Clossing Session 467
way Google is moving forward every day, every second, it is basically the receptacle
of the knowledge of all humanity. The problem is not that the knowledge is not there,
the problem is how to access this knowledge. And what Neil Leach said about knowing
Chinese to get the best thing is very interesting from that point of view and from
that perspective. So that is something that should be taught. The second thing is
how to create processes and deal with complexity; and this idea extends from the
idea of programming to the idea of gaming that is as another series of actions that
I think is very important to incorporate and include in the formalisation of a new
pedagogy. Then, third, is how to formulate hypotheses. This is an intellectual step
considerably higher than the previous two: how to develop hypotheses and develop
a continuous spiral hypothesis-testing process that is concentrated in a domain of
possible definitions and solutions. That is basically the cyclical approach of tests
and hypothesis tests that is in my view the base of modern thinking and what we are
interested in here. Then, a fourth thing we need to teach is how to build in reality.
This is absolutely fundamental for architects, and we had two very good examples of
that process here: the Gramazio-Kohler approach, that moves in this digital paradigm
but comes from a hard Swiss tradition and history of construction understanding, and
the quite different approach exemplified by Kas Oosterhuis, who directly addresses
issues of incorporating the digital idea in a new phase of construction, because
interactivity is something that from our world of computers moves into the realm of
reality, and that is a fundamental action. Finally, the fifth, and extremely difficult,
thing we have to teach is how to evaluate processes, how to evaluate results, how
to interact with the actors, how to develop a critical innovative thinking.
On this basis or something like it we can start to rethink a way to approach
changes in pedagogy, if this is the issue. Probably, of course, none of us will have
the possibility to put this dream into action, or perhaps some of you will have some
pieces of these ideas, but in any case I felt this was a nice occasion to share these
ideas with you.
Constantin Spiridonidis, Thessaloniki, Greece
I am afraid that after Nino Saggio’s intervention I have to close my notes and refor-
mulate what I had prepared to say, in order to give continuity to the discussion
he started. So I ask you to forgive me if the presentation of my thoughts is not as
structured as it should be.
First of all I would like to say that I completely agree with the proposal to put
pedagogy at the centre of this discussion. I strongly believe that the discussion about
architectural pedagogy is purely and very profoundly a discussion about architecture,
and one that can reveal very interesting values, aspects and ideas about what archi-
tecture is. A debate about the education of architects is a very significant debate,
because it is inevitably articulated with the contemporary debate on architecture.
That is the first point I wanted to make.
The second is the thesis, or hypothesis, that to educate someone (I am trying to
avoid the word teach after the discussion we had with Kas yesterday) is a project.
That endeavouring to transmit knowledge and to achieve a knowledge base in someone
else is a perfect project. As we are both architects and teachers, our main objective
is to teach students how to make projects. But we know perfectly well that the way