We Don't Need No Education?

A student pointed out to me the other day, after the fourth lecture on the 'Reputations' of modern architects, that 'none' of the eight exemplars so far discussed was formally educated in 'the academy'. A background in watchmaking or stonemasonry come to mind (just as they would have to Vitruvius- his tenth chapter was on sundials). The student wasn't entirely correct (and that was probably my fault) but what a heroic idea; stepping outside the academy!

His concern, beneath his interest in the architects of course, was as to why his generation were paying for the ticket to success when, empirically, it appeared the ticket to 'success' (at least in the twentieth century) lay outside the academy, and was indeed antagonistic to it. This seemed a pretty good point; the traditional academies were bankrupt given the imminent 'new age'.

Is it possible 'the academies' have lost the plot once again? These days most of the students I teach within architecture don't have much of a clue about 'building'; there are far more interesting things to think about, usually involving words rather than stones. We used to call this radical, but I have disagreed that it is in any way radical for some time. As 'choice' and 'interest' mechanisms work their way down to teaching at even entry level, one of the things you might think is essential to the subject; building (or at least 'the means of production') can get lost altogether. Instead students are asked to demonstrate almost Jesuitical stamina in their pursuit the unreasonable.

Meanwhile changing the means of production is essential to the creating any 'new age' (which is clearly something we might enjoy) and the lack of such change was something the moderns found to their cost.

Alternatively it is possible, perhaps, that the building industry is now so de-skilled that all this doesn't matter, and perhaps the schools are reacting appropriately in casting aside prosaic interests (if they are indeed prosaic, and that those which have replaced them are indeed 'more interesting'). But whatever the case it is likely that todays students know as little about about the machinations of the academy as they do stonework or drains. For myriad reasons, they are just doing what they are told, and late capitalist institutions, like Stalinist ones, take a very dim view of dissent (they are so busy championing themselves) even though, paradoxically, this is the motor for the change they need.

Regulation is required when you give everybody a chance and want everybody to be treated fairly. This is as much neoliberal law as well something one would think of as common sense. Since any 'new' institution still has to engage with endless regulation, perhaps stepping outside the academy is no longer possible! As a consequence, and within, it would seem necessary to synthesise that eccentricity- otherwise there is no change! So an institution that cultivates it's own eccentricity in the face of more and more rules and regulations is rather a paradox, but it's where we are.