Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Rod, thank-you for your question which probably succinctly defines this debate. I think an element which is often forgotten in the arguments over the value/method of architectural education - perhaps by both the critics and the students - is that the Part II programme demands a research from the students, including design research.

The future of Architecture (both as product and profession) is dependent upon engagement with and social, cultural, political, technical and economic realities, and these architectural issues are broader than construction alone. If a design research project addresses these areas then I think it is valid. Often the direct connection between the research and the realities of material practice aren't immediately tangible however this doesn't mean the work doesn't have value and doesn't address issues pertinent to contemporary architectural practice.

As you identify, the practice of architecture is intrinsically connected with the act of building - however, I think it is important to recognise that architectural education and practice requires an engagement with our world. If students wish to use their design research to gain an understanding of the world or make a critique of it then that's OK in my book; an awareness of the world around them will only strengthen their practice as architects and prevent it defaulting into autonomous questions of form.

We can have a very specific debate about the merits of Tavares’ project but I think the arguments here are much richer for addressing broader issues of the relationship between architectural education and practice. The key question for me is not just in the validity of the way design research is presented (the medium), but as Patrick Lynch and Jeremy Till identify, the value of the research itself (the message). The debates are obviously connected, but I think identifying a single medium for research as the only appropriate one for exploring a whole range of issues relevant to contemporary architectural practice is problematic.

Your details

Cancel