In its October 2014 newsletter, the Design Council UK has an interesting blog written by CEO John Mather (http://www.designcouncil.org.uk)
Although a matter concerning British designers, I believe his questions and concerns about the proposals for a quality stamp might apply to a wider audience, like us, the architectural educationalists.
Today, anyone can set themselves up as a designer, and so can we, the architectural educationalists. Is that good or bad? Do we, too, possibly need a shared mark of quality?
A few weeks ago the conference “Architecture with Children & Young People, Urban Space 3”, took place in Aarhus (DK). The main issue of the conference was to inspire even more people to use architecture as a means in education and democratization.
The list of participants, as well as the list of speakers, shows that architecture as a means also for learning about democratic processes through participation appeals to an increasing range of professions: preschool teachers, journalists, property managers and curators from different cultural institutions and museums. Based in the many projects presented, I believe it is time we ask a question parallel to the one about a possibly shared mark of quality: are we, the architectural educationalists moving in the right direction on or are we heading into a cul-de-sac?
The conference “Urban Space 3” was a good one, but is good really good enough?
As part of my doctoral training course, I had to practice in assessing the work of other students – a not so pleasant task. However, as a tool for managing we got the following advice: stick to “the three c’s” – (be) critical, caring and creative.
Critical
How many more times should we allow ourselves to applaud the most fantastic and no doubt expensive videos of skating parks for youngsters with a proud lord major in the middle of a smiling crowd of adults – without getting to the core of it all: how did we get the project, in what way was it an educational piece for the children and the young and how was the project funded? The same question applies to walks of all kinds. If we want to be serious and boost our profession, we should try and learn from those who have already seriously worked in this field for a long time like Suzanne de Laval (“Gåturer. Metod för dialog och analys”/”Walk and Talk – Method for Dialogue and Analysis” Svensk Byggtjänst 2014) rather than spend time inventing the wheel over and over again.
Let us go back to the conference theme: to inspire even more people to use architecture as a means in education and democratization. And let me ask the rhetorical question of whether the education referred to us – the conference participants – or to the children and young people we are working with. If it referred to us, we were – if you take away the skating parks – enlightened. It is always fruitful to learn what your colleagues are up to, and useful to meet new groups of people like artists and preschool teachers.
However, if education was meant to imply how children were to learn more about the built environment, I believe the people giving presentations should have been told to stress this part considerably.
So, is what we saw in Aarhus really the best we can do? As already mentioned, too many of the presentations were a show-off of the project rather than an inspiration on how to do it. Less than a handful could count as a piece of learning. Do we need a stronger quality control of projects selected for presentation? If steps should be taken to strengthen our reputation as architectural educationalists, who then, should do it? Do we, in one way or the other, need a mark of quality, too, like the British designers are asking? It is not for me to give an answer, but the question about whom should be awarding us or our agencies such mark of quality springs to mind, as it does to CEO John Mather.
Creative
Irrespective of the answer, I do believe that a checklist of “musts” linked to any project about architecture, children, education and democratization should be prepared if we want not to end up in a cul-de-sac, but grow in a responsive way based in high quality projects that others could learn from.
The main questions on such a check list could be: in what way was democratization achieved, which was the arena for learning, how many children participated, who were the adults (teachers, architects and others), for how long did the project last (preparation time, time with the children, evaluation) and again – the question most often left unattended: how was the project funded? In sum, this of course all boils down to a critical evaluation.
As is the case now, individuals as well as groups of people within the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, preschool teachers, school teachers, property managers, curators at museums and more, all are inventing the wheel over and over again.
Buzzwords and “buzzterms” like relations, trust, safety, responsibility, power, confidence, the challenge of democracy, a new form of democratic citizenship (for more about this theme, see Kari B. Hodneland “Pupil’s Participation through Increased Awareness of the Built Environment” in Demokratisk medborgerskap I skolen/Democratic Citizenship in Schools, Fagbokforlaget 2012) establishing of a new mindset, bridging and many more were flourishing on the big conference screens. May be it is time to look deeper into the meaning of them all? Could this possibly be the theme for a coming conference?
Caring
“Urban Space 3”, perhaps without knowing it, clearly has shown that an increasing number of professions wish to do as we, the architectural educationalists, do: assist in using architecture and the built environment as a means for education and participation from children and the young. This is a welcome development, but where do we fit into the picture? Which is our role, a role we have taken years ago but which has to be nourished to avoid stagnation? Should we just try and inspire all the preschool teachers and the various museum curators? Or should we, based in our profession, assist in breaking the code of architecture and all it implies to try and prevent us all ending up in a cul-de-sac? For an excellent example on how to break the code of architecture, see arkiskolen.bloggspot.no. The better we can do, the better the learning process about architecture and democracy for children and the young would be. As I have written on an earlier occasion, our aim should be to facilitate an engagement in these matters that will last long after a project ends.
www.formark.no – Kari B. Hodneland. Doctoral Thesis 2007: Room for Children’s Participation?