, S. 'Models of design in studio teaching,' JAE, 38/2 (Winter, 1985), p 2 1 2 The recent works by Snodgress, A. and Coyne, R. question the logical positivistic approach to design that underlay the computer-based models of designing, and reveal a new understanding of the nature and process of designing. See Is designing hermeneutica/? (1990); Models metaphors and the hermeneutics of designing (1991); and Hermeneutics and the application of design rules (1991); Working Papers, Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney 1 3 See Snodgrass and Coyne, op. cir. The growing dissatisfaction with the current methodological approaches of design teaching has been expressed in various ways and addressed from different stand-points by many scholars. 1 4 This view has been developed and detailed in the above-mentioned works of Snodgrass and Coyne. 1 5 See Welnehelmer, J.C. Gadamer's Herrneneutics: A Reading of Truth and Method, Yale University Press, New Haven and London (1985). On the application of hermeneutics to the study of designing, see the works of Snodgrass and Coyne, cited above. 1 6 See Welnehslmsr, J.C. op. cit. On the application of the concept of the 'hermeneutical circle' to the study of the nature and process of designing, see 'Designing and the hermeneutical circle' in Snodgrass and Coyne, Is Designing Hermeneutical?, op. cir. 1 7 See Snodgrass and Coyne, op cit. (note 12). 1 8 See Lodewitz, 'Models of Design in Studio Teaching,' op. cir.. pp. 4 ff. 19 In architectural design, an 'ideology' may simply mean 'belief in what is important in a work of architecture'. From personal experience, however, we know thai not all teachers hold clear ideologies, and that some would even disagree with the necessity of holding an ideology. Nevertheless, an ideological position can be established not only by affirmation but also by negation. Therefore, for those in the negative, their position is also considered to be an ideological one. 2 0 An example of a recurring notion can be seen in the following list of statements which cluster around the notion of context: The context in all its aspects [is important]. Morphology, context and typology must be considered. The location of a building determines the deployment of building materials and technology. Design should ensure that the resources of a particular site are not sterilized. Elements (of the building).., conform to the characteristics of the site. The physical context fundamentally affects the architectural quality. There must be established a proper and complete context that leads to an architectural result. There is an obligation to design with a knowledge of the physical character and social history of a place. 21 Koller, L.P. On the Architectural Idea. The University of NSW. Sydney (1983) 22 Kollsr, L.P. op. cir., p. 12 ff 23 Ibid., p. 14 24 It is not our intention here to discuss the question of how, or by what criteria, do we determine whether a building relates to its context or not. 2 5 Koller, L.P. op. cit., p. 27 f 26 Such equivocality is understandable when the various beliefs and statements of some of the eminent architects of the 20th century are considered.

450

Design Studies Vol 13 No 4 October 1992