In the interview with Gielen and van Heusden, Richard Sennet calls for avoiding “the Romantic notion of the little genius who pushes through his innovation” in education. He claims that innovation is collective activity. [1]
The artist-architect-designer Pieterjan Ginckels is probably the first teacher who inspired me to re-imagine architecture design studio teaching as collective practice. He teaches at the Department of Architecture at KU Leuven in Brussels where he is the Professor of Visual Literacies and Provocative Practices. In his design studios, he sets up polemical briefs with the aim to fundamentally question the role of the contemporary designer, to enable critical thinking (towards critical thinking) and to critically engage with shared lived experiences in a speedy compartmentalised world. Having followed his practice for some years, I can identify two main methods in his teaching:
- Continuous use of oversaturation. For example, his teaching is deliberately overloaded with popular culture notions and terms that are likely to link directly with the students, such as Snowflake, speed trip, anthropocene (misanthropozine), car tuning, avocado culture etc. In contrast to the dominant way of using these terms carelessly and often with an aim to insult, Ginckels’ teaching encourages a critical approach and opens them up as possibilities. [2][3]
- Explicit collectivism. For example, Paradigm Weekly, a Master studio Ginckels teaches, focuses on what he calls ‘collective experiments’ with visual architecture culture [3]. I have witnessed him going on so-called speed trips with his students, which involve yoga sessions in public realm, gaming in internet cafes, setting up a lifestyle shop and handing out self-branded energy drinks [4]. These unconventional activities are thought up together with the student group and involve a shared project production experience, dressing up in a group uniform and performing together. Speaking from my experience of having participated in one of such events, it was the intensity of the experience that resulted in a loss of a sense of self and in inventing a new persona who is completely and explicitly intertwined with the rest of the collective.
Ginckels’ approach is certainly experimental, if not radical within European architecture schools. During the course, the students along with Ginckels create a collective experience that challenges the usual master-apprentice hierarchies of a design studio, they might feel encouraged to test out an alternative persona during the performative speed trips and ultimately to re-assess their designer-selves. What I admire most about these methods are playfulness, plea for togetherness and a meaningful step away from glorifying the individualistic creative practice.
I enjoyed finding a direct link between Sennet’s take on learning outcomes as expressed in the interview and Ginckel’s setting out of his design studio ethos. Sennet says, “Often you’ve done your best job with an art student just as with a scientist when he or she comes out asking questions, rather than saying ‘I know how to do this’.” [1] This is not dissimilar from Studio Snowflake’s ethos: “STUDIO SNOWFLAKE believes we are critical agents, and produce questions rather than answers.” [2]
A common thread in Sennet’s, Ginckels’ as well as bell hooks’ works is that of building strong relationships between teachers and students. Such strong relationships form the basis for a ‘learning community’ as hooks calls it, and can help students become more motivated and engaged to learn. [5] This point resonates with my own teaching experience and I have clear ideas of methods I can implement to develop this aspect of my teaching. What I struggle with is finding the balance between pushing a more radically communalist agenda which I do believe to be beneficial, whilst making sure students manage the individual obligatory department-wide deliverables.
References:
[1] Gielen, P. J. D., & van Heusden, B. P. (2012). “A Plea for Communalist Teaching. An Interview with Richard Sennett”. In P. Gielen, & P. De Bruyne (Eds.), Teaching Art in the Neoliberal Realm. Realism versus Cynicism (pp. 33-47). Valiz.
[2] Ginckels, P. (2022) Studio Snowflake. KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture. Available at: https://www.blog-archkuleuven.be/studio-snowflake-22-23/?filter_department=28 [Accessed 21 March 2023]
[3] Ginckels, P. (2022) Paradigm Weekly. KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture. Available at: https://paradigmweekly.com/ [Accessed 21 March 2023]
[4] Ginckels, P. NoBullFaster. Pieterjan Ginckels website. Available at: https://www.pieterjanginckels.be/index.html [Accessed 21 March 2023]
[5] hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress. Educations as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
These are wonderful progressive ideas and inspiring! As you have shown these approaches connect so much to many of the themes we have discussed in terms of playfulness whilst developing links with teachers and students. I love the idea of moving away from as you put it ‘glorifying the individualistic creative practice’. I think this is helpful for students to consider as they move into or are already a part of industry where collaboration is key even though there may be one vision. As teachers I find that it is a fine balance to maintain delivery and have an ongoing rapport with students, especially when there may be time constraints or, for me, when I only see a student once in a booked tutorial. So it can be a challenge to connect.
I thought I’d share this with you: https://www.skatepal.co.uk/
This project was started by recent architecture graduates back in 2006 (my cousin was part of the initial team setting it up). Perhaps it is a good example of how students can see togetherness in action?