Festival dell'architettura

Workshop Fortified Places dans le Grand Paris, École Superieur de Paris-Malaquais

Download

Abstract

We recognize the workshop as a dynamic model of learning, which is continuously changing and experimenting, and is able to be constantly redesigned to achieve new and stimulating situations for teaching the practice of architecture. In fact it is a particularly suitable model for seeking a global and coherent approach to the architectural project, while avoiding separating the topics into isolated fragments, throughout the project’s process. Bringing work teams together in the same space and within a reduced time limit requires intensive thought and a rhythm of production which helps improve the relation between the theoretical references of the subject’s production and the aspects related to producing work and communication elements for the architectural project.

‘(...) therefore we should talk about literature, about philosophy, until one of them gets annoyed and says: teacher, aren’t you going to talk about architecture? But that is what I am talking about. Because it is then necessary to have the courage to build something that pursues this discourse, our continuity on the planet.’ 
Paulo Mendes da Rocha

‘It is not possible to teach architecture, but it is possible to educate an architect’
João Batista Vilanova Artigas

About the learning process in architecture.

Within a learning process in architecture we can always recognize questions of minimums and questions of maximums, as Luis Rojo explains: there are techniques to control, media with which to operate, and relations to establish themselves with reality (the question of minimums). But there is also intellectual reflection on what surrounds us, a way of seeing the world in which we live by means of architecture: this is the question of maximums (1). As a model for learning, the workshop is particularly suitable for the development of the questions of maximums, in that it seeks a global and coherent approach to the architectural project, while avoiding separating the topics into isolated fragments, throughout the project’s process. Bringing work teams together in the same space and within a reduced time limit requires intensive thought and a rhythm of production which helps improve the relation between the theoretical references of the subject’s production and the aspects related to producing work and communication elements for the architectural project.

The workshop is a space which encourages the coexistence and confrontation of different methods and ways of approaching the project, introduced by the different teachers. In fact, recognizing the diversity of methodologies and modes of approaching the project is a central issue in the architect’s education. Therefore, the conferences, the visits and the succeeding sessions that analyse the work carried out throughout the project’s development are decisive contributes, since they stimulate the research and the creation of communication key-elements. The coexistence and articulation of distinct teaching modules requires different rhythms and depths of thought and production. The common goal of teaching modules with different durations (of 180, 20 or 5 days) is to operate in an uncompromising way in the total universe of the project’s production, through summarizing processes that are suitable for the length of each working phase, without compromising its complexity and substance.

The aim to achieve results within a short period of time accelerates some phases of the project and gives rise to a more uncompromising reflection on certain central issues, with the development of more open approaches and a higher level of abstraction. In terms of the work process we can find similarities with the way in which it is carried out in an architectural competition, which is also subject to tight time constraints. Therefore, the specific features that involve the work process in a workshop help clarify the distinct working phases: from the analysis and understanding of the place and the restrictions, to defining the principles of the proposal, verifying and developing those principles, and producing elements for presentation.

Architectural laboratories: three experiments

We are focusing on three workshops we have participated in, analysing and comparing the different work models: two workshops carried out at the Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa, UAL, with the participation of professors from different national and international universities and studios, and the Fortified Places workshop, in Paris, with the participation of the École Supérieur de Architecture de Paris, the University of Venice, the University of Seville and the University of Évora.

UAL’s Department of Architecture has been organizing several short term workshops, integrated in the programme of the 5^th year’s Project modules, so as to get the Project off to a vigorous start in the last semester of the degree. The Cascais. Uma escola para o Vale de Caparide workshop (2) was carried out within this framework, together with the Department of Architecture of the University of Évora. The workshop involved ten Project teachers from both universities and 40 students, 20 from each university, divided into five groups, each with two teachers and eight students, four from each university, during 10 days. Having previously prepared the drawings of the area, an initial visit enabled the focus to be centred on the programme announced. The work was highly developed through the creation of different approaches, the identification of distinct work topics, arguments and research processes. Afterwards, the elements that were produced became an important contribution to the working progress of each students’ semester. The topics covered in this workshop were not recorded.

The Vale de Carenque, Cascais: do vale ao oceano, SIA10 International Architecture Seminar (3) was the last seminar in a sequence of annual seminars organized by UAL at the beginning of each school year, between 1999 and 2009. During 12 days, invited Studios and architects with distinguished work, divided into pairs, integrating five teams, each of them with around eight students from different universities and countries. Each group organized a debate about a previously agreed place and defined the project’s main research fields. The autonomy of each studio included the specific definition of the main graphic pieces to be created during the work’s progress and those which should be created for the final presentation. Within the seminar, several conferences, presentations and guided tours were carried out, together with Cascais City Council. This significantly contributed to laying the foundations in terms of the information and framework for the development of the project’s strategies. A conference given by the architect invited and a recorded conversation between each pair of architects positively encouraged the work’s development. Both represented important documents when organizing the publication of the results of the work carried out during the workshop. The result of this work was presented by the professors in a public session, which included the architects invited and officials from Cascais City Council. The publication of the book about this Seminar is in press, in a format that has been established by the previous editions.

The third case under consideration is the Fortified Places dans le Grand Paris (4), which was an intensive Erasmus programme carried out in Paris, in February 2014, with the participation of the four above mentioned universities. It took place following the workshops carried out in the previous years in Venice and in Seville. The workshop involved 16 professors – mainly teachers of Project, but also other subjects related to architecture, four from each participating university and 40 students, 10 from each school, during 17 days. In this case, the organization and the methodology tested in the previous meetings were put into practice: the students were divided into 10 groups of four students each, including one from each university. The workshop included an important series of conferences, some of them given by the participating faculty, who presented research work directly related to the workshop’s theme and which will be included in the publication. In this case, the work that was carried out by each group was simultaneously supported by the entire participating faculty, which resulted in an intense and useful confrontation of ideas and of ways of understanding central issues within the project. The debate sessions with the various teachers, who have different ways of seeing and thinking, enabled the course of each project proposal to be gradually measured and strengthened. In this case, each teacher focused on questioning and leading the project ideas, to maintain an overall coherence. The final presentation was given by each group of students in a joint session with an invited jury, during which assessments and awards were granted to the best proposals.

In the first two cases the learning system closely followed the structure of an architecture studio, with the work being mainly developed according to the guidance of the Project teachers or the architects in charge. In this type of arrangement one can see that the structure of a studio is simulated, following a learning process which has long been very common in the world of arts and crafts, based on learning directly from the master’s know-how. In this context, the second case was the one that got closest to the type of operating structure that a professional studio applies during a project. In a context that encourages visible results within a short period of time, this kind of arrangement where teachers and students are divided into working teams requires the quick and clear definition of project strategies by each teacher, along with the coordination of the production of graphic pieces and presentations, in order to enable the process to advance. This type of arrangement turned out to encourage the creation of an environment of competing ideas between the different groups, seeking visible results for the final presentation. In the third case, the predefined work organization system, with groups of students supported simultaneously by all the teachers, allowed the students’ work to be more autonomous during its development and resulted in an intense and useful confrontation of ideas and ways of perceiving the project’s main issues. The fact that each group was made up of students from different schools and nationalities ended up expanding the debate, leading students to strengthen their ability to articulate different ideas and sensibilities, their ability to manage organization and association requirements and to achieve and take on collective decisions.

Workshop in progress

The three cases which have been described show the exceptional and diverse nature of each workshop. Each case provided a different and intense work experience for faculty and students, and by giving them a short break and a change of scene, it reinforced willingness to learn and to experiment.

We see the workshop as a learning format and model in a continuous process of experimentation, with different possibilities for change, among which:

- the Studio-Atelier, where the students join and get in touch with a work structure close to an architectural studio, while teachers, architects, can establish a reflection on their own working processes;

- the workshop included in a curricular structure combining work programmes and procedures between faculty and schools;

- the workshop as a restricted thematic approach where, in a short period of time, conferences, tours and critical sessions converge, with the presence of students and faculty from different schools.

What all different types of format have in common is the implementation of an approach which is applied to the project as a whole, which ensures adapted summaries between programme, process and project, according to the predefined features.

The previous task of organizing and defining the methodologies and procedures – such as collecting themes and areas, selecting conferences and visits, and defining the operational, presentation and evaluation procedures – plays a decisive role when conducting each workshop, ensuring that the goals are met and that specific and unique results are reached. It is also worth noting the importance of organizing good publications that include the summary of the thoughts developed and the record of the documentation which is produced. This is important for carrying out other academic work but also in the way it contributes in pedagogical terms to the teaching of architecture.

In fact, we recognize the workshop as a dynamic model of learning, which is continuously changing and experimenting, and is able to be constantly redesigned to achieve new and stimulating situations for teaching the practice of architecture.

Translation from portuguese to italian by Carlo Gandolfi

João Barros Matos is an architect, research doctor in architecture and professor in the Departamento de arquitectura of Universidade de Évora.

Rui Mendes is an architect and professor in Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa, and Departamento de arquitectura of Universidade de Évora.

Notes

* Recorded conversation, unpublished, Paulo Mendes da Rocha whith Rui Mendes and Inês lobo. 2012: Lisboa, Portugal.

1 in Formació de l'Arquitecte (Symposium) (2005: Barcelona, Spain)

Published:[Barcelona] : Collegi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya, c.2005

2 “Cascais. Uma escola para o Vale de Caparide”, 2007.

Participating faculty: Inês Lobo + Rui Mendes, João Favila + Fernando Martins, José Adrião + Pedro Domingos, João Matos + Pedro Pacheco.

Final jury: João Luís Carrilho da Graça, Flávio Barbini and Ricardo Carvalho.

3 “Vale de Carenque, Cascais: do vale ao oceano”, SIA10, 2009.

Participating teachers: STUDIU UP Croatia + Ricardo Silva Carvalho, António Jimenez Torrecillas + Rui Mendes, PEZZO ELLRICHSHAUSEN, Paulo David + Telmo Cruz, João Pedro Falcão de Campos + Nuno Micael.

Final jury: João Luís Carrilho da Graça, Flávio Barbini, Diogo Capucho (Cascais City Council).

4 “Fortified Places dans le Grand Paris”.

Scientific parties responsible: Maria Salerno, Jean Léonard, Luca Merlini, Orfina Fatigato.

Coordination: Alberto Ferlenga, IUAV. Antonio Tejedor Cabrera, ETSAS. Maria Salerno, ENSAPM. Joao Luis Carrilho da Graça, University of Évora.

Participating faculty: Maria Salerno, Jean Léonard, Luca Merlini e Orfina Fatigato, from the École Superieur de Paris-Malaquais; Alberto Ferlenga, Mauro Marzo, Armando Dal Fabbro, Gundula Rakowitz, from the Univeristario de Venezia; Antonio Tejedor Cabrera, Carlos García Vázquez, Mercedes Linares Gómez del Pulgar, Federico Arévalo, from the Universidade de Sevilla; João Luís Carrilho da Graça, João Barros Matos, Pedro Pacheco, e Rui Mendes, from the Universidade de Évora.