Sense and sensibility

Eireen Schreurs

In t h e famous novel by Jane Aus-t e n , Sense and S e n s i b i l i Aus-t y , Aus-the p l o t revolves around two s i s t e r s , one w i t h good sense and t h e o t h e r w i t h g r e a t s e n s i b i l i t y . The novel f o l l o w s t h e two q u i t e o p p o s i t e c h a r a c t e r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e i r l i f e s t r u g g l e s and t h e i r a b i l i t y t o conquer them, b u t only w i t h the help o f the o t h e r , as i t appears. Up u n t i l t h e end of the s t o r y , i t remains ambiguous whether sense or s e n s i b i l i t y t r i u m p h s .

The MScl programme of the TU D e l f t Chair o f I n t e r i o r s has adopted t h i s t i t l e , based on the c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t e a c h i n g a r c h i t e c t u r e i s essen-t i a l l y a b a l a n c i n g a c essen-t , even essen-t o essen-the p o i n t t h a t s t u d e n t s might begin t o wonder i f we are s c h i z o p h r e n i c . We f o r c e them t o t h i n k academically, y e t we urge them t o t r u s t t h e i r i n s t i n c t s . We ask them t o analyse s o c i e t a l demands, w h i l e s i m u l t a -neously e x p e c t i n g them t o take a p o s i t i o n . We want them t o b u i l d arguments, y e t we dare t o c a l l i t s r e s u l t ' u n b a l a n c e d ' . How i s i t p o s s i b l e t o compose an e d u c a t i o n a l method t h a t meets such seemingly c o n f l i c t i n g l e a r n i n g goals?

Before discussing the educational approach adopted by the Chair of Interiors, we should explain why this balancing act is so important. This w i l l require us to introduce our other pro-fessional lives - our f i r m s , w h i c h inevitably shape our ideas on teaching. A s architects, we have learned our position in t h e w o r l d ; we have learned to understand t h e ever-changing context, and our years in practice have taught us our mod-est place as designers w i t h i n it. It is w i t h i n t h i s s e t t i n g that we must set out arguments, in addi-t i o n addi-to analysing and solving problems, wiaddi-th an a t t i t u d e towards the c l i e n t s and the assignment t h a t is both critical and productive. A t the same time, we must be creative and flexible, quick and intuitive in our response and socially engaged, and we must hold our ground regarding our own position, in which we pursue our own ideas and f a s c i n a t i o n s . T h e balance between academia and craft is what makes our profession quite special, and t h i s continuous shift between ' m a k i n g ' and ' t h i n k i n g ' is what we t e a c h .

In essence, our Chair is a teaching collec-tive. Despite our highly varied backgrounds, we share an interest in particular themes, architects, discourses and aesthetics. We are continually redefining our position and delineating our realm by w r i t i n g texts, giving lectures and c o m p o s -ing literature lists. Our shared positions and t h e implicit knowledge of t h e lecturers are c o n -tinually actualised in the s t u d i o briefs, as well as in our teaching performance. Nevertheless, discussions on our didactic approach are rarely explicit. A l t h o u g h it might seem t h a t we lack the right words or an educational discourse to which we can relate, I suspect it is because our Chair regards our position and our didactics as symbiotic. This first issue o f t h e S T U D I O series represents an initial a t t e m p t to untie the knot of what we teach, how we teach and why we teach. It d e m o n s t r a t e s how we 'keep the balance', as an a r t i c u l a t i o n of our didactic and ideological posi-t i o n . B e r l i n State L i b r a r y (1964), H. Scharoun

1

Rolex Learning Centre (2010), Sanaa

7776 restricted programme brief

The M S c l programme at t h e T U D e l f t f o r m s for most students the first solid design assignment. The f o r m a t i o n o f t h e MSc1 programme s t a r t s with a s t r i c t definition o f t h e brief, which is firmly focussed on the material reality of architecture -the architect's ultimate means of expression.The programme involves a public building. In order to avoid excessive emphasis on the programme, we opt for realistic briefs of average complexity and intermediate scale.They involve well-known typologies: schools, music centres, museums, urban clinics, cultural centres - none too spec-tacular, none too hybrid. In our t e a c h i n g , we work from w i t h i n a strong awareness o f t h e historical and programmatic development of buildings, stressing t h e inextricable relationship of b u i l d -ings w i t h societal demands and representation. We also encourage students to use the brief pragmatically, however, as a source of inspiration and reference.

In the 2012 spring semester, the design brief consisted of a University Study Centre of the Erasmus University, combined w i t h an exist-ing small private library (the R o t t e r d a m s c h Leeskabinet).The assignment did not question the programme, but it did offer enough freedom for d i f f e r e n t interpretations.The Erasmus Study Centre, which is currently housed in a campus outside the city centre of Rotterdam, offered us the o p p o r t u n i t y to question t h e representation of academia in Rotterdam, in addition to societal questions of a more general nature (e.g. the f u -ture of books and the place of a library in it).The assignment raised a wide range of issues c o n -cerning the public and private spheres. We could discuss the type of public life to be expected in such a place and ways to accommodate it, as well as the private experience of concentration while studying. Because the site we selected for the Study Centre was somewhat constrained, all ur-ban gestures were actually architectural moves.

Splendid isolation

In our t e a c h i n g , we frequently work with the t e c h -nique of isolation.The studio work is supported by brief exercises focusing on particular themes or aspects of the assignment. Students develop their own sense of architectural quality w i t h i n a

setting in which only certain aspects of architec-ture are relevant, while others are not.They must work quickly and t r u s t t h e i r 'first guess', thereby training their design i n t u i t i o n . T h e so called charettes range f r o m concrete architectural briefs w i t h set products (e.g. preparing a model or a montage) to more associative and specula-tive assignments, as w i t h the preparation of a 'material manuscript', the Vedute, as described ii the text by colleague Mechthiid Stuhlmacher in t h i s booklet.

The charettes have proven to offer an excel-l e n t t e s t i n g ground.They f o r m u excel-l a t e the research o f t h e studio and feed the discussion on ideas (e.g. how ideas can be worked through in tangibli objects and how they could work as models for their project).

For example, in the library studio, we asked students to produce a small reading room in a model scale of 1:50.The c r i t i q u e o f t h e results introduced students to our ways of working and our ambition for the studio. In a very early stage, our comments d e m o n s t r a t e d our agenda and served as an invitation for students to take their own positions.

At eye level

We explicitly teach students to use their eyes in various ways. First, there is t h e 'critical eye' -the academic eye w i t h which students learn to interpret visual i n f o r m a t i o n . We teach them to frame themes, to look at details and to recognise relationships.The 'designer eye' does quite the opposite. Rather than reducing information to el-ements or identifying systems, the designer eye is a way to let reality sink in, of seeing the poten-tial within a certain context.This is the gaze at eye level, w i t h which students learn to recognise and exploit their own experiences or reactions to a situation, site or context. Our stress on using the eye also relates to t h e ways in which build-ings are actually perceived, neither from the plan nor from the oblique view, but f r o m eye level, us-ing client eyes, which are usually not trained. For this reason, we often work w i t h live clients in the studio, in order to help students understand the significance and f r a m i n g of the f u t u r e building for its users. A l t h o u g h t h e awareness and exploi-t a exploi-t i o n of social relevance offers singular sexploi-tarexploi-ting

Housing p r o j e c t T i e t g e n s Aergelse (2010), Tony F r e t t o n A r c h i t e c t s .

'

Column - Johan c e l s i n g

points, the sensitivity t o multiple perspectives c o n t r i b u t e s to capable judgment and the ability to t r a n s c e n d the merely individual.

One example o f t h e development of a more in-t u i in-t i v e gaze is conin-tained in an exercise described in t h i s S T U D I O by colleague and artist/architect/ photographer Mark Pimlott. In his lecture, he

Introduced the photo exercise of the firs studio

week, in which students were invited t o look at the site w i t h their eyes wide o P ^ n - W h a t ' s there? W h a t can 1 use? W h a t interests me? W h a t would fif? Repeated visits to the site and discussions

in t h e studio provided a tool w i t h which students could look contextually and f r o m their own personal experiences. A l t h o u g h the resulting i m -ages seemed unfocussed at first, the students picked up themes ranging f r o m the urban (e.g. the building as part of the skyline) to the archi-t e c archi-t u r a l (e.g. archi-the siarchi-te as a sequence of enclosed

spaces) and the historical (e.g. the site as a col-lision of buildings f r o m different eras), Severa of the t h e m e s re-emerged in the students work, t h u s a f f i r m i n g the relevance o f t h e 'gaze .

Architecture and the elements

in the studio, we make students aware o the fact t h a t their position can ultimately and only be

expressed through architecture.There w i l l never be a sign in the front garden to clarify the inten-t i o n of inten-t h e building nor inten-to provide an explanainten-tion of its details. A r c h i t e c t u r a l elements are the only means w i t h which to t r a n s l a t e abstract ideas into f o r m . In other words, they have t o communi-cate A n awareness of how these elements worK and what they signify is an Important part of our t e a c h i n g . In addition to questioning the material

choices, we question our position as architects w i t h regard to these choices.

Studio discussions aim to reveal the potential of various architectural elements. W e refer to m o d e r n i s t a u t o m a t i s m s (e.g. the abstraction oT t h e detail) and show students what the exposi-t i o n of elemenexposi-ts can bring. We shovv exposi-them exposi-thaexposi-t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n is more than merely a technical

device t o fix gravity; it is an essential arch'tec-t u r a l arch'tec-t o o l arch'tec-thaarch'tec-t provides a disarch'tec-tincarch'tec-t logic and rhym t o the building.This is equally true for an elemen

like the fagade, as colleague Dirk Somers argues in his polemic essay ' W h a t happened to the

fagade?' In t h i s context, architecture is regarded as an autonomous project, even though it is i n -formed by cultural and historical conditions.

Good education

W h a t makes good education?There is no for-mula, b u t t h e r e is a set of shared principles.This S T U D I O can be seen as a frame w i t h i n a t i m e -line. Bad education stands still. Good education, we believe, is contextual in its essence, and it keeps sharpening its position. It is an education t h a t situates itself between the situation 'out there' and the academic c o n t e x t It continuously develops and reacts to what students already know or do not know, and w h a t they can or c a n -not do.The position described above is the basis, which leads us to test ever new grounds.

W h a t , then, is a good student p r o j e c t ? T h e charettes n t h e studio appear to have predictive value. I f t h e exercises are consistent, it means t h a t t h e student is speaking w i t h his own voice. In many cases, t h e final design is also good: it is informed, it is personal and it is rich in ideas. Once students have found t h e balance between sense and sensibility, they can fly away.

Davey van Giesen

Photo, Vedute, C h a r e t t e , Design

Erik Revelle N a r u t a i Riangkruar Nadine Spielmann