Abstract:

The teaching of architecture faces some major challenges in its relationship between technique and technology and the extent to which they can change the parameters of thinking and the discipline itself.

To understand the current relationship between technique and technology and its consequences for teaching and the development of the profession, it is first necessary to look at the past. In this way, we will better understand what is happening in the present and the risks that certain decisions may entail for teaching in the more or less immediate future.

It is necessary to perceive the independence of the parts implicit in the emergence of modernity to better conceive its drift towards fragmentation and the subsequent loss of absolute values that permeate the teaching of architecture today. On the other hand, confusion has spread between the possibilities of technique and technology and their role as tools at the service of the discipline's ultimate goals.

Some of these confusions force us to rethink precisely the ultimate objectives of the training we are offering and how they should be put at the service of society. This notion of service must necessarily go beyond immediate utilitarianism. Otherwise, we run the risk that the contents, processes and tools we transmit will expire faster than we are able to recycle ourselves. Like Sisyphus, we will always have the feeling that we are pushing the rock again towards a peak that does not really exist. It is not a question of denying the enormous possibilities of progress but of understanding that these possibilities are at our service to achieve our goals, and that this is what we must transmit in the classroom.

In any university teaching, and especially in architecture, the learning of techniques, technologies and tools form a substantial part of what must be transmitted to the student in the classroom. However, the increase in the complexity and number of these tools ends up taking up so much teaching space and time that we lose sight of the ultimate objective of training: to ensure that the student learns to think as a previous step and a necessary condition for the use of any tool.

In order to be able to analyse the processes of architectural education, it is necessary to specify the results we want to achieve with them. The professional possibilities for architects today are much greater than they were only 25 years ago. All these possibilities must be reflected in the training of the architect. This is not to say that we should train them specifically for each of them, but to give them the ability to transform themselves in whatever direction they choose. The dichotomous doubt seems to be posed in terms of the choice between the model of the polyvalent architect or that of the multiple specialists in small areas of knowledge without a vision of the whole. We propose a model capable of fulfilling both objectives: general and specific specialised training.

Keywords:

Technique, technology, profession, architecture, specialisation, holistic formation.