A reflection on a series of pedagogic experiments in architectural training where rather than teaching designers to become anthropologists, an anthropological architectural practice-of speculatively collaborative inquiries-was activated and explored through a series of design studio 'intraventions.'
Paper long abstract:
Since 2015 I have been involved, in different capacities, in formally teaching or supervising the thesis of architects in training. I became interested in exploring the role of pedagogy as part of my ethnographic engagement with design activists, mostly in the domain of urban accessibility, highly invested in mobilising their experiences and knowledge to transform design practice. Indeed, I believe pedagogic venues offer unique opportunities to experiment with modes of making anthropological conceptual and descriptive work otherwise.
In particular, as an STS-inspired anthropologist, I have explored how to make relevant theoretical-descriptive repertoires-such as, more than human or and pluralist thought-for practice of designing urban infrastructures and environments. With that I don't mean teaching, as is customary, social scientific concepts or ethnographic methods so that our counterparts start practicing some form of design or architectural anthropology, perhaps creatively reinventing some of our tools of the trade in the wake.
Rather, what I have become more interested in is in how anthropological descriptive and conceptual work might become relevant in creating the conditions of alternative ways of designing, hence provoking the conditions of inquiring on almost impossible problems by means of design. This has required transitioning from initially 'predicative' pedagogical modes - telling ethnographic stories or reading and explaining works, hoping this to have an impact on our students' architectural practice - to a series of more 'experiential' ones, using the particular affordances of the design studio for that matter.
To illustrate what I mean, I would like to recount a series of engagements, which initiated in a series of studio projects at the Technical University of Munich, called 'Design in Crisis'. In these engagements architects have had to learn to become affected by multi-sensory aspects of the situations in which they designed (going beyond Euclidian spatial practice), as well as radically involving with usually neglected human and non-human actors they should be co-designing with (going beyond the figure of the solo creator). Some of the central explorations of these courses were: How to relearn to practice a multi-sensory and non-visual-centric architecture with the help of beavers, blind or neurodiverse people? The main pedagogic aim of each of these engagements was the production of speculative architectural toolkits: mnemonic devices summarizing the re-learning required by a different architectural practice, as much as learning device of sorts, showing or describing how to initiate oneself in.
All in all, the process-oriented pedagogical approach of these speculative situations was to experiment with what could described as anthropological practice as a form of 'architectural intravention:' that is, an intervention towards the inside of architectural practice, using the device of the classroom and the power differential of our positionalities to make space for non-conventional output. The hope was that the very design of situations learning to be affected by neglected actors could 're-activate' design practice (to use the vocabulary of Isabelle Stengers). Hence bringing forth an anthropological architectural practice, where all involved collaborated in more speculatively collaborative material inquiries.
Accepted Contribution:
Contribution description:
Paper long abstract:
Since 2015 I have been involved, in different capacities, in formally teaching or supervising the thesis of architects in training. I became interested in exploring the role of pedagogy as part of my ethnographic engagement with design activists, mostly in the domain of urban accessibility, highly invested in mobilising their experiences and knowledge to transform design practice. Indeed, I believe pedagogic venues offer unique opportunities to experiment with modes of making anthropological conceptual and descriptive work otherwise.
In particular, as an STS-inspired anthropologist, I have explored how to make relevant theoretical-descriptive repertoires-such as, more than human or and pluralist thought-for practice of designing urban infrastructures and environments. With that I don't mean teaching, as is customary, social scientific concepts or ethnographic methods so that our counterparts start practicing some form of design or architectural anthropology, perhaps creatively reinventing some of our tools of the trade in the wake.
Rather, what I have become more interested in is in how anthropological descriptive and conceptual work might become relevant in creating the conditions of alternative ways of designing, hence provoking the conditions of inquiring on almost impossible problems by means of design. This has required transitioning from initially 'predicative' pedagogical modes - telling ethnographic stories or reading and explaining works, hoping this to have an impact on our students' architectural practice - to a series of more 'experiential' ones, using the particular affordances of the design studio for that matter.
To illustrate what I mean, I would like to recount a series of engagements, which initiated in a series of studio projects at the Technical University of Munich, called 'Design in Crisis'. In these engagements architects have had to learn to become affected by multi-sensory aspects of the situations in which they designed (going beyond Euclidian spatial practice), as well as radically involving with usually neglected human and non-human actors they should be co-designing with (going beyond the figure of the solo creator). Some of the central explorations of these courses were: How to relearn to practice a multi-sensory and non-visual-centric architecture with the help of beavers, blind or neurodiverse people? The main pedagogic aim of each of these engagements was the production of speculative architectural toolkits: mnemonic devices summarizing the re-learning required by a different architectural practice, as much as learning device of sorts, showing or describing how to initiate oneself in.
All in all, the process-oriented pedagogical approach of these speculative situations was to experiment with what could described as anthropological practice as a form of 'architectural intravention:' that is, an intervention towards the inside of architectural practice, using the device of the classroom and the power differential of our positionalities to make space for non-conventional output. The hope was that the very design of situations learning to be affected by neglected actors could 're-activate' design practice (to use the vocabulary of Isabelle Stengers). Hence bringing forth an anthropological architectural practice, where all involved collaborated in more speculatively collaborative material inquiries.
Anthropology as education
Session 1