Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • The rise of the balance between rationality

    2018-11-06

    The rise of the balance between rationality and creativity as the central concept in the design process that characterizes design education is an important development of rationalism as the ordering paradigm. Brown and Yates (2001) recognized that two main concepts remain central to architectural design throughout the different periods of design education from the Beaux Arts to the Bauhaus to the contemporary schools of architecture: “…the ability to engage study and respond to the human condition and the conceptual and physical manipulation of the built environment”. They further explain these concepts by quoting Weaver (1997) as saying, “The aim in educating an architect is to develop the conceptual, analytical, imaginative, and practical skills necessary for the student to determine human needs and aspirations and to meet or express these in space and form”. Brown and Yates (2001) analyzed the shift in the philosophy underlying architectural design since Modernism. In their analysis of the prevailing conceptual basis of modern architectural design, Brown and Yates said, “Following the advent of Modernism, the development of architectural alk inhibitor has focused primarily on the design and manipulation of built form. Testimony of this tectonic and (mainly self-referential) conceptual development can be found in an extensive body of work produced by recognized figures in the field, extending from Le Corbusier to today someone such as Peter Eisenman. And while a valuable body of work exists which reflects the other principle goal of architecture education described as the “determination of human needs and aspirations”, as seen in the work of Christian Norberg-Schulz or Charles Moore, such efforts have received far less recognition within the architectural culture.” The lack of balance between rationality and creativity in contemporary architectural design in the studio and in practice has led to considerable public criticism. The public feels that practicing architects have strayed far from the needs and goals of users and society at large and that architects are mainly focused on satisfying their need for personal expression. In the studio, greater emphasis is placed on form making and the end product than on the goal of community service. According to Brown and Yates (2001), “On the educational side, where the stated aim includes responding to human need and aspirations, emphasis continues to be placed on perceptually and representationally based form-making”. In 2002, the Studio Culture Task Force of the AIAS issued a report that offers a studio culture critique of the current practices in design studio education. According to this report, design studios are not doing enough to cope with the changing nature of the world or the changing context of architecture practice. This condition directly affects studio culture and should thus be changed to produce engaging graduate architects. Specifically, architectural practice is undertaking large transformations, new technologies are affecting space design and the construction of built environments, clients are demanding, and architects are delivering expanded services. The report concluded that studio culture must change and that this change must begin now; change must occur to proactively address the changes in the world and in practice, and change is crucial to enable the discipline to increasingly serve communities Koch et al. (2006).
    The need for change: the return of rationalism in the studio In preparing the research program, the present study serves as an introductory effort to guide future empirical research. However, the aim of this study is not to develop a design methodology but to establish a theoretical formulation that describes the design process of architects based on empirical research. The remaining part of this paper introduces the integrated design paradigm as a theoretical base upon which the knowledge structure of the design process is conceptualized. This paradigm acts as a system of inquiry, as Grout and Wang (2002) called it, within which the spatial relationship strategy is framed. The section is also devoted to the formulation of the research question, which is related to the knowledge interdependence of the two aspects of the design process: rationality and creativity.