Experimental Cultures: On the ‘‘End’’ of the Design Thesis and the Rise of the Research Studio

1.Science history has always corrected itself. This is a witness that science does not always have a single answer. Even some of the most common used methods in it are considered as inventions and not discoveries. Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz independently invented calculus in the mid-17th century. Thinking of Invention as a designed product, what is the role of design and designer in today’s knowledge production?

2. In Latour’s words research has been separated from science by giving that aspects such as uncertainty, warm, involving and risky as opposed to certainty, cold, straight and detached. However it is not clear for me that how scientific method is different from research method?

3. It has been stated that the move away from individual theses toward teacher-led, group research projects does not represent a diminished role for intuition in the design process, unless depending on the cliché that design is subjective and wild, while research is objective and predictable.

Since the students are not allowed to design their own big question, can’t we confirm that a group lead research as a thesis, is still a limited research? Research is not predictable but the framework that research is based on it is limited which forces students to perform in the field of defined trends in architecture.

Research in Art and Design by Christopher Frayling

1. “When I paint, my object is to show what I have found and not what I am looking for.” Picasso says in his interview. Then he continues “In art intentions are not sufficient.” I would add to his words that art production is not a predicted task based on a limited timeline. According to our institutional limits a research needs to be done in a specific timeframe. How this limit detaches the nature of institutional research from founded object of Picasso?

2. As Frayling says, to separate art and design from all other practices, and to argue that they alone are in a different world, is conceptually strange. What has been changed since 1837, that informs us about this strangeness? Is the whole educational system in demand of a change?

3. How three methods of Research into Art and Design, Research through Art and Design, Research for Art and Design, are connected? Which one of them depends on the other one?

Research in art and design, Christopher Frayling

What do you think legitimizes research?
Is art really the result of the artist’s “need” for expression?

How can a designer resist becoming an “archaeologist” of imaged, signs, and styles from the urban wasteland?

What is the difference between researching through and into art or design? How do you research for design?

Experimental cultures: on the “end” of the design thesis and the rise of the research studio, David Salomon

What were listed as the most objective modes of inquiry implemented by architects? How does science produce objectivity?

How can students and professionals make their designs significant?

What is the neo-avant-garde style of research?

Reading 1

Frayling, “Research in Art and design“

1-Picasso said “The spirit of research has poisoned those who have not fully understood all the positive conclusive elements in modern art ….. “ How it will explain that some became famous artists who died before they have the publicity and there is no direct explanation of their work, this refers to someone`s else research which leaded to the finding of ideas where is the art in eye of the viewer?

2-Design is endless process and there is no correct answer for any design question. The article described the term of younger designer or intuitive searcher. What are the differences of the young designer and the expert in terms of research and process of design?

3- In the construction systems, the post and beam is part of development work (Research through design). Is it related to the research into design where is the historical evidence of the primitive system of Stonehenge? Another example is that the postmodernism is a style of the arts and architecture, it new ways of viewing familiar styles.

Reading 2

Solomon, “Experimental Cultures: On the ‘End’ of the Design Thesis and the Rise of the Research Studio“

1-Does the thesis define as expressive process in systematic way and it has more direct individual involvement, it is focusing on the investigation and researching to end with the design, in another hand the research studio is leaded cognitive process with less involvement and focusing on the products?

2-Discussing the learning process of a comprehensive studio to have a nature of exercise on proving ones competency and talents or to set up argument and stating the ideas, or both?

3- How can the idea of Rural studios/UCLA which it is not tied with location, context or socioeconomic group be compatible with a design as collective production of disciplinary knowledge?

Christopher Frayling, “Research in Art and Design”

1. In our society, art and science are usually known to be opposites. Even our own brains are separated between the two with the left half leaning towards science and the right half leaning towards art. Despite the two having different outcomes, to prepare for both, one has to research. So, why does the term “research” usually apply more to science? No one usually thinks art has something to research. Is it related to what Picasso said?

2. John A. Walker wrote, “the idea that art might be a construction…rather than an expression or that it might be the consequence of a host of social factors is alien to the ethos of Hollywood.” However, many people have been learning about art in universities or even going art schools for years and having careers after based on their education. So, could that be considered “alien” in an industry of which probably a good amount of their people has done their own art research?

3. Throughout this article, there has been two terms to describe people who research for innovative purposes. For the first half, the term science was used. However, then for the second half, design was used instead. Was there some reason behind this? Are they trying to say that they are in the same category when design isn’t just for scientific purposes, but artistic ones as well?

David Salomon, “Experimental Cultures: On the ‘End’ of the Design Thesis and the Rise of the Research Studio”

1. In a research studio, a topic or project is already decided. This doesn’t give a lot of options for a student to research something that is important to them. Isn’t more essential for students to choose their own research as they would in a thesis, so they would be more motivated then being told of what they have to do in a research studio?

2. Having different experiences is good for students in general. It teaches us variety and how to be flexible since we don’t know what kind of job experience we will receive outside in the real world. So, isn’t it better to require a thesis where the process is completely different from a normal studio than have us do a research studio where the process is more or less the same?

3. One of the references that were called upon many times was the Boyer Report. It stated that “All graduates should be required to pull together, in a single piece of design work, what they have learned in the professional degree program and express their design concepts clearly—orally, in writing and in two- and three-dimensional representations.” If the need for research is so great, then why keep referencing this when it de-emphasizes research?

Reading 1

1: “Research to the painter equals visual intention”.  In architecture, we often look up existing buildings to gain an understanding of existing solutions to problems our design might be facing. Is research in architecture to find forms a bad thing then? Should architecture be a purely internal design process with the lead architect being the engine driving design? This could be a lead into the topic of plagiarism in architecture as well.

2: Is the type of research (r vs R) something that we need to definitively state in school today? Maybe not just in school but in general as well. Or is it accepted that depending on your profession that you are already doing one r verses the other due to your work? Is it wrong to be doing one or the other? I believe that it is dependent on the type of research thesis that you are doing. It would be a situational selection of doing one or the other.

3: Is Research better than research? Or vice versa? “If the stereotype of the scientist as researcher needs some adjusting – to make it seem closer to art and design (though by no means identical with it) – the popular image of the fine artist needs a lot of work as well.” Why would we want to merge the two forms of research? It seems to me that both forms have their advantages. Why do we need to make them more alike?

Reading 2

1: Is it possible that the state of the architecture profession has been a driving factor in how we treat our design studios and thesis work? In reading this paper the thought just jumped out to me. Since a large portion of professors of architecture (and Deans of the school) studied and practiced architecture, could it be their experience in the field that has led them to bring about this change from thesis to research studio?

2: The Boyer Report makes a comment about the “conventional curriculum” and that got me thinking about these two research paths from the school side of things. With the evolving forms of technologies, “conventional curriculum” would be educational suicide for a school to continue doing. Does the research studio allow for a wider inclusion of design in regards to the ever expanding technologies field? Something that perhaps the thesis methodology might not be formatted to accommodate?

3: “In short, this model of a research studio as a substitute for the individual design thesis presents a definitive move away from independent explorations and toward the collective production of disciplinary knowledge”.  Does a research studio allow for a collective production of disciplinary knowledge more than a thesis? Is this because a thesis is more of an independent design project?

Frayling:

1. If a painting, as described by Picasso is a product and not a process of searching, then what can we call the process of painting itself? What do we call the process of finding inspiration for a painting?
2. Art, like design and many other forms of expression, is an iterative process. The arts do not repeat individual paintings or styles, much like architecture does not repeat construction of particular buildings or design movements.  History is implicit in the nature of how our minds work.  Is the process of deciphering history research if the product of the research is finite?
3. On the surface the scientific process is much different than what would be considered a design process. This is mainly because the scientific method is known, whereas there are many valid design processes.  Are there certain distinctions between what we can consider to be the “scientific process” and the design or creative process that should remain distinct?  Are there some make sense to homogenize?

Solomon:

1. Solomon talks briefly about opinions expressed by Sylvia Lavin, Mark Wigley, and Brett Steele that architectural theses are “too often non-rigorous, hyper-personal, and quasi-architectural in nature”.  What about being hyper-personal can make them quasi-architectural?
2. Herbert Simon is quoted in the text as saying “design is a method for solving problems that have more than one right answer”. What kinds of problems have more than one answer?  What kinds have only 1?
3. Solomon concludes that “the move away from individual theses toward teacher-led, group research projects found in many research studios represents a diminished role for intuition in the design process. However, this analysis depends on the cliché that design is subjective and wild, while research is objective and predictable”. Is the way that we decide what to research and what not to research subjective?
4. Solomon writes “In every case, both design and research are understood as personal, creative acts that simultaneously produce aesthetic artifacts, directly engage extra-disciplinary issues, and are guided by personal and political considerations”. How do we assess the value or effectiveness of work that has been done?

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?

Research in Art and Design

1. According to the article, there are two different approaches about research in art. First, the Picasso’s opinion about research in art is that “to search means nothing in painting. To find is the thing.” said Picasso. He opposed the research in art. While, John Constable has other opinion against Picasso statement. He believed that “painting is science, and should be pursued as an inquiry into the laws of nature.” he said. The question is, which opinion is closer to the truth? Maybe these are two interpretations of the truth from two different aspects.

2. By research a boffin can either prove or falsify a hypothesis. Now the question is, is this applicable in art? The nature of art is accompanied by individual intuitions, insights and  thoughts that ultimately lead to be innovative and effective results. Falsifying a hypothesis in design might be a rare thing to happen and outcome is usually an improvement to the previous conditions.

3. Does the necessity of research in art and design have to be this black and white? It seems that as long as people see it black and white, each side will have its advocates. However, maybe for each topic in art, based on its requirements, different methods can be used to get the desired results.

Experimental Cultures: On the “End” of the Design Thesis and the Rise of the Research Studio

1. Can Research Studio by itself and without Thesis extend the boundaries of Art and in our case Architecture?
2. What are the boundaries or frameworks that qualify and define Design Thesis? Furthermore, what is the difference between different research studios that a student has to take each semester? Isn’t the last two semesters a time for students to experience another method of learning?
3. According to the article, author tries to prove that Thesis is a personal work without a specified framework and research studio is less personal and also formulated. Is the thesis option really that personal and without any framework? Every student that chooses thesis is assigned with a Chair and one more committee member. Their job is to make sure that the student is always on the right track and the desired outputs are achieved.

Experimental Cultures: On the “End” of the Design Thesis and Rise of the Research Studio

1. Saloman states in the text, “The dilemma of the design thesis is further exacerbated by the problem of establishing the limits of what qualifies as one today…As the diversity of  these projects illustrate, nothing reveals the paradoxical nature of architectural education more than the status, state, and function of the independent design thesis.” With the time given to students to study, research, and narrow their ideas down, who is to say what qualifies as a good or a bad thesis? Does a good thesis have to be a scientific journal, an art gallery displaying the works? Is a bad thesis something that produces a temporary moment? Who is to say that a thesis is better than another?
2. The concept of independency was also brought up in the text, “…the independent design thesis is the place in architectural education  where students’ personal desires and abilities directly intersect the field’s intra- and extra-disciplinary responsibilities.” It all sounds wonderful and exciting, however, often times the line of independence gets slightly blurred. At what point would the project ultimately become the professors’/committees’ thesis, rather than the students? While some channel the thesis towards a more curriculum-based agenda, would a research studio be best in lieu of the thesis?
3. The main benefit of taking on the thesis is having the freedom to develop a “factish” project, “factish- equal parts empirical facts and fetish…Composed of both objective truths and personal fictions.” The limits of the thesis is the student’s imagination (limited and grounded by facts and the committee). A major benefit of being involved in a research studio is the ability to be in a setting that is better equipped to produce research, being surrounded by relevent research, and curious students can help promote learning and understanding. Is there a way that these two can merge together, and allow for students to do a thesis while in research studios? Can professors help intertwine the personal fantasy/fetish/interest of particular students to the research studio? Would this set up be more beneficial?

Royal College of Arts: Research in Art and Design

1. As mentioned in the text, when the word research comes up, we all immediately think of scientists in white lab coats, goggles, and data. Very rarely do we think that research can be done through art and design. “If the stereotype of the scientist as researcher needs some adjusting…there are of course countless examples of artists who have explored their materials for what they are and not simply as ‘raw materials’.” Is there an extent to how we research through art and design? At what point does it count start to become a series of projects oppose to research?
2. Art History does, however, play a very important role in this discussion, for Art History is the study (or research, if you must) into art and design. It tells us more about the specific era that the art work was created in. It gives us a different perspective how people lived their lives, how things were interpreted, and how other things were valued. Should Art History be a part of our curriculum? Do designers need a brief seminar regarding Art History so they have more facts to base their works off of?
3. All in all, researching through and researching into art and design ultimately becomes research for art and design. Through all the various experiments, literature reviews, and etc, it all winds up as something to base our design processes on, something for us to justify our choices. “At the College, we give Higher Doctorates or Honorary Doctorates to individuals with a distinguished body of exhibited and published work – but we do not at present offer research degrees entirely for work where art is said to ‘speak for itself’. Rightly or wrongly, we tend to feel the goal here is the art rather than the knowledge and understanding.” Half agreeing with this quote, are the main reasons why we do the research we do for the sake of art or for our own ego/fame?

Reading 1

Christopher Frayling, “Research in Art and Design”

Question 1:

In design school, is the approach of research-first, then build more effective than design first, then research? This is a question that has to do with providing a means to an end. What is more productive? Is this question subjective and based on the individual designer? If you study Chris Romano and Nick Bruscia’s “2XMT” the research informed the final built product. When you compare this do Dennis Maher’s “Aggregate Lost”, the structure is built first and then studied and interpreted after.

Question 2:

There are certain mediums that can be used to describe both “research” and “Research”. One example is art. There are different types of art that could be considered one or the other. How does one define the difference between the two when considering the same medium? Does the commercialization of an idea have anything to do in differentiating “research” and “Research”? Most often, “Research” is developed in hopes of gaining knowledge to use in the creation of a product.  “research” is done for self fulfillment, or fun. An example is Ball State’s tensegrity structure for a local art fair. Is this installation considered “Research” or “research”… Or both?

Another example of using art to inform research is photography. Photography turns art into research… The act of observation leads to a static image, which can be questioned and used to formulate a hypothesis.

Question 3:

Does “Research” earn the title because it is peer reviewed? Does the approval of others make research valid?

Reading 2

David Solomon, “Experimental Cultures: On the ‘End’ of the Design Thesis and the Rise of the Research Studio“

Question 1:

Does the act of doing away with the individual thesis have a negative effect on the student? By replacing it with the “advanced studio”, does the student benefit from having a another semester of design studio similar to their previous 11 studios before that? Being able to do research, formulate an idea, and see it through is an invaluable skill that every student should learn. Even if it is directed by a faculty member and not individually.

Question 2:

In the late 19th century design was thought to be the most important subject taught in architecture school with the least academic credentials. Today it is still emphasized as the most important subject and it now consumes a large portion of academic credentials. Is this a matter of emphasis on design over function? Are we moving towards a phase where design is all consuming and the elements that are placed within a structure are almost an afterthought? If so, is this a good lesson to be teaching future architects. If not, should we be designing with the systems already integrated to help benefit the design. Would this force the way studio is taught traditionally today to be structured in a new way?

Question 3:

Does the thesis reflect the curriculum or does it create a new curriculum? Does the act of researching, discovering something new, and building upon it lead to the creation of something that people can use to learn and design from?

Experimental Cultures: On the “End” of the Design Thesis and Rise of the Research Studio

1.  “Most work done in preparation for thesis and the thesis itself rarely, if ever, qualifies as good research.” I believe this statement is untrue and at the least unfair, design research is research that often times focuses on the discovery of a problem or question as opposed to an answer.
2.  At what point exactly was it felt as though the work of Rural Studio became research proper. Salomon references their multiple built works together as a view into a localized socio-economic and material curiosity; however the first built work by the studio could not be seen as such. What does this mean for our independent inquiries?
3.  UCLA in my opinion does not belong in this article. They lack the hyper-sensitivity and acute research that Koolhaas provides, or the distinct methodology of Rural Studio. What UCLA is doing seems to be a typical studio that uses L.A. as its site, am I mistaken?

Royal College of Arts: Research in Art and Design

1. “Once we got used to the idea that we don’t need to be scared of “research” – or in some strange way protected from it, the debate can really begin.” I agree with this statement but perhaps the role of research in art/design based scholastic’s is in pursuit of the question not the answer. The purpose of our research should be to generate a well articulated, relevant, and pressing question from which we propose “a solution” not “the solution”.
2. Picasso did not believe sin the act of painting as research “to search means nothing in painting. To find is the thing.” However he did use other’s works as a reference materials or inspiration. Why is he so hesitant to call this research?
3.  Frayling finds the separation of Art/Design from other practices “conceptually strange”, but is it? Although writing, science, design, and art are all practices they yield very different results and implement very different methodology. What is to gain by pretending we are all one?

READINGS:

David Salomon, “Experimental Cultures: On the ‘End’ of the Design Thesis and the Rise of the Research Studio”, Journal of Architectural Education 65(1) (October 2011): 33–44.

Chistopher Frayling, “Research in Art and Design”, Royal College of Art Research Papers v.1, n.1, 1993.