The Structure of the Program
The semester was structured into nine “episodic” exercises each built upon and informed by the previous ones which together resulted in the construction of a substantial structure. The process, which we have called ‘The Design Machine’, assisted students to construct a “cognitive web”.

Exercises followed this process:
1 two-dimensional pattern exercises in black and white
2 One pattern was then ‘wrapped’ onto a card cube
informally assembled into a group structure
minimum of three wire frame cubes
3 arrange lines of differing thickness and length
map plans and elevations and overlay multiple layers of lines
4 exercises in technical drawing
5 space assemblies, linked in the studio
6 Planes of different materials were added
scale was allocated to the spaces, making each cube nine metres high
7 path was negotiated through the ‘territory’ of each student
Stairs and ramps put in place to construct the path
8 final layer of three-dimensional objects
9 technical drawings of whole assembly in plan, elevation and section

Each exercise had a similar set of rules which, whilst providing a level of control, allowed considerable freedom and challenged students to engage with the emerging spaces. Students had to work physically with materials and were constantly encouraged to explore alternative solutions, discuss, criticise each other’s work or to analyse the exercise. Dialogue amongst tutors, rather than being normative was based on exchange and consensus.

Typically, each exercise asked students to research the questions involved, then pin up and discuss examples. They then carried out the work which comprised a set of activities starting with “measuring-up” the spatial intent of the exercise through observation and imagination. Elements were distributed in space following a process of visualization and experimentation. The resulting space was critiqued by tutors and peers. Sketching was encouraged as an extension to imagination and to record different alternatives.

Operation of the “Design Machine”
The “Machine” was conceived as a facilitating tool responding to criticisms of conventional teaching methods. It was created communally by means of teamwork and self-criticism. Students’ composition of lines in cubes were made into four or five different assemblages which were put together, criticised and changed so that the spatial construct satisfied the studio. Students then worked on and within the structure, responding to surrounding events.

The ‘Design Machine’ performs its function throughout its process of assembly as the dynamic setting for aesthetic, imaginative and functional manipulation. It created a structure up to three metres high with a number of qualities of which the following were the most important:
Some of the attributes which were intrinsic to the ‘Design Machine’, were expressed through both the mindset governing its operation and the actual physical structure:
Layered growth, since piecemeal additions of elements resulted in a growing complexity and richness. The machine grew, not in size but in the number of interactions and the complexity of interrelations within it.
Stochastic enquiry; the machine’s basic premise was that not all aspects of design are controlled by the designer, who therefore, has to be prepared to negotiate unexpected and sometimes seemingly random situations in order to arrive at a design solution.
Interactivity; the machine set up the conditions for interactivity in three levels: physical, interpersonal, and intellectual, and provided for different levels of engagement by providing a challenge and response to students of widely differing abilities and levels of perception.
Unpredictability; surprise was an intrinsic to the machine and was directed in two ways: as students had to work with given cubes, not their own creations, and each sequence of exercises, was issued separately.
Juxtaposition as a generative technique; the machine facilitated juxtaposition of elements, images and spaces both through its structure and through the drawings produce from it. Elements (atoms) were juxtaposed over three levels: single module; each student’s set of modules; and, within the context of the machine. This prepared students for absorbing and dealing with complexity and exercised their imagination and visual perception.
Internal criticism, which took place at two different levels. Firstly, the machine because of its dialectical nature implied its own set of constraints on the parts to which students had to respond. Secondly, due to its communal nature, the machine facilitated peer criticism. Students made observations and, by considering the machine’s state, they analysed their peers work.
Open-endedness since the assemblage had no boundary delineation and therefore no single right way of putting the elements together.
Reassessment of vision through mimetic machinery; During the course of the semester, the use of different tools was encouraged to give students a new image of their work. This allowed the students to view their cubes through images that mimic reality.
The formation of a social context or setting was the natural result of operating the design machine. Negotiation and team working was explicitly required in some exercises, which asked students to organise teams of a stated size, but was implicit in others which demanded a collective response.