The Haptic Design Studio

“In the beginning …I was apprehensive. The scale and objective for each exercise made my mind swirl in confusion. (Later)… the reality of transferring my feeling or character into this occupation of space became the focus of the experience...”

Referring to the Bauhaus Vorkurs, Constructivist teaching methodology and Problem Based Learning, this program was structured around the direct bodily experience of spatial elements. Heuristic reasoning and creative thinking were integrated with a practical process of experimentation in composing architectural space within a closely defined yet flexible framework, which exposed architectural students to the core logics of the discipline.

The studio process involved a set of interrelated exercises, building on each other to create a whole. The usual practice of thinking about space by producing abstract two-dimensional representations was inverted. Students had to make first, and then draw.

The program encouraged discourse and participation and made students responsible for their own learning through reflexive thinking and critical analysis.

Throughout this process, students developed their own evaluation criteria, negotiated with each other, and formed working teams. The program involved the creation of one large architectonic structure that obliged students to carry out their tasks within the studio environment.

This paper describes an innovative haptic process that introduces first year students to the core elements of spatial design and by its structure mandates studio and team working. It answers Craig McInnis's recent criticism that students do not feel committed to working in a social context and that courses do not require the interactive exchange of learning .1

Considered as part of a coherent and integrated program for first year architecture, the studio operated within the context of a broader PhD investigation into the nature of body, space and object.

In contrast to the traditional design studio, which is brief based and object specific, this program set out to establish an educational setting that is conducive to the production of broad non-object-specific concepts. Such thinking may not be immediately ‘implemental', yet paves the way for further investigative creative endeavours.

On this basis, we regard our design studio as the equivalent of the scientist's laboratory, which encompasses broad non-specific solutions that may be appropriated for a number of different purposes in the future. This has precedents, as Lodder (1983, p. 7) 2 suggests:

To this extent, one may draw on the experiences of the past such as that of the Constructivists and the Bauhaus. Our studio was nevertheless not directed to a utilitarian task but established a process of learning by experimentation in which students became open-minded explorers of spatial and interpersonal relationships. As a result, the experience of the learning process becomes paramount; in other words, the most important outcome of the studio is the studio itself.

The purpose of our studio experimentation was for the participants to construct their own frame of reference. Inherent in the studio was the premise that students should learn to recognize and interpret relationships between sets of elements that constitute a given situation; that the capacity to recognise such relationships is almost independent from the elements of the given situation.

Consequently, every act of spatial manipulation became a starting point for a new set of investigations. Students tried to predict strategically and then test practically, the consequences of each move whilst maintaining functional and dynamic spaces in the context of the program. As one of the students, Mohd Mohd-Faizallah put it:

Operating in a historical context, our studio established a framework which both grounded our students in formal manipulation, and provided subjects for technical exercises.

Our studio teaching method is informed by three positions. Firstly, previous teaching experience in Iran, where the basic principles of this method were established and implemented. Although unpublished, the results of that experience, as reflected in the ongoing work of the students, were recognized as a success by university teaching staff.

Secondly, this method is the outcome of a critical reflection on our generation's method of architectural training. Even as students, we realized that we were not well equipped by our education for structuring and directing our mental resources towards creative endeavour and that though demanding, it was wasteful of our creative resources.

Our criticisms of the traditional method of education may be summarized as follows:

To this one may add McInnis's (2003) criticism of the current Australian context of education which points out that universities should refocus

Thirdly, considering three-dimensional models as the first level of abstract representation of space and the two-dimensional drawing as the second, then the conventional educational experience in design is always mediated through two levels of architectural representation. In most instances this, through a metonymic leap encourages the student to think of architecture only in terms of an abstract representation. Although this may appear to have the benefit of teaching architectural communicational conventions and skills, it implies that the creation of architecture is possible mainly if not purely through abstract representation. A simplified notion of architectural space emphasizes “visual” aspects at the expense of “haptic” elements of spatial experience. Two-dimensional studies are the norm and three-dimensional models are used as a controlling device.

We considered that a method rooted in constructivist tradition and with reference to Problem Based Learning would provide us with an alternative that addresses the above criticisms. And would return education to its origins in educe: [to] lead or draw out.

The Studio started with two-dimensional pattern exercises in black and white, which were reviewed communally. One pattern was then ‘wrapped' onto a card cube and elements were cut out, the result being arranged on a plane. During further studio discussion, these constructions were informally assembled into a group structure [Figure-2].

In the next stage, students each assembled a minimum of three wire frame cubes, forming spatial modules and then arranged lines of differing thickness and length within them. Each cube was critiqued as a composition of elements in space. Drawings were made of this work, using the faces of the cubes to map plans and elevations. Students were encouraged to overlay multiple layers of lines, to copy, and experiment with them. They were also encouraged to assemble their three cubes and see them from different angles and in so doing relate the actual space to the representational drawing.

This formed the basis for exercises in technical drawing and research into conventions of isometric drawing. They had to superimpose a grid over their lines and then transfer the sketches into a gridded drawing space to modulate the internal space in each cube.

Parallel with these steps, students were asked to bring images of the kinds of elements that were being used, whether from art, fashion or architecture. These formed the basis of studio discussions, which were often short crits when students were asked to explain their images and justify their choice.

Three cubes per student provided over seventy space assemblies, which were linked in the studio into one structure-the design machine, now taking account of the interaction of their contents with lines in other cubes. Three different, adjacent cubes were re-allocated to each student and the studio therefore, became the working place.

Planes of different materials were added in response to the lines making the connection between the representation and the represented. Students drew, redrew, and combined the contents of their cubes.

Now a scale was allocated to the spaces, making each cube nine metres high, and a path was negotiated which passed through the ‘territory' of each student. Stairs and ramps were researched, designed and put in place to construct the path and extensions of it as if it formed a temporary exhibition.

To this “machine”, a final layer of three-dimensional objects was added. Students negotiated the objects within the setting and then prepared technical drawings of the outcome. This stage took three weeks and was subject to constant criticism, elimination and discussion, from other students as well as staff.

Working in self-chosen groups, students drew the whole assembly in plan, elevation and section. Constant recording of studio activity, some in the form of digital video, culminated in filming sessions when the assembly was recorded and edited.

These include the broader qualitative goals specific to our studio and the professional skills required by the profession.

Since architecture has fundamental connections with other arts, students should take an interdisciplinary approach to architecture so they were constantly referred to examples from the world of art.
To strengthen students perception and their capacity to understand and analyse spatial complexity and to deal with constraints.
For the purpose of analysis and comprehension, students should be able to break down any given space into constituent elements.
Students should acquire relevant technical and other skills from RAIA education policy.

The RAIA Education Policy 2000 sets out criteria which graduates from an undergraduate program should satisfy. As well as knowledge criteria, it proposes a number of skills criteria, many of which our program addresses.

The program rewarded the level of student input and comprehension by responding to the development of sensitivity and awareness. It left open to each student the amount of work that was done beyond the basics on each exercise, the research that was undertaken to background the exercises and the degree of complexity with which each part of the work was addressed.

The term haptic in this context refers to the fundamental premise of our studio, that students learn basic issues about spatial design by direct experimentation and observation through touching and manipulation of materials first hand. Touch and sight therefore become inseparable. In this setting, conventional means of representation, such as two-dimensional drawings of something are the by-products of the learning process and not the main objective.

The semester was structured into nine “episodic” exercises. Each exercise was built upon and informed by the previous ones, resulting in a complex structure that assisted students in the construction of a “cognitive web”.

Each exercise was structured around a similar set of rules [Figure-1] whose purpose was to challenge students' to engage with the emerging spaces. Whilst providing a level of control, the rules allowed considerable freedom and required students to work physically with materials in order to fulfil the requirements. They were constantly encouraged to explore alternative solutions, discuss, criticise each other's work or were asked for their analysis of the exercise. Dialogue amongst tutors, rather than being normative was based on exchange and consensus.

Typically, an exercise was in three-stages; a handout explaining the exercise asked students to research the questions involved in the exercise, then pin up and discuss examples. The third stage was for the students to carry out the work which comprised a set of activities starting with “measuring-up” the spatial intent of the exercise through observation, visualizing, and imagination. Elements were distributed in space following a process of visualization and experimentation. The resulting space was critiqued during and after the event by the tutors and peers. Sketching was used as an extension to imagination and to record different alternatives.

The machine was conceived as a facilitating tool responding to criticisms of conventional teaching methods. It was put together communally in more than one attempt by means of teamwork and self-criticism. At first, four or five different assemblages were conceived in separate compartments. The results were put together, criticised and changed over so that the resultant spatial construct satisfied the studio. Certain attributes were intrinsically built into the ‘design machine' and expressed through both the mindset governing its operation and the actual physical structure of the machine:

Atomism; the machine was structured around the control and utilization of layers of unitary elements in space, namely, lines, planes, paths, and objects.
Layered order of growth; piecemeal addition in layers of elements resulted in a growing complexity and richness in the design machine. The machine grew, not in size but in the number of interactions and interrelations contained within it.
Fuzzy instructions; students were only provided with general guidelines that had to be interpreted and their details worked out by treating each individual situation as a new design challenge.
Unpredictability as rule; in the process of assemblage and afterwards, surprise was an intrinsic component of the machine. This was directed in two main ways: firstly, students had to work with given cubes, not their own creations; secondly, in participating in the sequence of exercises, they could not predict the next stage.
Experimentation as rule; the ‘Design Machine' functioned as a catalyst for experimentation. Although some ground rules or directives were set out in the handouts, it was the very nature of the machine to encourage constant experimentation, evaluation and change (feedback).
Modularity; each wire frame cube became a module within the whole. This allowed the study of a multiplicity of combinations. Students had to explore and consider the influence of elements located in all different directions on their modules.
Open-endedness; the machine could have been composed in many different ways. The assemblage therefore had no ‘end' or delineation to its boundaries. No single “right” way of putting the elements together existed.

The design machine performs its function throughout its assembly, forming a dynamic setting for aesthetic, imaginative and functional manipulation. The ‘design machine' fostered a number of qualities of which the following were amongst the most important:

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. The recognition that all were responsible for the look of the whole structure led to the formation of “cube police” to make sure that the editing, assembly and tidying up that was deemed necessary actually occurred.

Our program responds to criticisms of ‘traditional' design teaching to provide a learning structure that develops learning positions and analytic skills. It does this in a flexible manner that allows each individual to engage with the program to the extent allowed by his or her capabilities and level of comprehension.

The learning experience is a reflexive and critical process at all stages and whilst it depends on personal opinions of aesthetics, those of the individual are interrogated and developed. Teachers' opinions are open to interrogation as well. Teachers are thereby constantly challenging themselves both by discussions and by the work of making and tuning the ‘Design Machine'. Different approaches to each design question are actively encouraged.

Skills in discussion are developed along with other process skills which include problem solving; interpersonal, group, and team skills; and self-criticism skills. Whilst traditional media such as ink on paper are used, the representational qualities of the medium are constantly questioned. The abstract nature of the exercises was driven by a strong theoretical framework, however, this was not emphasised in this first year studio.

In examining the success of the program as presented, the assembled artefact, and even the drawings are important only as the results or traces of many decisions made in discussion and communally. Like any exercise with didactic objectives, the test of the program will be the performance of the students in future projects. We expect that the learning positions and analytic skills described above will form a sound basis for students' future learning objectives. The process was unpredictable and stimulating for teachers as well as students.

Students communicated well, and because the structure was large, worked in the studio. Many developed their own ways of abstracting their part, by drawing or modelling. Some exercises by their structure demanded negotiation and communication. At some point the individual became subsumed in the whole and the students, as a studio, took over responsibility for the standard of finish and the level of ‘completion' of the structure.