If you look at the young architect as a product of the learning process, how do you see him, and what is the fundamental difference between MARCHI as a factory for the production of this product?
MARCHI is difficult to describe in one word, after all, we are a very large-scale and complex structure. But if you come to the very essence, we can say that within a huge system there are separate studios that endow their students with their own features. Like, for example, our "Architecture of residential buildings". That is, the system is the base, which, on the one hand, makes the ship heavy and clumsy, and on the other hand, it makes it possible to launch boats. I hear a lot of complaints about the large number of hours that are devoted to classical drawing at the Moscow Architectural Institute, but I believe that a drawing architect is a good architect, a professional must be able to transfer thought from head to hand. We have a department of the history of architecture, without which it is also impossible to imagine a quality specialist, and so on. This base in many ways hinders development at a moment in time, but it is it that makes it possible to produce specialists with fundamental knowledge, which then allow them to work in any industry, from cinema to urban planning. And I think that the growth in the quality of architectural education in such universities as MGSU or GUZ is also associated with the development of this base. They have passed the test of time, gained their individuality, worked out many processes and ended up with an interesting result. It may be more difficult for young universities in this regard.
That is, there is a certain professional and general educational platform, and there are separate studios, within which the teacher can give students the knowledge that he considers necessary?
Yes. There is a request from life itself, from the market, and the teacher must respond to this request. For example, I have been teaching third-year students, and we have changed a lot in the approach to group work. In particular, we closely interact with developers, that is, direct employers and customers. The first stage of our work on a project always involves research. This was not the case before, but we introduced this practice about 5 years ago, and it showed very good results. After all, what is research is understanding the problem: why are we building, for whom, how? These questions allow students to learn to understand the needs of the final user, rather than drawing a picture out of their heads. The second fundamental difference between our work is the practice with real sites. For many years we have been cooperating with the KROST Concern, with small social development companies that implement housing projects for young people, housing for the elderly and others. Plus we changed the visual presentation. Previously, there were only stretchers, now we also make booklets. This develops the design and presentation skills that students will need in their work.
Is the structure of public education interfering with the introduction of new methods?
I don't see how she can interfere. Yes, we have a methodology that is repeated from year to year. Relatively speaking, when all groups are designing a garage, we cannot design a palace. But within a given topic, we ourselves can choose a site, topic, ways of presentation and presentation. KROST, for example, always takes the guys to the sites, so they gain experience in understanding the context, communicating with builders.
What kind of architect do we get as a result of this training?
The world today is such that different architects are needed - managers, volume builders, and designers. And even at the stage of training, we basically see who is leaning towards what. But even if you are a manager, you cannot but be a practitioner, you cannot but be in the subject of modern design. Therefore, I still believe that the most important thing is a base that allows you to release an architect who can design everything from a building to furniture.
Yes, I agree that higher education should be more flexible and responsive to the needs of the time, but this is an illusion that an architectural university can produce a ready-made manager. Applied knowledge in economics, legal relations, etc. - this is a very vast field, changes are constantly taking place in it, we are simply not able to give this within the framework of the training of an architect and not sacrifice basic knowledge. In addition, the university has fundamental subjects such as economics. But, of course, it does not correspond to the realities of today. This topic cannot be taught by theoreticians, it must be taught by practitioners. Practitioners are busy with their own business. And although we have many practicing architects, there are certainly not enough of them.
But nevertheless, you graduate a graduate, to whom employers have a lot of complaints. Can you comment?
Yes, and I agree with many. I often hear that graduates are completely unstable to criticism, are not ready to find a compromise, which is inevitably needed in a professional environment, and do not consider it necessary to justify their decisions. I think that the artistry of nature is partly to blame (after all, we have a creative profession), but to a greater extent it is simply the lack of practice. It is true that all exams are held behind closed doors - they put down the tablets, come out, the commission has decided everything among themselves. How can young people gain psychological and practical experience in argumentation? At our department, by the way, we have moved away from the absentee grading. Our students defend their work.
In general, I see only one way to build bridges between the university and the market - to invite, as I said, as many practitioners as possible to teach. By the example of our students, we see how quickly the guys are recruiting the necessary tools, if they have a clear and interesting problem, and a person works with them to help them solve it. And I want to note that students are very motivated, they are ready to work hard if they understand why. Everyone just needs experience. You know, when I graduated, my first assignment was to design a staircase in a residential building. I worked on this for two weeks, and then it seemed to me that it was terribly difficult. Experience and dexterity can only be gained in practice in real time and with real tasks. And the sooner they can get started, the better. A good modern architect must travel and watch a lot. We now have the practice of traveling to the architectural capitals of Europe. Live communication with world modern architecture gives students a completely different level of professional outlook. We also practice excursions to well-known bureaus and visits to arch-universities.
You said "interesting task", but how to separate entertainment and learning? Don't you feel that students' interest is in the first place, and they are not ready for routine work?
There is, and I think this is partly the time in which we live. This is the generation that flips through the Pinterest feed and views dozens of projects per minute in pursuit of an interesting picture. And, of course, each of the guys only wants to work on an ingenious project, which, in my opinion, is not bad, although the developers will not agree with me. First, when else to fantasize, if not at the university? Thinking outside the box helps to solve non-standard problems. And secondly, I'm sorry, but if I teach the guys to do only what the market needs today, I will have monstrously limited specialists. For example, when I was a student, everyone drew large apartments. Nobody was interested in budget housing at that time. I understand that a business is focused on income, to get a product that is in demand at the present time. But we must think not only about today. We must understand that in the future everything will change, and our graduate must have the very base that will help him meet the needs of the time, whenever that time comes.
What are architectural universities lacking for development?
I think we are sorely lacking collaboration with each other. Traditionally, each university is brewed in its own juice, and this is strange, because we are doing one thing. For example, we work closely with Yaroslavl Technical University, Yaroslavl Technical University, and I want to say, there are amazing teachers and wonderful students. They invite us to work on projects of small towns, we share our projects, exchange experience. It is very useful. And I think mixing is the natural and correct way to go. It's good if a student received a bachelor's degree at Moscow Architectural Institute, went to a master's degree at HSE or MARCH. Or he studied at MGSU and then came to MARSH or to us. If he has practiced somewhere else with a developer, great. I believe that it is good and correct when each university has its own specialization, and we can exchange practices, and students eventually acquire a wide range of skills.
Material provided by the Open City conference press service.
The Open City conference will take place in Moscow on September 27-28. The program of the event: workshops from leading architectural bureaus, sessions on topical issues of Russian architectural education, a thematic exhibition, Portfolio Review - presentation of student portfolios to leading architects and developers in Moscow - and much more.
