Architecture 101 Movie Watch Online
Paula Shuffleburg
This past spring, we turned with hope, but not certainty, to our post-pandemic future. Against what we could not know, we turned to what we can; to history, and in particular to its alternatives, its margins, and its new, creative possibilities. We explored the architecture of the Amazon, concrete architecture in the Global South, and mapping the architectural history of Cairo. We examined the materiality of production and the materiality of race, spaces of care and spaces between, and inescapable history of identity and information. We looked back to native title and all around us at the invisible architecture of criminal justice and incarceration. And we took all of these discussions as imperatives for new modes of thinking, and making, together.
Events were held online and streamed on our Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter channels. Lectures were posted afterward on YouTube. We invite you to explore the full public program below or on our Youtube playlist, and find more details on our events calendar.
Joseph Kunkel
Executive Director, The Sustainable Native Communities Collaborative
"Bridging Boundaries in Native and non-Native Communities: An architecture for wealth-building and equitable opportunity"
MIT NOMAS Lecture
April 29
In recent years, with the development of massive open online courses (MOOCs) and extended reality (XR), the use of XR within MOOCs is becoming more feasible. Aside from making simulations possible, XR can support learning in domains where spatial awareness can be critical, such as in architecture. An intermediate technology to XR is 360-degree videos embedded in MOOCs that can be rendered in two-dimensional view (2D) via web browsers or in three-dimensional (3D) view (i.e., volumetric) with the use of a head-mounted display (HMD).
When rendered in 3D, a more immersive learning environment may be achieved as the field of view restrictions in 2D format are removed. However, whether the additional dimension can enhance the learning experience, may it be in performance or satisfaction, is yet to be investigated. This study used a short learning module using contents from an existing edX architecture MOOC in a pre-test/post-test randomized mixed methods experiment where learners watch 360-degree videos via a web browser or with an HMD while being observed. Results indicate that while HMD usage may appear to elicit more engagement, the measured learned outcomes between the two groups do not significantly differ. Since purchasing an HMD for online learning is an expense, suggestions for improving the 3D experience were derived from learner interviews. These include better scrutiny of the purpose and alignment of 360-degree video content with the lessons and more robust beta-testing before course release to the public.
The papers in this book comprise the proceedings of the meeting mentioned on the cover and title page. They reflect the authors' opinions and, in the interests of timely dissemination, are published as presented and without change. Their inclusion in this publication does not necessarily constitute endorsement by the editors or the Immersive Learning Research Network.
You're right, architects and architecture are no-where near as important as we were told to believe we were. Now... if only the length/cost of education were reduced to reflect this, then we'd have far fewer disgruntled people who otherwise might have done just fine. Just don't tell that to those $100K in debt design school graduates. They are equal, nay, better than doctors and lawyers because studio is sooooo fucking demanding.
can you point to any problems with the profession? we've seen your opinion, quite often, that education is the problem because it sets overinflated standards and produces "underdeveloped" graduates (to which i somewhat agree and disagree). any critiques on where we spend the bulk of our time in this discipline?
Appreciate the genuine question and agree with your summary. My pov here is that prof-practice needs to be treated as more important than studio (because it is)... and should be a perpetual course (like most graduate level thesis projects) that spans the entirety of the M.arch instead of one or two courses that can be glazed over near the end of your degree. I just can't take anyone seriously when they claim their arch education is hard because they spent 80hrs per week on studio work. Studio is the easy stuff. Construction and prof-prac is the hard stuff.
to be fair, you probably thought it was hard when you were doing it. i only push back because i think you tend to present things from a present-dominant narrative, which devalues the difficulty of architecture school at times. just because we're professional architects in this moment doesn't mean our experience is more real or valuable than a current students. i distinctly remember that architecture school was the hardest thing i had ever done while i was doing it, and honestly i think my job is a lot easier in many ways. the mental fortitude required to get through school is pretty demanding, and anyone who can do it should be commended.
that being said, i tend to agree.. education should probably more closely mirror where the profession is. my problem is i don't like where the profession is, and i worry it's only getting worse with more and more consultants, technology, software, etc to manage, not to mention any of the issues relating to money. in other words i think architecture is wrapped up in some pretty big systemic forces that we can't affect, and i'm not sure it's a grind i can keep at.
I don't intend to state that studio is not challenging. I was that night owl student constantly in studio t'il 3-5am (hand drawings and wood models... so, there was a fair amount of labour involved) but I also worked in an office between my studio and other courses so I had a decent understanding of the difference between school and work. I just don't agree that the focus of school should be on design studio. Encourage creative &critical problem solving by all means, but pump out grads that know a thing or two about the built-world instead of indebted and disgruntled idealists.
Studio: getting a B was easy, getting an A was hard. You really had to not try AND ignore/fight whatever your professor said to get a C. I never got a studio A during a semester that my side work picked up. I had a professor chat with me for a long time about some projects that most likely were "A" material on how I wasn't choosing my priorities correctly... it was a competition semester and I got an honorable mention and my B. I think back on that now and then and remind myself he was right, I worried way too much about studio. Glad the sidework taught me construction and kept my bills low.
yes, i guess another way of summarizing it for me: i think the design-focused curriculum used to be appropriate preparation for a career in architecture (major asterisk here as the neo-liberal cult of personality has been a terrible influence on this since the 80s), but that's no longer the case, which makes me sad. i can see how those interested by the more technical side of the profession are content with the work but not the education.
I've had discussions with a former professor regarding the courses that have been the most helpful in actual practice. Without hesitation I told him that pro practice and materials and methods of construction were the most helpful. Other lecture courses were also near the top (they were also quite helpful for ARE preparation). Studios were formative, but not to the extent that schools and students prioritize them. This professor had been wondering if we shouldn't be getting rid of a few studio courses and filling in with other courses more directly relatable to practice. I would have loved to have more pro practice curriculum with a professor that actually enjoyed teaching it.
BTW, courses in software (AutoCAD and 3DS Max) have been the least helpful in my career. Caveat: I was fairly fluent in ACAD from a computer-aided drafting class in high school, otherwise it would have been more helpful.
I think a flaw in your argument NS is the emphasis on design... That is the school and educators. But if you look at the NAAB accreditation requirements, AXP requirements and ARE test stuff all tracked by NCARB... design IS NOT a big part or emphasis; it is the prof-practice stuff. So we need to beat on the colleges that make studio the primary focus.
Your opinion is representative of your own experience. I would agree with NS about the cost of education, and with you about some of your points, particularly on validation. However, while I think everyone hates it, for many the testing isn't that big of an impact on their life.
People have different ways of thinking, and the nature of testing to evaluate your ability as an architect is pretty lame.
AIA,architecture schools and NCARB have refused to change with the times.The writing is on the wall;Technology will change the role of architects and developers will have the last laugh.Allowing AIA members to determine who gets licensed through internships has led to a profession that does not reflect the underlying demographics of society and therefore contributed to social ills instead of being the custodian of social solutions.
That said I think architects are still very much a necessary profession and some form of accreditation is also necessary to ensure quality in that profession. I'm not sure what an ideal would look like, but probably a lot different from what we currently have.
Just one specific bone to pick: "there is nothing an architect does that can't be done by somebody else." Strong disagree there. I view my job as similar to an orchestra conductor / composer. I may not be able to play a violin nearly as well as the first violin player, but I know more about the trombone than that violin player ever will (and vice versa). My job is to understand just enough about each to get them to play in harmony. That's valuable.
c80f0f1006