90 EAAE no 35 Teaching and Experimenting with Architectural Design: Advances in Technology and Changes in Pedagogy
Christian Fröhlich, Graz, Austria
I think it is not a difference of speed, of being slow or fast, because in our case the only
reason it has to be fast is so that it is precise. Since you mentioned this, I am highly
interested in simple things, like how a space is transformed through its uses, through
the appearance of people. When we tested some techniques in the model in the build-
ing in the afternoon there were only two or three people inside, and the ambience was
completely different to what it is now. Of course what we are doing is very technical,
but I am also keenly interested in these simple things. And whether it is theoretical or
whether you just put it into practice is just a question of approach.
Eleanor Suess, Kingston, United Kingdom
I have been thinking about comments made earlier about how digital tools are tools and
that is what is important, that is the distinction that should be made. In Kingston we do
not really do computer models, but we see the digital tools that we teach our students
and that our students teach themselves and they bring to us, as part of that toolbox,
as it has been called, and we very much encourage them to combine those tools; and
so in our presentation we focused on one particular tool, which is the moving image
that digital technology has put into the hands of architecture students. When I was
an architecture student and a fine arts student I made films, analog handmade films,
films with video; then, when I started to make digital films, just that kind of change in
technology allowed a certain exploration. So that is one small aspect of our teaching in
digital media. We teach 3D modelling and CAD, but we have a huge emphasis on physi-
cal models as well, and we understand the difference between a physical model and a
computer model. They are different tools, they do different things in the way a model
is different to a plan, different to a film. And so we chose in our paper to focus not on
the 3-D modelling side of the work we do, but rather on temporal relationships. So I do
not think we are necessarily in the kind of opposition that may have come about. We
are possibly slightly less formalist as a school. Take the term virtual. Think of a plan:
basically, most architectural representation is virtual. It does not matter whether it
has been produced on a computer or not, it is separate from the actual – and that is a
distinction that we quite enjoy thinking about – and it is a combination of those, it is
strands threaded into the project as a whole. This makes a wider view, and that is what
we mostly wanted to talk about.
Antonino Saggio, Rome, Italy
I am part of the review committee and I want to begin by conveying my compliments
because this first session has been wonderful, I think – really, really great. I enjoyed
it immensely. All the presentations look at the theme from different perspectives,
and I found them really fascinating. I will come to my question in just a moment. To
my mind, we must take care of the old issues regarding pedagogy. We really do not
care so much what it is about. The real interest is how much the teacher believes in
it and how much he is able to transmit the energy through it. At one point Kas said
“I am really an activator, I do not even say what they have to do”. Well, it is very
well known that teachers always have to be activators: teaching is a transmission of
energy. So at this moment I am not really interested whether it is slowness or fast-
ness, whether it is Deleuze or anti-Deleuze: what I see here very clearly is that these