Experimental
Cultures: On the “End” of the Design Thesis and the Rise of the Research
Studio_David Salomon
Experiment, Research, & Design1_What are your pre-conceived notions about “research,” Do you think of it in terms of experimentation, information gathering, the studying of a subject, inquiry, etc?
Definitions of “Research” from Merriam
Webster
1: careful or diligent search
2: studious
inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or experimentation aimed at
the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or
laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised
theories or laws
3: the collecting of information about a particular subject
3_What is “Design
Research?” is there such a thing, or do design and research stand alone?
“Herbert
Simon, who argued that design, was method for solving problems that have more
than one right answer…design can alternatively be understood as both rational
problem-solving technique or an intuitive aesthetic act. “ (34)
“…Research
can be defined as any “systematic inquiry,” or as “the close study” of
something. This suggests that there would be multiple modes of inquiry - both
quantitative and qualitative – that can satisfy these requirements beyond the
type of work done in a conventional laboratory.” (34)
“…Research
does not simply compile what already exists, but advances the current state of
the art.” (34)
Thesis vs. Research Studio
4_Architecture=Building
Science + Art History + Fine Arts, where design is the “+,” Do you think that
this is still how architectural education or thesis is structured, at UWM or
elsewhere? Do you think this a good model? Is the teaching of design emphasized
or lost within this model, should design be more prevalent, as some would argue
that “(design is) Consistently recognized as the most important subject taught
in architecture schools, design was also the one with the least academic
credentials.” (35)
5_ “The
traditional definition of the scholarly thesis was a series of statements or
propositions that either built upon, added to, reinforced, or challenged an
existing body of knowledge by “ construction an argument that can stand up” by
itself and be “maintained against attack”
from those qualified to judge its veracity. In other words, a thesis is a new
idea that needs to be proven relative to a field’s established set of facts, as
such, the unique design for a building was no in and of itself a thesis. It
could be so only if it added something to, reinforced a weak point within, or
contradicted something in the multiple fields that made up the architectural
discipline – of which design was not quite one.” (35) Do you think that this is
the model most thesis projects follow today, at UWM or elsewhere, or is it more
of a comprehensive design approach as described on page 36? To be a “good”
thesis project do you believe it needs to follow more of the traditional model
or the comprehensive design approach? How does design, research, or design
research as previously discussed play a role in this traditional thesis model
as well as the comprehensive design approach model?
6_In contrast
do you think that a Research Studio is a better way of doing a final/large
project for the completion of a professional degree? What role does design,
research, or design research play in a research studio, does one element
dominate? Out of the examples given in the reading of past research studios do
you think that one model would be more successful than the others?
7_Overall
what are your thoughts on thesis vs. research studio, are there certain
advantages to one over the other? Which would you personally choose if given
the option for your final project in a professional degree? Do you think that
the Research Studio is what more universities will offer in the future in place
of letting students do thesis projects?
Introduction:
Practice vs. Project_Stan Allen
Architecture as Material Practice 8_What is a material practice? Is architecture the only thing that fits into this type of category? What aspect of a material practice is it that separates architecture from all other discursive practices? (Xlll-XV)
9_ “Material
practices unfold in time, with a full awareness of the history of the
discipline, but never satisfied to simply repeat, or to execute a system of
rules defined elsewhere….Constraint is not an obstacle, but an opportunity for
invention, provoking the discovery of new techniques...As in intelligence work,
with immense quantities of information now simultaneously available, it is no
longer access to information that counts, but the ability to process, organize,
and visualize information that is crucial” (XV) Do you feel that this expert
only applies to material practices and the field of architecture? Do you
believe that this idea plays a role in the thesis vs. research studio debate?
Techniques: Differences that make a
Difference
10_”Design Intelligence, enable architects
to navigate more effectively in this new, information – dense context. Speaks’
suggestive formulation plays on two meanings of the word “ intelligence.” On
the one hand, it recognizes that architects and other design professionals
possess a specific form of expertise, a synthetic and projective capacity unique
to their own discipline. Design intelligence in this sense implies the
thoughtful application of that expertise to problems specific to architecture….”
(XVlll) How does this apply to our discussion of Research, design, and the traditional
thesis model?
No comments:
Post a Comment