1. Christopher Frayling, “Research in Art and Design”
Q1: In the reading, Frayling talk about the how the image of the researcher involves him/her coming up with hypotheses and then either proves or disproves them through “orderly procedures” How is this done in (fine) art? We are taught much about learning through procedure, but does an artifact have to answer a question?
Q2: Frayling writes, “research has become a political or resource issue as much as an academic one….a status issue” Besides being possibly ego driven, is this due to the possible capitalistic gains that can be achieved through Research as opposed to non-monetary/ capitalistic gains from research through art?
Q3: “To seperate art and design from all other practices, and to argue they alone are in a different world, is not only conceptually strange, it may well be artecidal” While I think there is much to be gained through collaboration, is it not necessary to in some way seperate these fields of studies? We cannot learn in these fields without doing or making. These fields do have lectures that contextualize work, but if one has left design school without actually designing something in a studio, have they not failed? There professions are not built on textbook learning and testing.
2. David Solomon, “Experimental Cultures: On the ‘End’ of the Design Thesis and the Rise of the Research Studio“
Q1: A general assumption made by the article is that Thesis is meant to be Research oriented (big “R”) and propose an answer to a scientific question. Is thesis not also a way to teach students to self motivate and come up with a design solution and problem on their own. Is it not just as valid to see the design of a building from concept to schematic in response to a site condition, as it is to conduct material tests or otherwise? Both are a process of learning and adapting.
Q2: “The shift from an independent thesis to a research studio shifts the burden of defining a research project back to the faculty.” Is this truly a problem? Whether we like it or not most architecture students will end up designing normal structures under another architect. There will be little to no “research” besides site analysis etc. Isn’t the research studio meant to teach students to follow a line of inquiry in a systematic approach and respond with their found knowledge. If we truly value “the process” over the “result” then should not the process be given more prominence than whether the student or the professor proposed the original question?
Q3: In this article, I think the view towards thesis is a bit judgmental. Thesis is viewed as hyper-personal and likely to be non-rigorous. Can rigor not be pushed by the committee? If there is no rigor, then doesn’t the student simply fail? Why has thesis been viewed so negatively and who allowed poor theses to pass?
