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
Top Related