This piece in the AJ by Austin Williams is pretty forthright about sustainability in education. My initial response is that I agree with him, but then it would be hard to defend teaching a Master's course called Architecture: Sustainability and Design as I do.
On reflection, the underlying point he makes is right: higher education (some would say all education) should be about arming people with the critical tools to be able to investigate and thereby understand the world around them. At a time when we seem to be shifting towards the acquisition of knowledge as fact, rather than epistemology (ie. the construction of knowledge), Architectural education in the UK stands firm (for the moment) as an awkward proponent of the latter. He is also right that sustainability is a misanthropic orthodoxy that has become difficult to critique and this is what makes it dangerous; actually most dangerous to its own ambitions. It is abundantly clear that in every arena of life, the measures undertaken in the name of sustainability are falling woefully short of their originating objectives (at least as stated - if the ambition is read as 'sell more product' then most are doing pretty well). Its not about rejecting the notion of sustainability per se, (though maybe it should be about rejecting the shop-soiled word), its about applying our critical skills to try and rescue the idea from itself.
Architectural education appears to be undergoing an existential crisis at the moment; there are not enough jobs for architectural graduates and many of the jobs that do exist won't make use of the (literally) constructively critical skills that we as educators spend five years instilling in them. Unsurprisingly, people are asking what its all for. For me, this isn't really about the 'trout farms on mars' argument (that is whether students should be designing realistic buildings). Architectural education is becoming increasingly unique in producing graduates who can take on the most difficult problems of the real world; combining deep critique with creative design skills to open up entirely new possibilities. Radicalism has always been an important aspect of architectural endeavour and although this has sometimes had unintended consequences, it lies at the heart of the challenge of sustainability.
So, we should teach sustainability; not as a set of facts, but as a subject for critical inquiry. We shouldn't undermine architectural education because there aren't enough jobs with the right title; architecture graduates should go and do other jobs, because their critical skills are more widely and desperately needed than ever. Both apprehension and reflection (great RSA Animate video on this here) are necessary to understand the world and to act meaningfully within it and an Architect is one of the very few remaining professionals who is trained to do both, together.
On reflection, the underlying point he makes is right: higher education (some would say all education) should be about arming people with the critical tools to be able to investigate and thereby understand the world around them. At a time when we seem to be shifting towards the acquisition of knowledge as fact, rather than epistemology (ie. the construction of knowledge), Architectural education in the UK stands firm (for the moment) as an awkward proponent of the latter. He is also right that sustainability is a misanthropic orthodoxy that has become difficult to critique and this is what makes it dangerous; actually most dangerous to its own ambitions. It is abundantly clear that in every arena of life, the measures undertaken in the name of sustainability are falling woefully short of their originating objectives (at least as stated - if the ambition is read as 'sell more product' then most are doing pretty well). Its not about rejecting the notion of sustainability per se, (though maybe it should be about rejecting the shop-soiled word), its about applying our critical skills to try and rescue the idea from itself.
Architectural education appears to be undergoing an existential crisis at the moment; there are not enough jobs for architectural graduates and many of the jobs that do exist won't make use of the (literally) constructively critical skills that we as educators spend five years instilling in them. Unsurprisingly, people are asking what its all for. For me, this isn't really about the 'trout farms on mars' argument (that is whether students should be designing realistic buildings). Architectural education is becoming increasingly unique in producing graduates who can take on the most difficult problems of the real world; combining deep critique with creative design skills to open up entirely new possibilities. Radicalism has always been an important aspect of architectural endeavour and although this has sometimes had unintended consequences, it lies at the heart of the challenge of sustainability.
So, we should teach sustainability; not as a set of facts, but as a subject for critical inquiry. We shouldn't undermine architectural education because there aren't enough jobs with the right title; architecture graduates should go and do other jobs, because their critical skills are more widely and desperately needed than ever. Both apprehension and reflection (great RSA Animate video on this here) are necessary to understand the world and to act meaningfully within it and an Architect is one of the very few remaining professionals who is trained to do both, together.
No comments:
Post a Comment