It is clear thar students who opted out of
NASA did so because they wanted their share of relaxation time. They perhaps avoid NASA so that they could avoid any extra work. In the competition between
NASA and vertical studio, the latter will never afford to take the lead since
1. NASA always shall suck up the enthused students.
2. Remaining students would never give their 100% to the vertical studio.
It is therefore critical to reconsider the assumptions that we made regarding NASA and students participating in it. Firstly that we assumed that NASA doesnot produce highly analytical work and that its analytical methods are age old and have never been revised. Other assumption we made was that students working for NASA donot undergo all round development. In making such a categorization, we subconsciously grouped the people not participating in NASA as wiser. We completely forgot or misread that people not working for NASA are those who are generally uninterested in extracurricular activities. Their priorities are different and their interests do not fall completely within the realm of architecture. However, the vertical studio, over the last two years have revealed strange results.
Methods of NASA may be outdated, but students who are enthused unquestionably gravitate towards it and within their boundaries and cone of vision, produce just decent work. These are students who have the skill and motivation to take initiatives. NASA undoubtedly attracts the better of the student lot - perhaps because the end product is defined and predictable.
This makes NASA a preferred option. There is a format to it which academites have mastered. They love to work within that and keep winning. It is something like being a Lata Mangeshkar and singing only Bollywood romantic songs and winning a filmfare award consistently for multiple years. However, if we were able to bring these students out of the fixed thinking framework and show them what the world is doing, and make them believe that they can conceptualize, initiate and work on newer and more interesting projects, it would be a great departure. On the other hand, if they also understand that they needed to revise old frameworks and challenge existing practices of researching in NASA, they would be much more receptive to what is going around them. Unfortunately, the NASA award at the end of the event is too lucrative for them to understand and push projects that they undertake towards knowledge production.
However, I personally do not think that we have been able to produce good enough work through the vertical studio to be able to challenge the cult of NASA . In my vision, it shall never even be possible. Until the better students themselves understood that knowledge production is different from just documentation and analysis and that it's a serious affair (don't conflict it with the seriousness of winning an award at an event), we shall keep struggling for good product from our vertical studios. Vetical studios according to me are much more progressive, innovative and exploratory. They are more open, unlike the closed circuits of NASA where data is consciously guarded. Vertical studios also expose one to a variety of people - highly respectable people from various disiplines. It is so much more exciting to talk to them on wider issues and use ones skills towards learning more about a field. I think vertical studios must be tried apart from NASA period to see if my above theory is true. I am quite confident that the results will be different.
1. NASA always shall suck up the enthused students.
2. Remaining students would never give their 100% to the vertical studio.
It is therefore critical to reconsider the assumptions that we made regarding NASA and students participating in it. Firstly that we assumed that NASA doesnot produce highly analytical work and that its analytical methods are age old and have never been revised. Other assumption we made was that students working for NASA donot undergo all round development. In making such a categorization, we subconsciously grouped the people not participating in NASA as wiser. We completely forgot or misread that people not working for NASA are those who are generally uninterested in extracurricular activities. Their priorities are different and their interests do not fall completely within the realm of architecture. However, the vertical studio, over the last two years have revealed strange results.
Methods of NASA may be outdated, but students who are enthused unquestionably gravitate towards it and within their boundaries and cone of vision, produce just decent work. These are students who have the skill and motivation to take initiatives. NASA undoubtedly attracts the better of the student lot - perhaps because the end product is defined and predictable.
This makes NASA a preferred option. There is a format to it which academites have mastered. They love to work within that and keep winning. It is something like being a Lata Mangeshkar and singing only Bollywood romantic songs and winning a filmfare award consistently for multiple years. However, if we were able to bring these students out of the fixed thinking framework and show them what the world is doing, and make them believe that they can conceptualize, initiate and work on newer and more interesting projects, it would be a great departure. On the other hand, if they also understand that they needed to revise old frameworks and challenge existing practices of researching in NASA, they would be much more receptive to what is going around them. Unfortunately, the NASA award at the end of the event is too lucrative for them to understand and push projects that they undertake towards knowledge production.
However, I personally do not think that we have been able to produce good enough work through the vertical studio to be able to challenge the cult of NASA . In my vision, it shall never even be possible. Until the better students themselves understood that knowledge production is different from just documentation and analysis and that it's a serious affair (don't conflict it with the seriousness of winning an award at an event), we shall keep struggling for good product from our vertical studios. Vetical studios according to me are much more progressive, innovative and exploratory. They are more open, unlike the closed circuits of NASA where data is consciously guarded. Vertical studios also expose one to a variety of people - highly respectable people from various disiplines. It is so much more exciting to talk to them on wider issues and use ones skills towards learning more about a field. I think vertical studios must be tried apart from NASA period to see if my above theory is true. I am quite confident that the results will be different.
No comments:
Post a Comment