THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.3. Architecture as disconnected practice
51 | P a g e
52 | P a g e
“product”, be it built form or space, results from the complex synthesis of tangible resources such as materials (structural and decorative) as well as the intangible qualities of place, such as the socio-economic and cultural values and influences. This implies that the acts of building and craft-making define the forming of architecture, which expresses the values of societies in their respective contexts. This ‘making’ of architecture is what technology enables and supports, wherein technology itself is a social construct.
On the other hand, where the art of creating assumes an elite position of dominance, disregarding context, the ego and will of the architect may impose on the cultural landscape to its detriment. This disconnection between the creation of architecture and the making of architecture, and the reasons therefore, may be traced back to the early 17th century. During this period, the formalization of architecture as a profession, which required formal academic training, resulted in a drift away from the “making” of architecture through craft and building;
this was the point of departure in which the discipline of architecture wholly retreated into an introverted ‘artistic paradigm’ disconnected from society (Figure. 3.2.). The term artistic paradigm” in this thesis specifically refers to an entirely introverted / silo approach to design, which does not engage with effectively with the multiple layers of context – it does not infer that art is not a valuable cultural asset, or that art is excluded from making or building.
Figure. 3.2. The position of architecture since the early17th century up until the late 20th century (Author 2014)
53 | P a g e The ‘artistic paradigm’, defined by the intuitive studio at the centre of this model, is an introverted space which is disengaged from society. This disconnection may be traced back to the mid-17th century when architectural practice moved out of the hands of craft and making into the academic paradigm. Cret (1941) attributes this to the Renaissance in Italy, when architecture separated from the guilds and developed as a profession following the ideals of the courts and the aristocracy. This discussion will be further elaborated upon in Chapter 8.
Frampton (1992) confirms that in order to understand the origins of modernity one has to project back to the Renaissance or at least to the mid-18th century when architects started to critically question the rule-driven and classical canons of Vitruvius. This period was succeeded by the period of Enlightenment; a positivist approach to the interpretation of phenomena where it assumed that everything in the universe could be demystified through rationalisation and
‘cataloguing’ (http://www.history.com). The impact of this on architectural practice and education was that the subjective, personal and interpretative qualities of architecture were given up for standardisation and universal interpretation. It was precisely this disjuncture between architecture and society that led to the criticism of modernist tenets by the architects of the late 18th century.
However, subsequent ideologies and philosophies on architecture continued to remain within the positivist paradigm. This has manifested in architecture of the late 20th century still being defined by a general disregard for human aspirations and cultural relevance, moving further toward industrial production. Context has been reduced to the physical, infrastructural and climatic values, which are all quantifiable. Vickery (in Panin 2007) noted that architectural education of the early 20th century lacked critical theoretical enquiry, which at the time was based on historical precedent; on learning methods and technologies of production. Vickery criticises the Bauhaus-oriented schools, which, while open and democratic, presented architecture as a political and practical art. Emphasis was on how to do rather than understanding what was being done. Critical theoretical process was thereby underplayed wherein the “know how” of production attracted increased importance. Architectural theory thereby gradually disengaged from practice and became a historical compilation of existing theories within the discipline of architecture, instead of giving emphasis to the thinking process; critically questioning the relevance of theories and practice and generating new ideas (Panin 2007). Panin attributes this to the triumph of pragmatic application over philosophical enquiry, as evident in the first half of the 20th century, which gave much focus and prominence to technological process over theoretical analysis in architectural education. It is therefore
54 | P a g e necessary to develop an overview of the general focus of architectural studio projects during the early to mid-20th century in order to understand the focus of architectural education and the related pedagogic approaches.
Although architectural education and practice retreated from the act of making into the studios of artistic creation ever since the mid-17th century, the mid-20th century witnessed an inclination of architectural education towards social and cultural issues. This is evident as outlined by Rybcznski (in Stamps III 1994), who noted the following trends: the early sixties’
projects focused on large-scale housing which reflected interest in social issues. The seventies saw a return to architectural history in which projects were characterised by large formal buildings and renderings. However, studio projects in the latter decades including the nineties tended towards unusual buildings of little functional requirement and maximum emotive potential, wherein designers were focused on self-expression and individuality, a predominantly introverted and abstract process. This period has had the most impact on contemporary architectural practice and education as most of the current practitioners and academics of middle-age were educated in the nineties. The resultant architecture was based on personal will developed through a self-indulgent process that was disconnected from the inconvenient realities and complexities of the societal context.
This thesis argues that the impact of the professionalisation of architecture and the emergence of academies of architecture since the Renaissance, still resonate today. The design jury, the discipline-specific studio, lack of project diversity and the lack of acknowledgement of contextual diversity including the multi-cultural student body continued to define curricula and pedagogic approaches of most schools of architecture in South Africa. As a consequence, design problems continue to be resolved through historic methods of enquiry and practice which have generally ignored the multi-layered nuances of complex contexts defined by contemporary socio-economic, cultural and environmental realities, and an increasingly diverse student body.
The past two decades, however, has seen a shift in architectural pedagogy and the literature review suggests that theoretical discourse is focusing more on enquiry (thinking about the process of making) than on the necessary production (making of things). The reflective nature of critical enquiry within this paradigm means that processes and methods of production are subject to constant questioning and rethinking in order to establish contextual relevance with due regard for people, place and time - a shift of focus from the understanding of how things
55 | P a g e were done in the past to what is relevant and how to understand things in the current situation (Panin 2007). It is no more about how to improve the way things have been done, but actually questioning the fundamentals and the relevance of the way things are done, that underlines critical theory applied to the context of this research.
Within the built environment disciplines, however, the perpetual trend amongst historians has been to focus their enquiries on the internal concerns and procedural practices of the profession, rather than broader theoretical and political agendas that relate to the complexities of the built environment. As a consequence, discourse around architecture has been generally understood to simply be about what the architect does (Borden & Rendell 2000). The implications of the architects’ actions on the multiple layers of context do not extend beyond the awe of buildings as formal objects in “space”. Borden and Rendell, however, emphasise that architecture extend beyond the studio and product of the studio, and that everyone involved in architecture, which Borden and Rendell refer to as “simply everyone”, is absolutely implicated in the wider world of architecture in which we all live (Borden & Rendell 2000). This implies a necessary shift from the literature and discourse around single architects, monographs and practices, to include concerns without the historic disciplinary/hegemonic realm of specific architectural practice within a product-driven mode to a process of making through collaboration.
The making of architecture has to be realised through collaboration between a multitude of stakeholders, embracing a variety of factors and not just the architect or even built-environment professional collaborations. In this way, architecture and discourse around architecture could transcend the material and objective character of buildings and start to include the broad range of social, economic and environmental interests through interdisciplinary engagement which necessitates interdisciplinary thinking as well as interdisciplinary production. Panin reaffirms the value of critical theory as an interdisciplinary way of thinking which could thereby bridge the gaps between architectural theory and practice (Panin 2007).
The recent emergence of Neo-humanism has expanded on the integration of various modes of theoretical enquiry within a pragmatic paradigm to engage with the complexities of multi- layered contexts. This includes those layers of context that are ‘soft’ and ‘intangible’, such as the cultural layers of personal (unit) and societal (collective) consciousness. The relevance of a neo-humanist approach in the context of architectural education may greatly assist in establishing relevance and meaning of practice within the diverse and complex broader South African society. In this regard an engaged approach to architectural production could assist in
56 | P a g e bridging the divides between the profession and society as well as between academia and practice. The neo-humanist approach further extends architectural education to the broader global context wherein the complex nuances of the South African contexts may valuably contribute to critical discourses on social, economic and environmental change. Neo-humanist principles, based on connecting different contexts and paradigms, may immensely benefit the universities of technology in South Africa in determining their unique identities. It further has value to the pedagogic approaches of architectural education at universities of technology, which have historically been defined by an industrialised approach, towards one that advances human potentialities to the benefit of society.
It is therefore important to analyse various approaches in education to better understand the evolution of education in society in order to determine the key principles that may inform the alternative model that this thesis proposes. The historic approaches to architectural education, which have greatly impacted current practice, have been influenced by broader theories and philosophies that have shaped education in general. While this research focuses on architectural pedagogy and learning space development, reference has to be made to broader philosophical frameworks which influence education and learning space development, before focusing on architectural education.