Debate on the papers of Session 1 97
is a word that comes from Kenneth Frampton, so we inherit things as well; but then
we also add things to that lexicon. And I think that what interests me as a teacher is
how you actually combine those two. I think the first speaker talked about knowing
your classical references, of course, but then you also have to have these ideational
tools at your disposal which Neil Leach spoke about. I think it is the coming together
of that kind of whole whatever-you-want-to-call-it, sponge, possibly, that interests
us as teachers.
Sean Hanna, London, United Kingdom
I wish you had asked that question at the beginning because there is no doubt a lot more
to say, but I think that we can have one final question from Constantin.
Constantin Spiridonidis, Thessaloniki, Greece
It is not exactly a question. I raised my hand just as Antonino Saggio started to speak
and so the moment has gone; but I would in fact like to make some comments about
what he said. And I would like to start by saying that when Maria Voyatzaki and I tried
to define the text that you received and the title of this event we decided to include the
word pedagogy, because whenever in previous years we tried to initiate a discussion
about education the reaction was more or less the same. We would start a discussion on
the subject, spend the first five minutes talking about architecture, what architecture
is, then move on to design and what designing is, and whether God exists, and we never
spoke about education. So this time we wanted to make it explicit that we want to talk
about pedagogy. This session, in my view, was absolutely successful, for it started with
the statement “I do not teach, I open possibilities” and closed with the statement “I
do not teach, I play”. This shift from teaching to something else is something that is
of tremendous signif icance that is happening right now. Coming back to pedagogy,
I would say that if we are looking at pedagogy as a science, we will see that over the
past 50 years or so there has been a shift in the model or in the paradigm of educating,
because pedagogy is more or less addressed to young children, from a problem-solving
to a project-oriented approach. And I think that what is behind the notions of teach-
ing as “opening possibilities” or “playing” is precisely this notion of project. What is
very interesting to see is that we architects, and more specif ically the teachers who
are the specialists at teaching projects, have some difficulties in speaking about the
project of teaching; and these difficulties are evident in all the discussions we have had,
because of the phenomenon that I mentioned previously. So I think that it would be
very interesting if our debates over the next couple of days could illuminate this shift,
that now we are teaching not a problem-solving activity but a project. This means that
we have moved from determinism, from certainties, from laws, from the very precise
and predefined, towards something that is multidimensional, multi-perspectived and
open.
A few days ago, at a SCOSA meeting, a student told me that he was planning to begin
a Master’s programme and would “see how it went” before deciding how and in which
direction to continue. This illustrates an interesting and very signif icant dif ference,
that young people are not fixed on one objective, do not have very specific goals, but
deal with their lives as projects which by definition from the very beginning open onto
multiple choices, possibilities and modes of development. And I think that this is the