THOUGHTS ON ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION
ADDRESS TO A SELECTION COMMITTEE
Franco Frescura
The purpose of this presentation is to examine the major issues confronting architecture, and hence architectural education, in this country today. It is also to place before you some personal ideas in their regard.
I begin by setting out the theoretical debates which ground my architectural philosophy. I then outline the nature of the crisis which confronts the local profession. Finally I put forward proposals which will permit architectural education to meet the demands and challenges being set it by changing social and political circumstances.
In its broadest sense, the definition of "architecture" is the provision of shelter to house the activities of humanity. Its processes involve considerations of a social, economic, material and aesthetic nature, a mixture which has given rise in the past to seemingly ambiguous and often conflicting interpretations as to its "true" nature. One standpoint, for example, was put forward by John Ruskin in 1848 when he wrote that:
"Architecture is that art which disposes and adorns the edifices of man ... (and) that the sight of them contributes to his mental health, power and pleasure."
His contemporary, Henry Parker, had a more heroic point of view, claiming architecture to be "the history of civilization written on stone, in a language easily learned, and which cannot deceive", a feeling echoed by Mies van der Rohe a century later when he said that "Architecture is the will of an epoch".
Some of architecture's principles are based upon aesthetic elements and are thus difficult to define, being derived from variable human factors and perceptions which differ from culture to culture, from land to land and from one era to the next. Others, however, are the product of technological expertise. They are thus more easily quantifiable and their performance is more easily assessed.
Despite the obvious difficulties encountered in reconciling Art and Science within the same discipline, over the years there has been no shortage of architects seeking to codify the aesthetics of society's built culture. Most, it seemed, were responding to the same impulse which led Laugier in 1753 to exclaim that:
"... it is hoped that some great architect will undertake to save architecture from eccentric opinions by disclosing its fixed and unchangeable laws".
It seems that this need to find fixed and unchangeable laws, written on stone in a manner which cannot deceive, is a condition of our society, the same mind-set perhaps which also seeks out blueprints and master plans, preferably designed to last one thousand years.
Yet we all know this to be unrealistic. Societies change, as do their individual members.
I therefore stand before you today with no blueprint, no easy answers. Instead, I offer a series of principles, a set of broad tenets based upon values and beliefs which have grown and evolved over the past 35 years.
Since the mid-1970s, much of my work as an architect has been based upon my self-perceived role of a professional acting in a society of extreme social, political and economic realities.
I belong to a generation of graduates sensitised by the writings of Marcuse and Rapoport, of Alexander and Asimov, of Toffler and Turner. As a result my architectural activities are informed by a number of philosophies and texts which emerged in the Sixties, and took root in South Africa during the Seventies.
My initial work was based upon a number of assumptions which today I identify as structuralist. Like many of my contemporaries, I was also attracted to the anthropological and sociological theories of Levi-Strauss. Hence much of my early research was orientated towards the extraction of structures underlying the built environment. This was supported by an interest in universal codes of visual and aesthetic communication, the use of symbolic and functional space, and the cognitive relationship existing between these parts.
It is now clear that the insights I have since gained from a post-structuralist viewpoint, have tended to undermine the validity of my original assumptions.
What is valuable, however, is that, even before I had encountered post-structuralist writings, the experience of architecture as a variable concept, as against one which is fixed and unchanging in time, had induced a shift in my own work away from structural essentialism.
My theoretical framework has subsequently also been heavily influenced by a post-Heisenbergian philosophical context, one which accepts such concepts as that the observer is a participant in the process of being observed; and that a methodology, by its very nature, is ideologically and theoretically biased.
I also operate from a post-structuralist or Derridian philosophical base, one that draws attention to the idea that reality is a highly mediated phenomenon.
For architects, any built environment may be interpreted or "read" in terms of a number of "texts". These are constituted by the "text" or background of the observer, the previous "texts" on the subject, such as histories, and the "text" as written by "context", whether this be social, economic, technological or environmental.
This means that the phenomenon we call "architecture" is not only analysed as a given "text" but is also deconstructed in order to take into account the underlying gaps and silences in the text, or the so-called sub-text.
My work also participates in the current debate among Marxists about such questions as agency, consciousness, and elements of superstructure in the determination of the form and content of architecture. Perhaps, like a number of other colleagues, I am also inclined to believe that, only in the final instance, is the economy a determinant in the shaping of culture and its manifestations.
I also wish to make brief mention of the rise of a Black Consciousness movement in this country during the 1970s, which gave impetus to the ideas of pride in things Black, and things African.
Although specifically excluded from such developments, white South Africans on the liberal and radical left found many of their ideas being challenged and new demands being made upon their commitment to a future democracy in the country.
The implication of this was that both black and white opponents of racism and discrimination were to turn increasingly inwards in a search for cultural roots which were both African and relevant to the determination of a post-apartheid South Africa.
The net outcome of these conceptual shifts has been the emergence of an experience and practice of architecture forged in an Africanist context.
Although structuralism, post-structuralism and Marxism have all had strong influences in moulding my consciousness, I also accept that they are Eurocentric philosophies derived in a context foreign to the realities of this country. I recognise them, like I recognise my own Italian background, with pride and gratitude.
Ultimately though, my work stands as an attempt to synthesise these elements into a blend which is uniquely African in content, and African in intent. In an attempt to unite theory, practice and teaching I have sought to create within myself an equal partnership, involving the architectural practitioner, the field researcher and the academic. It is part of the academic process to test research conclusions in an open forum of one's students and peers; it is not desirable to teach architecture without being familiar with its more practical aspects; and designers should be encouraged to create architecture by first grounding it in a sound data base, one located firmly in considerations of a social, economic, technological and cultural nature.
I do not believe I stand alone in these efforts. Surveys conducted in the United States in the mid-1980s have shown that some 70% of all their architects operate out of one or two-man practices, a trend confirmed in Italy and other European countries. This is partly explained by the general availability of a Computer Aided Design technology. However, many of the architects surveyed also expressed a wish to remain in contact with their own work and develop a closer involvement in the production process. This made for better quality control and higher job satisfaction.
Significantly, a large proportion of these smaller practices considered it important to retain a part-time association with local Schools of Architecture, in either a didactic or a research role. I suspect that a similar pattern has also been developing in this country, although no equivalent supporting figures have been produced to date.
At the beginning of this paper I made reference to a "crisis" which confronts architecture today. I realise that the word "crisis" has become inadequate for South Africans. We have grown so used to living through crises that we have now developed a tendency to be dismissive when a new one arises. I regard the crisis in architecture in a very serious light indeed for, if allowed to develop, it may threaten the future and very existence of the profession in southern Africa.
As I see it, we're not dealing with one single threat but with two. The first is internal to the profession; the second is concerned with its status in our society.
The first element relates to the debate within architecture as to the nature of the profession itself. In the final analysis much of this discussion may be boiled down to a confrontation between two extremes: the technocrat and the aesthete. In southern Africa neither boasts of a proud record. The technocrat, for example, has played a strong supportive role to the social engineers who, between 1960 and 1980, sought the fragmentation of our country. This professional connivance has not gone unmarked by the outside world and is one of the reasons why our profession enjoys the status of a pariah in the community of civilized nations.
The technocrat as a servant of corporate business has not fared much better and, in view of our future economic prospects, we are now questioning whether South Africa can afford such high-tech buildings.
The aesthete, on the other hand, has come to be seen by all sectors of our society as an optional, and often irrelevant, extra. This has been most noticeable in the resolution of such thorny and politically charged matters as, for example, affordable housing.
This then begins to define the second part of our crisis: the role that we, as a profession are to play in the formation of a future society. It is by no means certain that South Africa is going to need architects who conform to either of these stereotypes. The threat to technocrats is that they will find themselves serving new masters, but without the prestige associated with the profession: the aesthetes, on the other hand, might well be swept aside by a society which has neither a name for, nor a historical tradition of, specialist designers.
This crisis is not a new one, nor is it unique to South Africa. Giedion in 1967, Norberg-Schulz in 1968, Johnson in 1982 and Jencks in 1984 have all elaborated upon the subject.
In 1986 Karsten Harries pointed out that architecture's continuing uncertainty was reflected by its increasing willingness to turn to other disciplines, such as the social sciences and the humanities.
There was no such uncertainty in Rapoport's words, however, in 1983 when he stated that the only way architecture could survive in future years was through greater interdisciplinary collaboration.
Norberg-Schulz has pointed out that the social sciences, such as sociology and anthropology, could conceivably give greater clarity regarding the "actual tasks" of architecture. The conception of what these tasks entail helps explain why the architect should look to the social scientist for educational guidance, for:
"... building means the solution of social and cultural problems, rather than the erection of (buildings) of a certain number of square metres."
In all fairness it must be pointed out that, in more recent years, such factors as the implementation of a SAPSE formula in academic funding, the failure by academic institutions to recognise practical architectural work as valid research, a lack of refereed architectural journals and the international academic boycott, have all combined to induce a strong bias towards the humanities and the social sciences in the publication of architectural research.
This dilemma is not confined to architecture, and I have watched with sympathy as some of my colleagues have also begun to tangle with such concepts as "community medicine", "street law" and "people's education".
With our country's future being as unclear as it is, it is no wonder that there exists a strong desire on the part of the professions to achieve relevance, particularly as most of them have developed, historically, within a strong Eurocentric tradition.
There is no doubt that change, even radical change, will be necessary if the profession of architecture is not to wither away.
It is probable that most architects will adjust to new events, individually and on a reactive basis.
However one area where a proactive response will be necessary is in the field of architectural education. The implications of change will require careful evaluation and a large measure of advance planning. If, in the future, our architects are to fulfill new roles, then it is up to the universities to provide them with new skills.
This, then, is probably the single most important challenge facing architectural education over the next twenty years.
The problem will not be merely one of producing more architects. It will be one of opening up the profession to communities which, historically, have not prioritised the work of a specialist designer. By the end of 1989 South African schools of architecture had produced only two black architects. There is also a sprinkling of black graduates from European and American schools.
This failure lies not so much at the door of the candidates themselves as at the Eurocentric nature of the curricula they are expected to follow. Architecture, traditionally, is recognised to be a "cultural" activity. Architectural education therefore should be culture-specific to the undergraduate's own background, making reference to it as a means of identifying familiar features and interpreting these in terms of a wider set of principles.
In this respect much may be learnt from the various Built Form and Culture Research Units operating in the United States where change to a more flexible curriculum has not necessarily meant a concomitant drop in educational or architectural standards.
I believe that the establishment of such Units within our Departments of Architecture will, in the medium and long term, have beneficial results for architectural education as a whole.
A factor which, by implication, will also need to be addressed simultaneously is the question of instituting cross-disciplinary study and research programmes. Cross-disciplinary contact is not unusual to the everyday work of most architects whose practice involves the co-ordination of a variety of skills, crafts and professions. In an academic environment, however, this presents new problems which still need to be fully resolved.
I also believe that architectural practitioners have a positive role to play in the educational process.
Their potential to make a contribution falls into three main areas:
- They can make a valuable input in the practical training of undergraduates. A system of visiting lectureships could make it possible for our Departments to quarry the vast range of practical expertise available in the profession.
- This same system could allow the profession to develop greater links with the University, giving practitioners an intellectual input and the opportunity to participate in the wider debates about architecture.
- At the same time, the University will be able to start drawing practitioners into programmes of mid-career training and post-graduate research. I believe that the current system of higher degrees, most specifically at a Master's level, ought to be expanded in its definition to encompass design work of a special or meritorious nature conducted in the context of office practice.
A final element which will require careful evaluation is that of management and communication within the Schools of Architecture. A brief look at McGregor's managerial grid places architectural educators alongside welfare and political party workers: high in job satisfaction, low in financial remuneration. In such a situation, the usual leadership response is one of laissez faire interspersed with crisis management: you leave well alone and hope that a crisis does not arise.
I believe in the creation of a strong middle-management structure within a Department and of a consultative system linking the teaching and support staff as well as the student body.
I believe that management should demonstrate a genuine concern for horizontal communication as a means of creating a democratic and well-informed decision-making process.
I also believe that students have a right to participate in the academic process. It is my experience that, given the chance, they can make a valuable contribution to planning for their own education.
My purpose therefore is to break down narrow definitions of what constitutes "architectural work" and what does not. These prejudices do not exist only outside our various Faculties of Architecture, but even within the Departments themselves.
I want to see a Department where students are encouraged to prepare for a life as architects, where they begin to map out the roles they might wish to fulfill, and rehearse the professional interests they are likely to pursue, whether these be in the fields of design, management, planning, technology or research:
I want to see a Department where individual staff members are not categorised according to a stereotypical picture of their talents, but are allowed to grow according to their own abilities and fields of interest:
I would like to see a Department of design lecturers who teach technology, history and management as integrated components of this core, not as separate entities - a Department with no Cinderella subjects:
- a Department with a wide range of research interests:
- a Department which will make full use of the skills and manpower available to it within the University and the Faculty:
- and a Department which will re-establish reciprocal links with those sectors in the University having similar professional, didactic and research interests:
- I want to see a Department with a strong identity, playing a leadership role in the profession, the academic community and society as a whole:
- a Department which will forge the necessary links between the profession, the community and the educational process, in an initiative which will take South African architecture into the 21st century:
- I would like to see a return to the medieval ideal of an Universitas, an union of students and lecturers, academics both, joined in a common goal of education and a search for learning:
- and finally, I want to see a Department of Architecture free from narrow sectarian hatreds, social inequalities, gender prejudices and ideological bigotries.
POSTSCRIPT
In 1989 I was short-listed by the University of the Witwatersrand for the position of Professor and Head of the Department of Architecture. As part of the process I was required to present an address to the Department on the educational directions I proposed to follow. Two of my colleagues teaching there at the time organized a student riot in my honour, and very little of what I had to say was heard by my colleagues. Predictably, I did not get the job, but I can happily tell you that the two persons who were appointed in my stead had a very brief tenure, and have long since departed academia.