Polyphonic, Planar and Projective: Surfacing ‘other’ studio cultures.

January 31, 2020 - Patrick Macasaet

Architectural pedagogy’s landscape is shifting, and the pedagogical approach and culture of design studios need a renewal; from insular learning environments to compositions that engage with the realities of practice, the discipline and society whilst valuing the significance of experimentation and speculation offered by academic institutions. This text reflects on a series of research-led and industry partnered studios and surfaces a tripartite ‘other’ behavioural terrain to engender a more collaborative cultural ecology: the polyphonic, planar and projective.

The culture of design studios need a renewal; from insular learning environments to compositions that engage with the realities of practice, the discipline and society whilst valuing the significance of experimentation and speculation offered by academic institutions. A survey conducted by NeST[1] in 2015 among several institutions, initiatives and programs revealed two critical issues: ‘bridging the gap between academia, practice and society, and attracting a wider audience and mediating to the public.’ [2] In my pedagogical practice, my attitude has constantly been aspiring to thread the nurturing of ideas, engaging in speculation and grounding these within real-world structures. What are ‘other’ studio cultures or behaviours that we should be striving to nurture? What would it look like?

In 2018-2019, I led a series of Master and Bachelor research-led and industry-partnered design studios titled, ‘Learning Frontiers: RMIT Urban High School’.[3] The studios had three underlying aims; to expand a research interest in typological and procedural design approaches, to explore experimental propositions and alternative prototypical spatial and formal models for high school learning environments and, to stimulate design conversations for the development of RMIT University’s first Urban High School. In this narrative, I have had opportunities to reflect on the culture and pedagogy of this specific studio nature and have subsequently been presented in various discursive avenues.[4] This text attempts to further manifest and articulate three design studio behavioural traits that, when deployed collectively, successfully governed the studios I have led. The studios were polyphonic, planar and projective in nature. They engaged beyond academic barriers, forged ‘flat’ inclusive and diverse structures, expanded the disciplinary origins of contributing actors and, hoped to project new (or forming) knowledge from its confinement.

The Polyphonic Studio
If architectural practice and the discipline is not about the celebration of the ‘sole genius’ and understood as more of a collaborative effort involving multiple actors internal and external to the discipline, then culturally and tectonically, it could be argued that design studios are of a similar disposition. Carolyn Butterworth expressed that ‘students should have an opportunity to learn through doing – to actively experience the connection between theory, practice and community engagement.’[5] In the Learning Frontiers (LF) studio series, although we were operating within a real-world brief, the studios and students were highly immersed in a polyphonous learning environment that brought together a diverse collective of academic and industry professionals to include: researchers, property managers, policy makers, architects, practitioners, teachers, academics and more to contribute to the larger project.

The studio leader is an important piece of the puzzle but not the puzzle itself. Throughout the studio series, I was aware of my limited knowledge as an educator and designer of high school learning environments and actively sought out our partners and collaborators to address this void. It is highly important that collaborators and partners are dynamic agents in helping to form and influence the ‘pedagogical tectonics’ [6] of the design studio and not merely passive observers awaiting the ‘results’ of the studio. In the series, there were myriad of opportunities for our collaborators to be involved such as: through our ‘Collaborators Talk Series’, ‘Work in Progress’ sessions, informal ‘Roving Crits’, mini-symposium, final presentations and the student-led ‘Learning Frontiers Forums’. They provided alternative perspectives of knowledge that augmented the outcomes of the studio away from diagrammatic outcomes to proposals that engaged with real-world concerns. Students highly benefitted from the constant exposure to industry and produced propositions that equalised the speculative ambitions of the studio and practical aspirations of our partners. Our partners and collaborators gained from the experience too as they were able to access expertise and knowledge from other participants that were actively engaged in the design process.

Planar Structures and ‘Fluid Flatness’
What alternative anatomical compositions and culture can design studios take form? Subverting the social order of design studios to non-hierarchical structures and ‘fluid flatness’ highlights an alternative studio culture that begins to position students as ‘student-practitioners’ that are able to contribute to new forms of knowledge produced through design studios. In the LF Series, studios were of a planar structure that promoted equity and inclusiveness with the aim of producing speculative student propositions lateral to the studio leader. Students were regarded as co-creators of knowledge to expand our intelligence on alternative models for learning environments and procedural design techniques.

What is the studio leader’s role then, if not, to lead? Studio leaders are simultaneously curators, strategists, tacticians and facilitators of learning environments. Encouraging a state of fluid flatness in design studios where leadership and ownership shifts periodically could engender a more collaborative cultural ecology allowing all parties: studio leader, students, collaborators and partners to be actively engaged. As an example of this fluid nature, the ‘Learning Frontiers Forum’ is a student-led ‘Learning Event’[7] where select students who have completed preceding studios are invited back to present their propositions and findings to their peers - fostering a culture where the transmission of knowledge is possible from student-to-student. Another example is dedicated ‘Peer to Peer Feedback Sessions’ where the student cohort leads the reflective discourse and critique of the projects to date. In the ‘Learning Frontiers Mini-Symposium’, our partners and stakeholders take the lead and manage the discussions and presentations. Fluid flatness equates to a nebulous disposition where all studio participants and contributors spearhead discourse and Learning Events at a specific strategic moment within the studio programme - developing a more collaborative and communal ecology.

Projective Propositions
Students in research-led design studios, at all levels, have the capacity to contribute to a larger research agenda. Studios can be sites for the ‘creation of new knowledge’, through action and research through design[8] generating alternative projective propositions to what we may already know. The LF studios were strategized as a ‘series’ with each studio contributing to a larger whole and progressively amassing multiple other intelligences for learning environments, pedagogical approaches, design techniques and projective experimental propositions. To minimise repetition of projects each semester, students are encouraged to amplify their own independent voice, creativity, expression and translation of studio content to not only contribute to the immediate studio but catalyse possible future individual research trajectories beyond the studio. We should encourage students to view their academic work as part of a larger knowledge sphere and not merely bound by academic walls as similarly expressed by Lukas Feireiss, ‘One of the key pillars of education for me is the students’ personal development. Raising some kind of reflexivity, and making the students understand that they are part of a bigger picture of culture and history.’ [9] In addition, we should continually nurture the speculative, experimental and risk-taking attributes of design studios to continually project alternative forms of knowledge and challenge their validity as equally conveyed by Vivian Mitsogianni, ‘We should be educating students who engage in and contribute to a broader world of ideas and who are capable of challenging our ability to judge.’ [10]

It is vital that knowledge produced in the studios are not kept in a void – never to be seen again – but rather to be disseminated and broadcast to the wider public. ‘The outcome of academic education and research needs to be mediated to society, addressing and involving people from outside academia – practitioners, policymakers and society as a whole.’[11] In the LF Series, knowledge was initially captured by students through the production of the ‘Book of M.E.A.T (Models for Education Alternative Typologies)’ after every studio iteration. The books captured the exploratory nature of the procedural experiments and the projects transitioning to meet the demands of the real. The projects though never de-valued the ideas in place of the flawless learning environment. The studio publications also gave industry an insight into the complex explorations and operations design studios enact to surface further possibilities that could aid in re-framing the ‘real’ brief. Although a more thorough analysis and reflection is required, it became an invaluable tool for our collaborators and students as an immediate artefact to refer to for future endeavours.

‘OTHER’ STUDIO CULTURES
Exploring and investigating other possible studio cultures, pedagogy, compositions and attributes can assist in expanding the creation of pedagogical and cultural landscapes that addresses the shifting contemporary conditions of architectural education, training, engagement and, professional practice. It could also be more beneficial to multiple actors within and beyond academia and the discipline. The tripartite behavioural terrains articulated in this text were not developed in one studio but were continually refined through practice, student and industry feedback, and my own reflections as an academic, practitioner and past student. The polyphonic, planar and projective design studio culture aspires to be at the forefront of this shifting educational and practice landscape – demonstrating ‘other’ potential studio ecology and culture that may be more befitting of the current generation and/or our immediate futures.

Footnotes:
[1] NeST or New Schools of Thought is a research project initiated by the Institute of Architecture and Planning at the University of Liechtenstein in partnership with scholars from the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London, the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, the University of Antwerp and NC State European Centre in Prague.
[2] Kaps, Vera, and Staub, Peter. New Schools of Thought : Augmenting the Field of Architectural Education. (Zurich: Triest Verlag Für Architektur, 2018): 28.
[3] The project was organised with RMIT School of Education as clients and in partnership with RMIT Property Services and Professor Vivian Mitsogianni (RMIT Architecture).
[4] Pedagogical reflections on the Learning Frontiers series were presented at various conferences to include: Association of Architectural Educators Conference 2019 in London, ACSA/EAAE Teachers Conference 2019 in Antwerp, Annual Design Research Conference (ADR19) in Melbourne with future published proceedings to follow.
[5] Kaps, and Staub, New Schools of Thought: 30.
[6] I refer to pedagogical tectonics as the pedagogical framework or structure for an architectural design studio designed by the studio leader. It views the culture of design studios as a design act and something that we can formally, spatially and experientially manipulate and influence to facilitate research and ideas-led learning environments whilst simultaneously engaged with real world scenarios.
[7] I coined the term Learning Events as strategically embedded episodes within a studio semester that enhance student experience through a collaborative engagement alongside multiple collaborators with the studio cohort. They act as amplifiers, transformers and enablers of alternative perspectives of knowledge to empower the possibilities for innovation.
[8] ‘Design-practice research’ as RMIT approach to research and, by extension, research-led studio, i.e. research through design rather than about design (Mitsogianni, pp. 99-107). See Bates, Donald, Mitsogianni, Vivian, & Ramírez-Lovering, Diego. (2015). Studio futures: Changing trajectories in architectural education. Warrandyte North: Uro Publications.
[9] Kaps, and Staub, New Schools of Thought: 36.
[10] Bates, Donald, Mitsogianni, Vivian, and Ramírez-Lovering, Diego. Studio Futures : Changing Trajectories in Architectural Education. (Warrandyte North: Uro Publications, 2015): 31.
[11] Kaps, and Staub, New Schools of Thought: 28.