Previous Page  108 / 116 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 108 / 116 Next Page
Page Background

108

leikegøta

Experimenting of how to build and how to work

with materials in scale 1:1, has vitalized teaching

in architecture the last two decades. This way

of teaching, in addition to the more well-known

abstract conceptualization in the studio at the

University, has become more and more recognized.

Behind the effort of teaching architecture in scale

one to one, there are comprehensive ongoing

pedagogical and esthetical discussions within

academia. How can we establish an understanding,

which includes experiences and knowledge of so

different characters?

Might we today possible learn from the ancient

Greek philosophers about the ideas of Episteme,

Techne and Phronesis:

• Episteme contains the theoretical, abstract and

provable, which normally is understood as, the true

notion of scientific knowledge.

• Tecne is what Aristoteles understand as, questions

related to production and also to the production of

products. The act of production Aristoteles describe

as poises. The notion of Poises here means, to make

something which did not exist before.

• Phronesis is the ethics and political value, where

humans always belong to a society. This again

means the ability to decide what is good, meaningful

and useful for mankind.

To gain knowledge when being in a creative process

of learning architecture, can mean to apply these

three qualities from Aristoteles into play, not

separately, but to bring them all three in interplay.

To study architecture in scale 1:1 seems to give a

deeper understanding of the inherent form of a

material. About this theme the Finnish architect

Juhani Pallasmaa writes: “It is obvious we need

an educational change with regards to the sensory

sphere, for us to discover ourselves again as

physical and mental beings in order to fully use

our capability and become less vulnerable to

manipulation and exploitation.”

When constructing the ‘Leikegøta’ in Vang within

two weeks in April 2016, it became an intensive

experience, when students had to think about time

as an additional element in the creative process.

The process of the work, more and more took over

and little by little, the distinction between making

and creating vanished.

– finn hakonsen

REFLECTION