WE ARE A DISCIPLINE

JIM SULLIVAN AND MATTHEW DUNN, CONFERENCE CHAIRSCOLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN / LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY / BATON ROUGE, LA

The Proceedings is published in conjunction

with the 25th National Conference on the

Beginning Design Student, held at Louisiana

State University, Baton Rouge, LA, March 12th

- 14th, 2009. Abstracts were double-blind peer

reviewed, and selected authors were invited

to present full papers at the conference.

Papers submitted by the publication deadline

appear in the document, which does not

include all those presented at the conference.

Conference chairs Jim Sullivan and Matthew

Dunn extend special thanks the following

people who helped organize, prepare and

realize the conference:

Keynote:

Alexander Caragonne

San Antonio, TX

Plenary Panel:

George Dodds

University of Tennessee

Panel Moderator

Don Gatzke

University of Texas, Arlington

Bruce Lindsey

Washington University

Nicholas C. Markovich

Texas Tech University, El Paso

Tom Sofranko

Louisiana State University

Stephen Temple

University of Texas San Antonio

Moderators:

Jill Bambury

Southern University

David Bertolini

Louisiana State University

Patricia Boge

Wentworth Institute of Technology

Susanna Greggio

Louisiana State University

William E Heintz

American University of Sharjah

Robert McKinney

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Karl Puljak

Louisiana Tech University

Corey Saft

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Tom Sofranko

Louisiana State University

Christopher C Theis

Louisiana State University

Anthony Threatt

Louisiana State University

William Willoughby

Louisiana Tech University

CoAD Staff

Marshall Roy

Information Technology Analyst

CoAD Students

Jessica Addison

Jeff Borgmeyer

Lindsey Poole

Cara Schmitt

Reilly Strauss

Tony Threatt

We would also like to thank the following the

College of Art and Design administrators for

their unflagging support throughout this

project:

David Cronrath, Dean

College of Art + Design College

Jori Erdman, Director

School of Architecture

T.L. Ritchie, Chair

Department of Interior Design

Tom Sofranko, Associate Dean

College of Art + Design College

Copyright © 2009 Louisiana State University

All rights reserved.

Embracing Diversity: Avoiding Bankruptcy in the

Teaching of Foundation Environmental Design

Kaarin Piegaze Lindquist

North Dakota State University

Introduction

Teaching beginning foundation design courses

often includes common threads of large

student numbers, vast variations in ability and

interest, and high student-teacher contact

hours. The "diversity" in the title of this paper

relates in the first part, simply to the diversity

of students arising from their numbers and

talent levels. In the second part, "diversity"

relates to the amount and variation of content

that must be taught to the beginning design

student, as well as, the diverse instruction

students receive when taught by multiple

instructors. In the final instance diversity

relates to influences that can be and must be

allowed to influence the discipline of

architecture, and which, are already inherently

existent within the discipline of landscape

architecture. Being critical of the idea of

“foundation design” and being aware that the

current architectural framework is one of

stasis, while inherent potential, integration and

growth exist within the discipline of landscape

architecture can inform and invigorate the

teaching of foundation environmental design to

“construct a new discipline”.i

Fig. 1. Containment & Expansion

Diversity: Fundamental (Differences)

Fundamental to a foundation design course is

the teaching of self-directed, creative problem

solving. Giving students the tools, and access

to tools, to assist with this process is where

problems arise when attempting to

simultaneously introduce basic information

required by two different disciplines, in this

instance Landscape Architecture and

Architecture.

Fig. 2. Stasis & Fluency

There are critical differences of focus in these

two fields of design. The discipline of

architecture tends towards "refining by

defining"; creating objects, forms and finite

elements.

“Today, more often than not, a building is an

attention-seeking object that glorifies its

…architect and is oblivious, if not outright

injurious, to its physical, and often its social,

context.” ii

Though stated over 25 years ago Klaus

Herdeg’s criticism of architecture continues to

be appropriate. Even architectural practice that

claims to be dynamic and open-ended is

ultimately the creation of a finite element.

Foreign Office Architects (FOA) write about the

discipline of architecture and the need for

change and integration of various technologies

“to integrate them to a discipline that has not

evolved for a long time.”iii On the other hand

landscape architecture is not based on a fetish

of “object” or “the discrete” program. The

focus of landscape architecture inherently has

to do with open ended systems that can be

manipulated but not controlled completely, and

which create “an active and temporal

medium.”iv Landscape architect James Corner

185

EMBRACING DIVERSITY

elaborates further stating that landscape

architecture is “a medium of agents, networks,

relationships, and representations, each

unfolding with time.”v

In there text “The Yokohama Project” from

2003 FOA aptly describe the static situation in

which the field of architecture finds itself:

“There is an enormous potential to be

released…that has not been exploited in itself:

project management, estimation, surveys,

artificial intelligence’ modeling capacity…None

of this stuff has been…integrated in the

discipline of architecture, and this is leading

the profession to bankruptcy.”vi

The current condition of the discipline of

architecture and the significant differences in

origination of the disciplines of landscape

architecture and architecture means that there

are critical and inherent limitations which an

architecturally trained instructor brings to the

teaching of a discipline-shared, foundation

environmental design course. While teaching a

pre-discipline, multi-focused beginning design

course one needs to be concerned with how

projects are being presented to students, and

how expectations of student work are

expressed, to move beyond the existing,

outdated architectural framework. Basic

architectural education teaches the beginning

student to be wary of pattern and to be very

aware of subduing surface patterns within

basic building plans so as not to overtake the

important elements being presented in the

drawing, such as structure and form. Though

an example of the practical issue of drawing

legibility this suggestion also indicates an

architectural propensity to subdue the ungainly

or the indiscreet. Some examples, such as

architect Enric Miralles' design of

Igualada cemetery, seem to counter this idea,

where the pattern and texture of the ground

plane leap off the page, invigorating the entire

drawing. It is apparent in the plan of the

Igualada Cemetery that not only are the

structural elements important but also that the

interplay of material, texture and pattern are

central to the theme of the architectural design

itself.

Fig. 3. Student study of “Surface as Depth” in Miralles’ Igualada Cemetery

Miralles speaks of this design as being

representative of allowing for change to occur,

through material degeneration, plant growth

and general aging of the structure, “Rather

than intervening on the land, here is a built

work that now awaits intervention by its

changing natural environment.”vii Is this design

and its corresponding drawings expressions of

change and an "in-discreet" design in

architecture? In actual fact, this project is a

prime example of one that blurs the

boundaries between the disciplines of

landscape architecture and architecture, and

more specifically where the architect has

turned to landscape architecture in order to

create more meaningful and better design.

Miralles’ own description of the Igualada

cemetery is reflected closely in Charles Jencks’

summary of Architect Stan Allen’s and

Landscape Architect James Corner’s writing in

“Urban Nature” in which their understanding of

urbanism is described as being “…primarily a

matter of cultivation and management rather

than the design of an object. Central to that

view is the notion of the field as an array of

forces and flux.”viii A description that is also apt

and reflective of the discipline of landscape

architecture.

Diversity: People & Information

The sheer number of students (such as, 200

students, 1 instructor and 16 teaching

assistants for example), and the amount of

information within a beginning design studio

course ensures variation of design process and

outcome in each class. The instructor is

required to ensure this massive educational

moment is sustainable and organized and

hopes that it will elucidate directions to be

186

EMBRACING DIVERSITY

taken, changes to be made, and patterns to be

recognized both in the teaching of and learning

about design practice. There is a need to

dismantle the many preconceptions that

students entering into the program bring with

them, each student should surprise themselves

in regards to their creative and critical abilities

as John Motloch emphasizes in his text

“Introduction to Landscape Design”:

“Since most learning is based on connecting

the new to the familiar, education should

develop the courage and skills necessary to

connect new with familiar, extend existing

patterns, and build new ones.”ix

All other requirements of the course can

subsequently fall into place. Technical

requirements can be addressed primarily

through self-teaching, as tools to access the

creativity and ability of each student using pre-

existing languages of drawing, diagramming

and modeling.

Diversity: Views & Opinions

Critical to the delivery of a beginning design

course with hundreds of students within a

studio-like environment are the Teaching

Assistants, whom assist with, and are critical

to supporting the one-to-one focus required by

a studio-type setting. One concern when

dealing with delivering course content with the

active use of Teaching Assistants, who act

independently from each other within different

sections of the course and have limited contact

with one another, is to ensure that there is

continuity between classes in regards to

marking levels of student achievement. In

order to ensure parity across all course

sections a constant level of interaction and

monitoring is required by the instructor,

however, to attempt to run the course single

handedly is not possible due to time limits,

energy levels, and other faculty

responsibilities. Alternative models of Teaching

Assistant to Instructor relationships include the

attempt to "mold" the Teaching Assistants to

the mind of the Instructor to attempt to

regulate work, as well as, constant attendance

by the instructor at all sections of the course.

These models lead to problems such as "burn-

out" by the instructor and lack of flexibility in

delivery of course content and expectations of

course outcomes. Flexibility becomes critical to

success, but also offers the potential to

dismantle the recognized, linear and static

paths of architectural education that do not

prepare the new design student for the flux

and professional disintegration and

regeneration that they face in the future.

Motloch describes well the situation faced by

students:

“Students must make appropriate decisions for

a changing world, find new meaning and

relevant relationships in radically

changed[changing] cultural contexts, and use

understanding to create new, dynamic,

relevant systems and landscapes.”x

Diversity: Consistency & Subjectivity

Consistency across all sections of the course is

important but inconsistency within and

between course sections can also be beneficial.

At this point it is important to begin to see

inconsistency not as a negative but actually as

an expression of the real issue of subjectivity

in design, “We know… that seeing[/designing]

is a highly value-laden process involving

unconscious, as well as conscious, decision

making by the viewer [/designer].”xi The

primary benefit to be drawn from an

educational matrix of unruly and seemingly

unmanageable energy is in accepting that

these are “field[s] dominated by subjectivity”xii

and that “subjective judgments still must be

made in the face of uncertain or incomplete

information.”xiii Subjectivity comes into play,

from the deciphering of a brief, to the

quantitative and qualitative moves made in

solving a design problem, to the appreciation

of the final design and finally to the

understanding of the disciplines themselves.

Subjectivity in the act of design has both

negative and positive connotations. To many

students entering the field for the first time,

the subjective and open nature of design work

is understood to be a "lack" of direction within

the course. In fact, exposing students to the

subjective and changing nature of design

process, outcome, and peer acceptance is

crucial to teaching the most important element

of design; self-directed problem solving. When

a course consists of multiple voices of authority

it can be confusing to the student but more

importantly often allows for greater degrees of

problem solving by the student. For the

beginning design student this "diversity" of

voices is often experienced in the first instance

as an adverse reality of a large beginning

design course. However, through the course of

the projects there is a growing sense of what

187

EMBRACING DIVERSITY

their "design selves" might be; what interests

them, invigorates them, and inspires them,

and how to defend these positions to multiple

critiquing parties.

Diversity: Defining the “Other” - a

problem?

Why try to limit, or create delineation between

Landscape Architecture and Architecture? It is

critical to recognize the limits of containment

and the "objectification" of architecture, while

recognizing that within the discipline of

landscape architecture there exist the kernels

of investigation and creation required to

respond to environmental design of today and

of the future “new discipline”. The problem lies

in the defining of design fundamentals within

the confines of architectural

discourse.

Fig. 4. Student study of “Constructs & Artifice” in

Souto De Moura’s House in Moledo

Motloch describes the situation of the

educational system as a whole as being

“structured by disciplines, not synergy and

integration.”xiv The design process is

understood as consisting of discrete, either in-

flux or static, elements that can be re-solved

or solved within a closed system. The

overarching, overachieving architectural

foundation model cannot fully engage with

issues of movement, continuation, flux and

change thus subjecting foundation

environmental design courses to the confines

of architectural discourse creates an

educational foundation that references an

obsolete discipline.

Summary

Can a course on design fundamentals that

focused on diversity of expression, voices and

talents naturally lend itself to being a

successful preparation for both Landscape

Architecture and Architecture students? Many

foundation courses are architecturally focused

and refer not to "design fundamentals" but in

fact to "design fundamentals for architecture".

By continuing to search and question

preconceived ideas of architecturally driven

models of design foundation courses I hope to

intensify and diversify the teaching of such

courses, with the aim to broaden what

questions get asked and how they get resolved

or unraveled, to better prepare students for a

future in the environmental design disciplines.

Practicality may demand that diversity within a

pre-discipline beginning design course be

embraced, but current paradigm shifts

surrounding the act and nature of design

ensure this is also a timely and necessary

practice to avoid teaching an obsolete and

“bankrupt” discipline.

Notes

i (original source) Foreign Office Architects, The

Yokohama Project, Actar: Barcelona. 2002. (referenced from) Jencks, Charles and Karl Kropf

(eds), Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary

Architecture, Second Edition, Wiley-Academy:

Chichester. 2006. p 355.

ii Herdeg, Klaus. The Decorated Diagram: Harvard

Architecture and the Failure of the Bauhaus Legacy, The MIT Press: Cambridge, London. 1983. p 2.

iii (original source) Foreign Office Architects, The

Yokohama Project, Actar: Barcelona. 2002. (referenced from) Jencks, Charles and Karl Kropf

(eds). Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary

Architecture, Second Edition, Wiley-Academy:

Chichester. 2006. p 355.

iv Corner, James and Alex S. MacLean. Taking

Measures: Across the American Landscape, Yale

University Press: New Haven, London. 1996. p 21.

v Corner, James and Alex S. MacLean. Taking

Measures: Across the American Landscape, Yale University Press: New Haven, London. 1996. p 22.

188

EMBRACING DIVERSITY

vi Jencks, Charles and Karl Kropf (eds). Theories and

Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture, Second Edition, Wiley-Academy: Chichester. 2006. p 355.

vii Quiros, Luis Diego and Stefanie MaKenzie, Derek

McMurray. “Enric Miralles: Architecture of Time” (reference from) Zabalbeascoa, Anatxu. Igualada

Cemetery:Enric Miralles and Carmen Pinos, Phaidon Press: London. 1996.

viii (original source) Tuschumi, Bernard and Irene

Cheng (eds). The State of Architecture at the

Beginning of the 21st Century, Monacelli Press: New

York. 2003.(referenced from) Jencks, Charles and Karl Kropf (eds). Theories and

Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture, Second Edition, Wiley-Academy: Chichester. 2006. p 361.

ix Motloch, John L., Introduction to Landscape Design,

Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York,

Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto. 2001. p 35.

x Motloch, John L., Introduction to Landscape Design,

Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York,

Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto.

2001. p 36.

xi Herdeg, Klaus. The Decorated Diagram: Harvard

Architecture and the Failure of the Bauhaus Legacy,

The MIT Press: Cambridge, London. 1983. p 90.

xii Visocky O’Grady, Jenn and Ken. A Designer’s

Research Manual: Succeed in design by knowing

your clients and what they really need, Rockport Publishers Inc.: Beverly MA. 2006. p 11.

xiii Milne, M.A. and C.W.Rusch. “The Death of the

Beaux Arts: The Cal-Oregon Experiment in Design Education” in Journal of Architectural Education,

vol.XXII, nos. 2 and 3. March 1968 and May 1968. p 27.

(referenced from) Cappleman, Owen and Michael Jack Jordan. Foundations in Architecture: An

Annotated Anthology of Beginning Design Projects, Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York., 1993. p 10.

xiv Motloch, John L., Introduction to Landscape

Design, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:

New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane,

Singapore, Toronto. 2001. p 36.

189