The Studio Culture Summit - School of Architecture + Design

archdesign.vt.edu

The Studio Culture Summit - School of Architecture + Design

The Studio Culture SummitOrganized by theAmerican Institute ofArchitecture StudentsHeld October 8-10, 2004at the University of MinnesotaAn Overview Report By Clark Kellogg1


2“Architects must function atthe level that can fix the world.”– Richard Farson, Ph.D.President, Western Behavioral Science InstituteAddressing the Studio Culture SummitOctober 10, 2004


The Studio Culture Summit^The 2004 Studio Culture Summitwas organized and produced by theAmerican Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS)with the generous support of these sponsors:The American Institute of ArchitectsAmerican Institute of Architecture StudentsAIA Large Firm RoundtableAIA MinnesotaAIA NebraskaArchVoicesThe Boston Society of ArchitectsTexas Society of ArchitectsUniversity of Minnesota College of Architecture and Landscape ArchitectureFunding for this publication was provided by The American Institute of Architects© 2005 American Institute of Architecture Students1


Astory has been told of an architecturestudent who lost his life in an automobileaccident caused by sleep deprivation. Adozen stories have been told of similarinstances. Thousands of stories havebeen told of cut fingers, damaged cars,life-changing critiques, friends lost and lives changed.All for an education in the art and science of architecture.There is honor in providing shelter for the world. It iseasy to justify rigorous training for those who would beresponsible for such a solemn duty. Yet the education ofan architect, as it has evolved, has too many stories ofgood people driven away or deeply wounded in the formalprocess of learning.In time, there were those who saw a pattern, a culture, inthese experiences and anecdotes. A product of the intensemodel developed to train great architects, this culture oftentook on characteristics of a punishing gamut servingthe establishment itself and not its students.These words and these ideals touched institutions, studentsand educators throughout academia. In conventions,classrooms, and coffee shops architecture students begantalking about the culture of architecture studio. Educatorsbegan researching and writing about studio in a verydifferent way.At the Studio Culture Summit, it was time to shift thefocus of academy-wide efforts to shape studio culture.This shift was clear. It went from a well-worn dialogue toresearch, innovation and proactive action. The Summitattendees left Minneapolis with nine directives thatdefine the next steps in the cultural shift surroundingarchitectural education.All cultures depend on stories passed on from one generationto the next. Because of the work of many goodpeople, including those who came to the Studio CultureSummit, the stories that we tell of studio in the yearsahead of us will, I trust, hardly resemble those we oncetold.A few people began writing about these cultural issues.One notable effort was the publication of the AIAS StudioCulture Task Force’s The Redesign of Studio Culture.These people told of a better way; of a culture that isrespectful, optimistic, innovative, engaging and inclusive.– Jacob Day2004-2005 AIAS President2


ContentsSection 1The Context of the Summit .............................................4Section 2People Who Reached the Summit ..................................6Section 3ProceedingsA Critical Look at Studio Culture .................................10Provocative Perspectives ...........................................12Section 4OutcomesNine Initiatives ............................................................16Section 5EndpointsA Personal Viewpoint ..................................................22Print and Web Resources ...........................................243


The Context of the SummitFrom an AIAS Media Advisory released October 15, 2004Four provocateurs provided themesfor the Summit groups to discuss.Thomas Fisher, Assoc. AIA, Dean ofthe CALA, provided an overview ofthe history of architectural educationand the role of the design studio,highlighting the fact that the architecturestudio model has gone relativelyunchallenged and unchangedBoards), and expert speakers gatheredat the University of Minnesota in Minneapolison October 8-10, 2004 to discussthe role, impact, and future of designstudio-based education in architectureschools. The Studio Culture Summitbuilt on the findings of the AIAS StudioCulture Task Force report (The Redesignof Studio Culture, 2002). The Summitwas organized by the American InstituteOver fifty students, educators, of Architecture Students (AIAS), hostedarchitects, leaders of the architecturalcollateral organizations Architecture and Landscape Architectureby the University of Minnesota College of(Association of Collegiate Schools of (CALA), and facilitated by Clark KelloggArchitecture, The American Institute of of Kellogg Consulting/CommunicationArchitects, American Institute of ArchitectureStudents, National Architectural Environmental Design at UC Berkeley.by Design © and teacher in the College ofAccrediting Board and the National The Summit featured special presentationson key aspects of studio-based Council of Architectural Registrationeducationby recognized experts, followed bygroup discussion and break-out sessionscharged with documenting observationsand exploring opportunities for qualityimprovement in architecture studioexperience and education.since its inception in 1850 at theFrench Ecoles des Beaux Arts.Kathryn Anthony, Ph.D., Professorof Architecture at University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign, andauthor of Design Juries on Trial,presented the problems of studiobasedarchitectural education, theevaluation and jury process, and theimportance of students designingout of their comfort zones.4


Van B. Weigel, Ph.D., author of TheTheory of Global Development, remarkedon positive aspects of the design studioeducation model. He shared how thearchitectural design studio can beviewed as a constructivist playgroundand how technological communicationscan be used to enhance collaboration.Richard Farson, Ph.D., President of theThe Summit utilized the breakoutgroups to critically analyze the issuespresented by the provocateurs to formulatea framework for the studio model,and to define its highest purpose. Theparticipants focused on topics rangingfrom criteria to evaluate a design studio,the implementation of hybrid studios,the role of the studio within the largerWestern Behavioral Science Institute,spoke about the difference betweeneducation and training; and the importanceof failure in achieving success ineducation, as well as the importance ofarchitects taking up leadership roles insociety.architecture education curriculum, tothe value of the jury system and how itcan be better implemented. The participantsdeveloped a list of strategies forchange designed to assist the spectrumof institutions, organizations and professionsthat are called on to implement orsupport changes over the next five years.5


The People Who Reached the SummitAva Abramowitz, Esq., Hon. AIARepresentativeArchVoicesArnold Aho, AIAChair, Education CommitteeNational Council ofArchitectural Registration BoardsMatthew AldermanStudentNotre Dame UniversityKathryn Anthony, Ph.D. (Speaker)EducatorUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLeonard BachmanEducatorUniversity of HoustonMichiel Bourdrez, AIADirector, Professional ServicesNational Council ofArchitectural Registration BoardsBrian ComerStudentJudson CollegeKen Crabiel, Assoc. AIA2003-2005 Board MemberNational Architectural Accrediting BoardPhoebe CrismanEducatorUniversity of VirginiaJacob Day2004-2005 PresidentAmerican Institute of Architecture StudentsRaymond Dehn, Assoc. AIAPresidentArchVoicesScott DietzEducatorSavannah College of Art & DesignDavid OrrickStudentUniversity of NebraskaHelene Dreiling, FAIA, Hon. SDATeam Vice PresidentThe American Institute of ArchitectsRichard Farson, Ph.D. (Speaker)PresidentWestern Behavioral Sciences InstituteThomas Fisher, Assoc. AIA (Speaker)DeanCollege of Architecture & Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of MinnesotaMatthew FochsStudentUniversity of Wisconsin - MilwaukeeThomas Fowler2004-2005 SecretaryAssociation of Collegiate Schools of ArchitectureCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoMichael Geary, CAEExecutive DirectorAmerican Institute of Architecture StudentsAna Guerra, Assoc. AIA2004-2005 Board MemberThe American Institute of ArchitectFrank Guillot, AIA2004-2005 PresidentNational Council ofArchitectural Registration BoardsGabriella GutierrezRepresentativeAssociation of Collegiate Schools of ArchitectureUniversity of New MexicoMary GuzowskiEducator/ACSA RepresentativeUniversity of MinnesotaGene Hopkins, FAIA2004 National PresidentThe American Institute of ArchitectsBenedict IlozorEducatorHampton UniversityMatthew InnesEducatorArizona State UniversitySabir KahnRepresentativeAssociation of Collegiate Schools of ArchitectureGeorgia Institute of Technology6


Cory KamholzStudentUniversity of Wisconsin - MilwaukeeClark Kellogg (Facilitator)EducatorUniversity of California, BerkeleyPresident, Kellogg ConsultingRafael Longoria2004-2005 PresidentAssociation of Collegiate Schools of ArchitectureUniversity of HoustonCatherine LuxDirector of Member ServicesAmerican Institute of Architecture StudentsKatie MarcusStudentSouthern Polytechnic State UniversityThomas Mathison, FAIA2005 Vice PresidentThe American Institute of ArchitectsWilliam MillerEducatorUniversity of UtahMichael MirandaStudentWentworth Institute of TechnologyNorma Lizeth MoralesStudentTexas A&M UniversityRyan MurphyStudentSouthern Illinois UniversityJoel NelsonStudentUniversity of MinnesotaJoni PriestStudentJudson CollegeTim RiceInternHorty Elving & Associates, Inc.Kate Schwennsen, FAIA2005 1st Vice PresidentThe American Institute of ArchitectsMeenakshi SharmaStudentArizona State UniversityTrinity Simons, Assoc. AIA2004-2005 Vice PresidentAmerican Institute of Architecture StudentsBreanne SparrowStudentKansas State UniversityJim SullivanEducatorLouisiana State UniversityIan TabernerEducatorBoston Architectural CenterJustin TholenStudentUniversity of UtahVan Wiegel (Speaker)EducatorEastern UniversityAshley Wood2004-2005 Board MemberAmerican Institute of Architecture StudentsEric Zaddock2004-2005 Board MemberAmerican Institute of Architecture Students7


“We learned that architectural educationwas not a problem to be fixed, but apredicament to be massaged to health.”–Kate Schwennsen, FAIA2005 1st Vice PresidentThe American Institute of Architects8


3StudioCultureSummit Proceedings9


A Critical Look at Studio CultureThe people at the summit came from all overthe US. We ranged in age from under 20 toover 70. They were students, architects, internarchitects, teachers, administrators, regulatorsand more. What did we have in common? All buttwo had been through design studio. Many werestill in studio as students or teachers.Everyone had powerful stories of their studioexperience. No one was indifferent. “Studio”has an enormous life-shaping influence onarchitecture students during one’s school yearsand throughout one’s life. This is true for theroughly half of architecture students who go onto work in the profession as well as for the otherhalf who choose careers beyond architecture.1. Highest and Best Purpose of Studio Model:• Instill a lifelong method and passion for learning• A model for a habit of synthesis, so studio islinked to other courses and topics• Foster Community-based design• Allow students to discover their own “calling”• Instill and nurture creative discontent• Promote and support self-discovery• Support the development of personal identity• Instill respect and responsibility for living systems• To become a managed studio design processthat can be assessed and evolvedOne of the first thing we did as a group was workthrough our experience and knowledge of studioto create some grounded assessments aboutthe value and character of the design studios inAmerican schools of architecture. This evolvedinto four areas:10


2. Characteristics to Value and to Retain:4. Strategies for Change in Studio Culture:• Sense of community• Place specificity• Sense of mission• Mentoring (one-to-one)• Peer support• Romance and the “calling”• Critical thinking• Intense personal experience• Perseverance• 1-on-1 student/faculty integration• Multiple paths to teaching goals• Learn by doing• Holistic nature/synthesis• Presentation and explanation of why• Flexibility of instructors• Peer-to-peer learning• Group experience• Vertically integrated studios3. Characteristics to Discard:• Adversarial relationships• Lack of specific objectives• “All-nighter” myth and reality• Object-only focus of critiques• Distinction between talent and intelligence• Prizing final presentations too much• Studio overriding all other classes• Arbitrary (ungrounded) instructor criticism asvalid part of studio design process• Competitive insularity of individual projects• Competition vs. collaboration• Equating project value with personal value• Studio-based “star” culture• The “ordeal” of studio• Redundant studio projects• Dysfunctional traditions• Acknowledge change already occurring• Acknowledge change must continue• Share best practices• Awards for effective pedagogy• Discussion with studio faculty about changesthey’ve enacted/need to enact as part ofaccreditation team visits• Have faculty present their culture to students• Faculty work together to establish strategiesand outcomes for studios• ACSA teaching award program awardees asresource for peers and programs- assist in developing self assessment rubricfor evaluation of studio at multiple levels- develop a teaching program for new faculty- provide narrative of their learning strategies11


Provocative PerspectivesThe strongest conviction thatemerged from the Summit wasa universal endorsement of thedesign studio as a model for experience-basedlearning and skilldevelopment. The problems arenot inherently built into the studiomodel but are part of an insularlegacy culture that is changing andneeds to change more.The four provocateurs werebrilliant. Each brought insight,wisdom and hope. Together, theywove a compelling story of how wegot here, what isn’t working, whydesign studios are so powerfuland what we are called upon todo going forward.Thomas FisherProfessor and DeanCollege of Architecture & Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of Minnesota“Why We AreWhere We Are”“There is nothing like focusingon the larger problems of theworld to put our problems inperspective, and I suspect thatonce we truly engage with theworld, many of the silly or selfdestructivetraditions of studiolife–the all-nighters, the obsessionwith grades, the ridiculouscompetition to see who can bethe most original–would disappearor seem irrelevant in lightof these larger purposes.”12


Kathryn AnthonyEducatorUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignVan WeigelEducatorEastern UniversityRichard FarsonPresidentWestern Behavioral Science Institute“Open Critiqueof the StudioModel”“Technologyand Innovationin Education”“Leadershipin Education”“Some parts of the studio modelhave changed over the lastdecade. The individual abusivebehavior is no longer common.What remains are underlyingstructural issues that stillthreaten the health of the studiomodel. It is still too insulatedfrom the rest of the world. It isstill too subjective. We are justbeginning to institute changessystematically. The job is notdone.”“The design studio is pedagogicallysolid. Thinking is an art.Studio focuses students onbecoming knowledge creatorsand knowledge integrators. Theenvironment of studios allowthis to happen in the presenceof more skilled persons aswell as fostering learning frompeers. The problems with studiosmostly stem from thehistorically insular nature ofmost architecture schools.”“There is a big difference betweentraining and education.Training makes people alike.Education is threatening; it demandsyou be the best you can.Architects are really working inthe area of human affairs. Weneed to see things in a largercontext. Design has the capacityto create a better world but theworld is running out of time.”13


“Three days, fifty plus professionals andstudents, all talking about studio culture...not only did ideas get passed and possiblesolutions get proposed, but connectionsaround the nation were made and changeswere set into place. The work done thatweekend ensured that the studio cultureof our past will not be the future of ourprofession.”– Matthew FochsUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee14


4Studio CultureSummit Outcomes15


OutcomesThe attendees of the StudioCulture Summit charged thestakeholders, particularly theAIAS, to focus their efforts on nineinitiatives generated at the summit.These nine initiatives encompassa range of issues and goals. Theyrespond to the inherent complexityof this phenomenon we know as“studio culture.” Drawing from theideals presented in The Redesignof Studio Culture and from workat the summit, these initiativesapproach studio culture with a callfor direct communication, clearpolicy, rigorous research and arenewed belief in the value of thestudio model itself.The intention of the people at thesummit and the subsequent designof the initiatives are clear. Both areadvocates of changing studio cultureand doing so using collaboration,research and innovation.The AIAS is acting as “quarterback”for these initiatives. However, theAIAS recognizes it cannot succeedworking alone. It is collaborationthat will create positive, substantialresults. The AIAS will partner withACSA, NAAB, AIA, NCARB and othersto achieve these goals. Workingtogether, we can accomplish eachof these initiatives and createsustainable change. Change thatwill indisputably benefit students,educators, the profession and thepublic we serve.16


C O M M U N I C A T I O NI N I T I A T I V E SCommunicate Outcomes Share Studio Policy Resources Award SuccessesDisseminate outcomes andResearch and share a databankof methodologies used 3 sity of studio cultures amongHonor the success and diver-1 information regarding the 2proceedings of the Summitand provide resources relatedto studio culturein creating studio culture policies,as per NAAB Conditionfor Accreditation 3.5.degree-granting programsnationwide.• Fall 04: AIAS News Release• Fall o4: ArchVoices Issue• Spring 05: Studio Culture SummitPublication distributed. A summary ofthe Summit proceedings and a referencefor the dialogue that took place there.Outlines current and future status ofStudio Culture initiatives and advocacyefforts.• Summer 05: Design Intelligence supplement,Focus on the Future, dedicated toThe Studio Culture Summit and studioculture.• Summer 04: NAAB Board of Directorscreate Condition 3.5 for Accreditation.Condition states schools are expected todemonstrate a positive and respectfullearning environment through theencouragement of the fundamentalvalues of optimism, respect, sharing,engagement and innovation betweenand among the members of its faculty,student body, administration and staff.• Spring 06: AIAS will survey selectschools on their methodologies forcreating the studio culture policy.• Fall 06: AIAS will compile those methodologiesand provide them as a resourceto schools preparing to write a policy.• Summer 06: The AIAS will form a taskgroup to create an award which willhonor strong and positive studio culturein architectural program communities.• Winter 07: Award launched.• Summer 07: First award conferred.17


R E S E A R C HI N I T I A T I V E STrack Studio Trends Create Assessment Tools Study Studio SettingsSurvey architecture programsDefine a system of assessmentthat represents perfor-6 developing models for “hybridResearch and aid in4 and collect studio culture policiesto understand system-widemance indicators for studio.studios” which join physical5trends influencing studio culture.and virtual studios.• Summer 06: AIAS will begin work ona survey that will gather information onstudio culture from students, faculty, andadministrators from programs across thecountry.• Fall 06: Initial test survey completed byan accredited university.• Winter 07: Results analyzed with thehelp of ACSA and research professionals.• Spring 07: AIAS will develop a survey togo out to all programs.• Summer 06: AIAS will assemble ateam of professionals, educators, administratorsand students in a task groupto discern the means of assessmentin studio including both ‘grading’ andcourse assessment.• Fall 06: Task group will researchvarious assessment methods.• Summer 07: AIAS will publish findingsand facilitate further discussion andpotential uses.• Summer 05: AIAS will study examplesof studio settings, including those thatcombine virtual space and digital communicationwhile maintaining a physicalstudio center.18


S T U D I OI N I T I A T I V E SPromote Citizenship Engage Communities Expand Studio Model7Utilize the studio as theEncourage and promotePromote and providepremier place to teach architecture8 examples of studios and 9 resources about the studiostudents their ethicalobligation to become active,engaged citizens.studio educators who engagecommunities in projects.learning model for otheracademic settings includingK-12, interdisciplinary studies,and business.• Summer 07: Task group of experts willbe convened to debate and draft a criteriaand process for employing the studio asthe premier place to develop the ethics,responsibilities, skills and practices ofdesign-based leadership. This effort willbe informed by the submissions of architecturalpapers, journals, and other formsof research supporting the studio as theoptimum environment for learning andpracticing leadership skills.• Summer 07: Task group of studentsand educators is convened to discuss anddraft a paper highlighting examples ofstudios engaging their communities. Thiseffort will be combined with submissionsto local and national media, architecturalpapers, journals, and other publicationssupporting this type of engagement.• Summer 08: Resources will be publishedarticulating the power of thestudio model as an effective learningenvironment. These efforts will be atool for understanding the power of thestudio model, and architectural educationas well as the abilities of graduatesof the nation’s architecture schools.19


“Masterfully conceived, spectacularlydelivered. A very engaging, provocative,forward-looking conference that willmove the profession toward creatinghigher quality architects.”– Thomas Mathison, FAIA2005 AIA Vice President20


5Studio CultureSummit Endpoints21


A Personal ViewpointLike most of us, I wentthrough design studio inarchitecture school. It wasa formative experiencefor me; I survived - eventhrived. Some of my closestfriendships were made there. The studiohad been a home, probably too much ofone. Many years have passed by sincethen, but I still have vivid memories ofthose years in studio.Now, I teach in the same school in whichI studied architecture. Returning there as ateacher restimulated old studio memories.I find myself telling my students storiesabout when I was in the same studios.In the intervening decades, some of theromance has worn off but the stingingcomments from certain critics haven’t.The ridiculous hours now seem insane.While teaching one day, I was drawing agraph on the blackboard of the “EmotionalLife of a Design Project.” It plotted - in apseudoscientific manner - the emotionalroller-coaster ride of the student experiencein design studio projects. I describedthe novice’s almost certain confusionbetween the value of the design and thevalue of the designer. I became engrossedin the lesson and illustrated the mainpoints with examples from my own timein studio. Telling these stories out loudmade them very lucid and personal. I feltlike I was a student back in studio. Whathappened next surprised me. When Ifinished the diagram and turned back toface the class, most of them were in tearsand I was close to it.It was astounding to realize so little hadchanged in the intervening 30 years.It was even more astounding when Ithought about all the things that hadchanged: PC’s, digital drawings, theWeb, globalization, CAD and CAM, 3-Dmodeling, Earth Day, Watergate, MyaLin, cloning, off-shore drawings, ZahaHadid, mobile phones, the Euro, virtualeverything, along with Frank Gehry,Rem Koolhaus and global warming. Howcould the world outside studio change soprofoundly and studio change so little?I was bewildered. So when the AIASasked me to facilitate the Studio CultureSummit I said yes without hesitating.That was almost a year ago. Sincethen I’ve probably had one hundredconversations about studioand its culture. I’ve talked with students,teachers, practitioners and administrators.I’ve reviewed all the “usual suspects” inthe literature from the “Boyer Report”, toKathryn Anthony’s Design Juries on Trial,to (Summit attendee) Leonard Bachman’sand Christine Bachman’s promising newsoon-to-be-published research, “StudentPerceptions of Academic Workload inArchitectural Education.”Some things haven’t changed in the debateabout studio culture: people don’t agree.What has changed is the tone and contentof the conversation. Early in our discussionsabout the summit, Jacob Day saidto me, “For four years the AIAS has beentalking about Studio Culture. A questionmy predecessors often heard was, ‘Whatare you complaining about? We wentthrough studio and we turned out fine–what’s the problem?’ ”At the Summit, people were asking differentquestions: What is the value of studioas a teaching model? How can we betterteach the teachers who lead studio courses?How can studios make a difference inreal-world projects? How will improvingstudio culture improve the profession ofarchitecture?22


These are fundamentally different–and better–questions. These are notthe questions of “the whining class”as one practitioner I spoke with describedthe Summit attendees. Instead, these arequestions that go to the heart of how weteach, inspire and nurture succeedinggenerations who will apply designerlythinking and design skills to a wide arrayof complex challenges in–and as the datademonstrates–far beyond, the currentpractice of architecture.The Studio Culture Summit produced nineinitiatives that, over the next five years,can shape and inform these questions.They might even lead to answering someof them. But, no matter what, the Summitchanged the conversation from complainingabout the past to designing the future.As facilitator, I saw 50 people–none ofthem whining–look squarely at studioculture and conclude that the model hasimmense value as a teaching environment;one-to-one communication, rich peer-topeerlearning, Socratic discourse, iterativeprogression, learning by doing, visuallyliterate, and creatively based.Those same people recognized that theculture of studio, with its roots in 18thcentury France, has elements that do notserve the needs of 21st century life and21st century architecture in America.To their credit, the Summit participantsdidn’t issue manifestos, opinions orungrounded assessments about studioculture. Instead, they called for thingsthat have been noticeably lacking inthe studio culture debate: doing betterresearch, defining best practices, communicatingabout things that matterand calling for action-based cooperationamong the five collateral organizations.It’s hard to know what will becomeof these initiatives. If the history ofchange in the profession is a guide,these ideas may just be left to quietly diefrom neglect.But maybe this time it will be different.Maybe the confluence of students, teachers,practitioners, and wise outsidersthat came to the Summit and produced ablueprint for insight and action signals adifferent direction. Maybe they saw anewthe potential for design to improve theworld. Maybe they believe that “surviving”studio is not the best outcome tobe had from the core experience of anarchitectural education. Or perhaps theycaught a whiff of the ether reserved onlyfor the change-makers.I hope the future is different. I hope it’sdifferent for students whose self-esteemhas been crushed by abusive studio critics.I hope it’s different for teachers whosepassion for bringing forth the best of ouryoung people has been swept away by theinertia of institutional bureaucracy.I hope it’s different for the practicing architectswhose conviction wilts in the faceof choosing between making change andmaking a living.Finally, I hope it’s different for the publicwe serve. The accelerating complexityof life on earth requires the highest andbest use of the remarkable knowledge andskills we learn. Maybe I’m crazy, but I stillbelieve we can make the world a betterplace. During the three days of the Summit,I was sure of it.– Clark KelloggStudio Culture Summit Facilitator23


The Studio Culture Summit^Printand WebResourcesYou can find more information and linksto many of the works cited below on theAIAS Studio Culture Summit Web site atwww.aias.org/studiocultureBrief History of AIAS work on Studio Culture issues:November 2000 – AIAS establishes a Studio Culture TaskForce to study effects of current architectural educationpractices on students and consider alternatives. Studio Cultureis brought to the forefront of the AIAS Advocacy agendaDecember 2002 – The Redesign of Studio Culture waspublished as the product of the AIAS Studio Culture TaskForce’s research. It is authored by then AIAS Vice PresidentAaron Koch, current AIA First Vice President KatherineSchwennsen, FAIA, then Studio Culture Task Force Chair,Deanna Smith and Thomas Dutton.July 2004 – NAAB creates a 13th Condition for Accrediation(Condition 3.5) requiring schools to have a written policyregarding the culture in their studio environments.October 2004 – The AIAS and the University of Minnesotahost the Studio Culture Summit as a forum for a heightenedlevel of dialogue among those with interests in the shape ofstudio life and architectural education.Selected Additional Resources:“The Past and Future of Studio Culture.” By Thomas Fisheravailable at ArchVoices.org. 10.15.04 newsletterAmerican Institute of Architects (AIA). “The Client Experience,”2002. Washington: American Institute of Architects, 2002.Boyer, Ernest, and Lee Mitgang. Building Community: A NewFuture for Architecture Education and Practice. Princeton, NJ:Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996.Cramer, James P., and Scott Simpson. How Firms Succeed: AField Guide to Design Management. Atlanta: Greenway Communications,2002.Fisher, Thomas. In the Scheme of Things: Alternative Thinkingon the Practice of Architecture. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 2000.“Patterns of Exploitation.” Progressive Architecture. May 1991:9.Monaghan, Patrick. “The ‘Insane Little Bubble of Nonreality’That Is Life for Architecture Students.” The Chronicle of HigherEducation. June 2001.Swett, Richard Nelson. “Leadership By Design.” ArchVoices.orgTemkin, Jody. “For Would-Be Architects, Grad School Like BootCamp.” The Chicago Tribune. January 6, 2002.24


written and designed by clark kellogg25


26The Studio Culture Summit^American Institute of Architecture Students1735 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20006-5292202.626.7472email: mailbox@aias.orgweb: www.aias.org

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines