I was called for the external jury for the Basic Design work of the aided wing of AOA today. I have never evaluated Basic Design work earlier. I have never taught Basic Design before. I never felt there was any thing to teach in BD. Anything you do in BD is an exploration. So what do you actually critique? The projects that have been going on in AOA since ages are the Line Dot Curve or the Draw a simple machine-sketch-pattern-3D. None of the faculties ever explain the students what the purpose of that exercise is. I softly complained (during a core meeting) about the same project we did 8 years ago (in our first year) to one of the senior faculties who taught us BD (ofcourse now, after that I've graduated, and being in a stronger position to pose a question to him). He cleverly escaped the question by answering that "you were not supposed to know the purpose then"! It's a completely escapist technique he used then - I refuted. But then I chose to not pinch him enough. They themselves were not sure what they wanted to impart then! They still don't know. If they knew, they would show us Escher, they would show us Renaissance paintings, they would show us what is composition, they would show us what is balance in composition, they would bring in art theorists, visual communicators - they did not do any of this. They feel as architects they are too high to call people from these streams.
Well, I am not talking about the present BD team. I am talking about a team which taught us. And conveniently, when I asked this grey-head for answers, he tried to ask me who was the faculty team then. Basically he wanted to put all the unclarity of the course on the other members of the team. The hypocrisy with which the oldies operate in our college is commendable. No one questions them what they teach - what they say is a dictum. Very conveniently, they paint a completely floral picture to the higher authorities of what they are doing. That is only because they are able to theorize the entire process. The students struggle in the hindsight. They do not know what to speak! They cannot justify their thought processes. The answers you get are: "I did so because the faculty told me to do so..." On the other hand, the oldies boast about themselves and put down others blatantly (there is to comparison to the effrontery) say that they have "30 years of experience". The fact is that in the span of thirty years, they haven't developed their minds at all as teachers - or else, why do you see the same exercises being repeated for decades to come? The ego of a teacher must never allow repetition of any project that they did with students in their history.
New experiments face severe criticism and loss of a number of interesting faculty. Perhaps I have been too harsh with my comments on them above, but I am frustrated over the fact that I had nothing to carry back home after spending a good 12 hours with 20 students today! It was almost a formality to comment on each project which almost had very little content, which did not even push their imagination further with a plethora of things that surround them! No references, no criticality, no theorization - and this is the result of the kind of exercises that we as faculty develop for students. I do not blame the students at all. It is the intellect that drives the students. There has been no drive. You could see 65 excellent minds being wasted only because a certain senior faculty decides their fate, a faculty that is stuck to a time period 30 years back in history.
How can students allow this? Students have to rise up against this! They have to make us realize how much more we can do! The whole world is open to them - they can listen to lectures, talks on the internet, books are available, library is loaded, references and friends are around, art galleries are all open - when will they engage with all this? When will the ask intelligent questions to the faculty? I could detail out problems with each projects along with their merits. May be I could do it later. But the key to such processes is the amount of time to spend with a particular project. There need to be intensive form building exercises in Academy - they never teach you how to evolve form - and hence you have Hafeez Contractors. Students love to make forms, they crave to do interesting looking objects - why not dedicate one project on form building? It's only when the enter the practice that they meet "design-hungry" people who push them to give "interesting" objects. So we have forms that have no meaning. Had we engaged with a meaning generation - form based exercise, we would have a lot of interesting stuff around.
But, all that can go on.
I shall upload some pictures - the only activity that kept us busy apart from listening to similar sounding explanations that we got from students. They all were highly skilled, talented and had a lot of potential.
Well, I am not talking about the present BD team. I am talking about a team which taught us. And conveniently, when I asked this grey-head for answers, he tried to ask me who was the faculty team then. Basically he wanted to put all the unclarity of the course on the other members of the team. The hypocrisy with which the oldies operate in our college is commendable. No one questions them what they teach - what they say is a dictum. Very conveniently, they paint a completely floral picture to the higher authorities of what they are doing. That is only because they are able to theorize the entire process. The students struggle in the hindsight. They do not know what to speak! They cannot justify their thought processes. The answers you get are: "I did so because the faculty told me to do so..." On the other hand, the oldies boast about themselves and put down others blatantly (there is to comparison to the effrontery) say that they have "30 years of experience". The fact is that in the span of thirty years, they haven't developed their minds at all as teachers - or else, why do you see the same exercises being repeated for decades to come? The ego of a teacher must never allow repetition of any project that they did with students in their history.
New experiments face severe criticism and loss of a number of interesting faculty. Perhaps I have been too harsh with my comments on them above, but I am frustrated over the fact that I had nothing to carry back home after spending a good 12 hours with 20 students today! It was almost a formality to comment on each project which almost had very little content, which did not even push their imagination further with a plethora of things that surround them! No references, no criticality, no theorization - and this is the result of the kind of exercises that we as faculty develop for students. I do not blame the students at all. It is the intellect that drives the students. There has been no drive. You could see 65 excellent minds being wasted only because a certain senior faculty decides their fate, a faculty that is stuck to a time period 30 years back in history.
How can students allow this? Students have to rise up against this! They have to make us realize how much more we can do! The whole world is open to them - they can listen to lectures, talks on the internet, books are available, library is loaded, references and friends are around, art galleries are all open - when will they engage with all this? When will the ask intelligent questions to the faculty? I could detail out problems with each projects along with their merits. May be I could do it later. But the key to such processes is the amount of time to spend with a particular project. There need to be intensive form building exercises in Academy - they never teach you how to evolve form - and hence you have Hafeez Contractors. Students love to make forms, they crave to do interesting looking objects - why not dedicate one project on form building? It's only when the enter the practice that they meet "design-hungry" people who push them to give "interesting" objects. So we have forms that have no meaning. Had we engaged with a meaning generation - form based exercise, we would have a lot of interesting stuff around.
But, all that can go on.
I shall upload some pictures - the only activity that kept us busy apart from listening to similar sounding explanations that we got from students. They all were highly skilled, talented and had a lot of potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment