In Praise of Questions
"Territories of Teaching" NYIT Panel Discussion September 28, 2006
I can never resist an invitation to hear faculty discuss their teaching philosophies. And if it’s a NYIT event, all the better. Dean Judith DiMaio makes these gatherings lively and edifying by speaking up and encouraging others to ask critical questions.
The moderator, Nader Vossoughian, began with the following question to each panelist: Should wetlands setbacks be a part of the architectural curriculum? Frankly speaking, I expected a consensus that would advise students to stay away from wetlands (even marsh Arabs know that by now). Futile as it is, the panelists spent a lot of time talking about things that could either be sidestepping the issue or suggesting architecture may be in need of yet another ‘specialist’. I was left guessing as to why the question was asked.
A student raised her hand and analyzed the panelists according to their resumes. She separated each of them into categories of ‘specialists’ and no one objected. It’s incredulous that she was dead on. I thought that at least two of the panelists offered full range architectural services. She also counted theorists as architects and no one told her that it is the State that confers the title. There is wide confusion amongst students, faculty and the public as to what is an architect. Why didn’t that enter the discussion?
Moving right along, the topic turned to the computer. Someone in the audience believed the computer to be more than a production tool. He announced that there are two kinds of architects, computer citizens (people under 25) and computer immigrants (everybody else). I thought he was kidding, but he wasn’t. He implied the computer is complicit in this evolution. I admit that “Hi-rise for idiots” is now on the shelves but, in the meanwhile, computers cannot design because they cannot dream. And furthermore, Rock and Roll also created a generational schism. So what’s new? I wish the panel had a response.
My feeling is that these so-called computer citizens should take a break from cyberspace. Get unplugged, toss the earphones, grab a pencil and join the immigrants in the cave. The computer needs fresh ideas to work with and where do you think they come from? I’m told that the Hungarian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale is a laptop…Yikes!!! Now I hear there’s no longer a need for ‘the center’ because the computer makes it possible for a group to work apart. Whatever will become of those who are drawn to the ‘face to face’ ferment of the center?
Rodolfo Imas said something about the unimportance of history and the silence of architecture. Unfortunately his speaking style made it difficult to follow so I might have missed some salient points. Dean Judy pressed him for answers but he remained outside of my understanding. Personally, I believe history along with travel is of the utmost importance and that architecture is about as silent as the Bible.
Michael Schwarting recalled a conversation with Colin Rowe wherein Rowe remarked about Cooper Union’s 1970 exhibition at MOMA, “They take soft ideas and render them hard.” Now, there’s something to talk about, but the moderator moved on.
Michele Bertomen, said rigor is not rigid. My God, the dictionary definition of rigor is rigidity; stiffness. I really wanted to know what she meant by that but the moderator didn’t.
Jonathan Friedman alluded to ethical principles when he asked, “Is architecture just decoration for the rich?” It was clear that he regards architecture as civic pride and ethical principles, art notwithstanding. He knows, and so do his colleagues, that architects are by nature virtuous. He knows they must act as honest brokers in matters of structure, utility, materials and all the other entities that go into making a building. The question is about compromise. Is it inevitable at some point along the line? I wish the moderator had put that question to him.
I mentioned Ulrich Conrads’ book Programs and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture (English pub.1970) and lamented on the disappearance of the social contract. I associated the current air of apathy with the abolition of the draft and extolled architects to do their duty non-the-less. And speaking of teaching philosophies, Socrates, the father of philosophy, taught that beauty is virtue and virtue is beauty. That means if you tolerate wrongs of any sort such as the mistreatment of Americans (blacks) or the President’s brazen lies, then you’re not as beautiful as you can be. I wish I knew why this is crazy talk.
To me, all truths are related. You don’t get to pick and choose when to be scrupulous. If you can divorce structural truth from social and political truths then you can justify denying a woman her rights or victimizing gays. Probing questions that shake weak foundations put our theories and experiments to the test. Thoughts are made consistent by questions. And the uniform codes and standards that architects must comply with insist on such clarity. How can you teach professional practice without discussing ethics?
A case in point is the nonsensical façade going up across the street from NYIT at 61st Street by a distinguished pedagogue. It’s unlikely this would have happened in an office that worked in transparencies...on and off the boards. The cult of ‘anything goes’ makes critique impossible. So, what can be said about these bombastic extravaganzas except to call them Iconic. If there are no aesthetic standards then why bother taking questions. Lets face it folks, architecture has become fashion that any dilettante can do.
When I first saw the medieval depiction of God the architect, I wasn’t at all surprised; I knew it all along. Howard Roark knew it too. His self-righteousness came from the belief that the architect is God. Roark was the face of sacrilege and also the picture of virtue as opposed to Peter Keating who symbolized the status quo and vice. Ayn Rand portrayed Roark as an artist ahead of his time who, like van Gogh, painted what he saw and you may buy it if you please. Good for a painter, but not so good for an architect.
In Rand’s story, the ego is the fountainhead, the force that drives creativity… and it also drives one crazy. For me, the question is, does it run counter to Socrates’ aphorism that, “It’s a wise man that knows that he knows nothing”? If modesty is virtue and ego is vice, how do we reconcile Roark? These are questions that I would expect at the front end of any discussion of teaching philosophies.
The disconcerting irony with Roark is that the ego is both abrasive and comforting. Frank Lloyd Wright once said to a star-struck client concerned about costly overruns, “Who would believe you could afford a house by Frank Lloyd Wright?” With that, the client wrote another check and left brimming with confidence. I think both Wright and his client were wrong.
It is the questioning client that drags the architect kicking and screaming to greatness. Just ask Aline Barnsdall, Edith Farnsworth, Constance Perkins, Truus Schroder, and the talkative Stein-deMonzie gals. I believe Judith DiMaio is in that tradition and I want to encourage her to keep asking questions, it’s a good teaching philosophy.