Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T15:05:25.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The last drawing on the famous blackboard – relating studio teaching to design research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2008

David Porter
David Porter
Affiliation:
School of Architecture, University of East London, Holbrook House, Holbrook Road, London E15 3EA, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The history of the relationship of studio teaching to research since the Oxford Conference has been one of babies thrown out with bathwater. Nearly 40 years on the need for research to underpin and invigorate the acts of designing is ever more keenly felt. This paper starts from a belief that the fruitful linkage of the two requires new approaches to both – that the past 40 years shows that it does not happen automatically. Designing is considered as a series of tangible acts where the nature of each operation affects not just the outcome of the project but also the intention of the designer. This puts a renewed emphasis on the means and tools of designing, on the need for operative theories which avoid reductivism and to explore the difficulty of transforming an intention into an architectural hypothesis.

Type
Issues
Information
arq: Architectural Research Quarterly , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , Summer 1996 , pp. 10 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Architectural Association (1975 et seq). Project Review. Published annually by The Architectural Association, London.Google Scholar
Baxandall, M. (1985). Patterns of Intention. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Evans, R. (1995). The Projecttive Cast. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hawkes, D. (1995). ‘The Centre and the Periphery’, arq (Architectural Design Quarterly), vol. 1, Autumn 1995.Google Scholar
Le, Corbusier (1970). Oeuvre Complète. Ed. Boesiger, W. Vol. 8. Artemis, Zurich.Google Scholar
Le, Corbusier (1950). The Modulor. Faber & Faber, London.Google Scholar
Le, Corbusier (1955). Modulor 2. Faber & Faber, London.Google Scholar
Loach, J. (1987). ‘Studio as Laboratory’, The Architectural Review, 01 1979.Google Scholar
Parry, E. (1995). ‘Design Thinking: the Studio as a Laboratory of Architectural Design, arq (Architectural Research Quarterly), Vol. 1, Winter 1995.Google Scholar
Robbins, E. (1994). Why Architects Draw. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeomans, D. (1995). ‘Can Design be Called Research?’, arq (Architectural Design Quarterly), Vol. 1, Autumn 1995.Google Scholar