Architectural Education - Ivan Koleček

> Introductory Report > Discussion Record Opinions of the discussants: > Yvette Vašourková > Jakub Kynčl > Ladislav Lábus > Emil Přikryl > František Sedláček > Aleš Student > Jiří Suchomel

Responses of Invited Personalities: > Mirko Baum > Karel Doležel > Helena Jiskrová > Ivan Koleček > Miroslav Masák > Alois Nový > Petr Pelčák > Marian Zervan

---

Architectural Education versus Architectural Studies

This reflection is not a continuous text nor a continuation of the Ostrava discussion. It is difficult to discuss without direct reactions; on the contrary, it is easier to write because we do not have to ask for the floor. I will use this situation to express what interests me most on the "architectural" path of knowledge.

Where on this path lies the stage of school is likely a different period for each architect. We can ask ourselves when we became an architect, whether we ever became one definitively, and when we can stop being one.
We probably became one when we started thinking as architects, and we can probably stop being one when we stop behaving like architects.
Given these situations, architectural school lies somewhere as part of our development, just like building, which we must first earn as a right and be responsible for within the ethics of an architect, or it can be marketing and management if we can assert it within these ethical bounds. Vladimír Karfík recounted how F. L. Wright tied a bow tie, took a management briefcase in hand, and left, mostly for Chicago, when he realized there would not be enough work in the office.

In the Ostrava debate, three topics caught my attention the most, which are essential questions for me in looking further at the role of school in the "life" of an architect:

• to be able to build, or to be able to think after finishing school
• the number of eight architectural schools
• the preparation of the "future" architect for their entry into the profession.

This question is the most significant for me, but I wouldn't want to approach it from the official position of an architect in the Czech context of building as an architect-designer (even responsible designer in captions). Then their activity is viewed as a large part of the "construction world" only from this perspective. As if their responsibility remained, but not the right to decide.
I consider the position of the architect in the building process to be essential. It does not matter that they are often seen as those who disrupt, complicate situations, delay, and pose unnecessary questions. Moreover, they must be dealt with, because after all, they give stamps. If someone looks at us this way, it somehow reassures me that we architects still exist. The essential thing is that our critical thinking positively provokes the development of building towards architecture. So, to be able to build, or to be able to think. While the former is obvious, the latter is essential.

At the birth of an architectural work, three fates meet: the enlightened builder, a good architect, and a skilled craftsman. The closer their thinking approaches that of the architect, the better. Hadrian's villa was built by a Roman emperor, cathedrals by Gothic masters, and for the first time in modern architectural history, it began to be said about the architect after the competition for the dome of the Florence Cathedral, in which Brunelleschi's design was chosen over the solutions of Gothic masters.
So, rather eight schools where architecture is taught, they should mainly be diverse, whether university, technical, or artistic. I don't think it's a waste when professionals close to architectural thinking are on building authorities or in construction companies. It is, however, a waste when we look around and realize what is being frantically built around us. But the architectural schools are hardly to blame for that.
I would like to insert a few sentences from Professor Přikryl, even though they are taken out of the context of the discussion:

• if everything we build here belonged to the realm of architecture…
• the question then is whether the product of the architect is architecture…
• where is the boundary between craftsmanship, which is the necessary, and architecture, which is the essential…

Several references to Switzerland or its school in Zurich appeared in the discussion. Let's avoid comparisons, but since I live and work here, a few words about the local profession and its schools.

Swiss Architect Profession

The profession of architect is not legally protected, so theoretically, anyone can sign a building permit application. Practically, however, that is not easily done. Law, as has been said somewhere, carries responsibility, and it is very extensive. The only thing that the one who signs has no direct responsibility for is what is hardly measurable, namely architecture.
There are no civil engineers here; the architect designs and manages the construction, building it. This principle gives the architect great "power," deciding on the final screw and controlling every account. So, "power" and responsibility. Somewhere within there lies the hidden value of building, which logically becomes architecture. From these two fundamental situations - the right to decide and the architect's responsibility - arises the education system and the culture of building. Education takes place in several stages: apprenticeship, high specialized school, or polytechnic.
The public competition system, mostly realized, as today even tender procedures open opportunities for new generations. Here, the importance of a unstoppable path of development emerges. Its dynamic nature, beginning with school studies, continues through the intertwining of the complex activities of the architect, building becoming study, and study cannot remain without concrete results of the experience of building. Building is difficult to teach in school; we are again at the question of "to be able to build, or to be able to think" as a result of studying at an architectural school. Here, I see the importance of the art of building in the early periods of the architect's profession.

School of Architecture within the Polytechnic in Lausanne

A significant question in the recent period of the school in Lausanne was the confirmation of the presence of architecture in the newly organized Polytechnic. This could happen within a broader approach to creating the living environment. The School of Architecture became the Section of Architecture within the Department of Built and Natural Environment (ENAC - Environnement Naturel, Architecture, Construction). Architecture has thus ultimately shifted into the newly conceived "presence" of the architect at the scale of the landscape, both in terms of built (territory of railways, roads, watercourses) and the organization of territory as wholes. As with most architectural schools, the most important teaching takes place in large studios full of young architect-assistants with limited presence at the school, complemented in parallel by their own professional activity. The value of the studios is equal to the personalities of the professors, essentially practicing architects, newly appointed or traditionally invited new personalities from the architectural world. It generally consists of four studios in the three-year bachelor's study or one-year master's program. The master's study ends with a six-month project, the diploma thesis. A twelve-month internship essentially interrupts the first level study; its third year is taken as preparation for master's study. The theme is proposed by the student themselves to the professor they must find and achieve approval of the topic. The professor then becomes the thesis supervisor, and together with an expert independent of the school, evaluates the final project.

In conclusion, a note regarding the relationship between the role of the architectural school and the reality of architectural studies. This becomes a dynamic process of understanding with a critical view toward one's own work.
The awareness of the role of the architect in today's society, which only they can play if they are prepared and willing. This means taking on the responsibility of culturally building, creating an environment in which they also exist.
It means descending from the glass tower, walking on solid ground (after all, the territory of architecture), but not falling. The school can prepare them for the first steps, architectural practice will automatically teach them to walk, but they must go in balance between experiment, creation, and technical application in the context of the world of building along their path alone.

---

Ivan Koleček is an architect living in Lausanne, where he works in his own studio. Since 1990, he has been involved at the FA VUT in Brno. In 2005, he was appointed professor there.