action reaction

if the public school (for architecture) new york is to be considered as a forum for learning, then it is worth reflecting on what was learned and by whom during the fall term 2009.

as an educational model, the public school (for architecture) does not apply to a traditional set of values related to success and failure. as such the outcome of any of the school’s events (classes, meetings, discussions) is not necessarily an indicator of achievement, where the expected roles of the student, teacher and administrator are based on predictable patterns of interaction. at the public school (for architecture) the event is fundamental. results are secondary, meaning is then acquired through the varied engagement of participants.

in this case we might ask who participates, because it is the participants who confirm each event and determine the quality and types of interactions that occur. the school’s premise is that the participants are the general public. the curriculum and schedule are proposed by this general public through an open access web interface. in practice, however, it seems that the general public for an educational model like the public school (for architecture) is not pre-existing. a public for the school and for architecture must be created, or create itself, by engaging in the potential for self-organization that the school offers. the school website is programed to identify, re-group and interconnect the interests of individual school members throughout the public school network. as new communities are recognized in this manner the body of participants becomes simultaneously more diverse and more productive. for instance, a diverse group of interests was represented at the public school (for architecture) class entitled “education as artistic practice – at what cost, who pays?” participants from this class followed up with an online discussion and the organization of subsequent classes that led to the formation of an expanded public school committee.

the public school (for architecture) is unique within the network of public school projects because it was founded in reference to a specific discipline. in some sense this was an opportunity for a pre-existing community of practitioners and students to examine the relationship of architecture to the general public; to open the discipline to other fields of knowledge. it was also seen as means for the general public to access an architectural culture that is typically out of reach, inside the institution of architecture. and, it may be obvious to mention the correspondence between the “studio-based” education models of architectural and art education and the interactive, collaborative learning opportunities suggested by the public school. but perhaps the similarities between the public school program and the practice of architecture end there – with the studio as a ‘model’ for collective education. beyond that it seems like the public school project and the active community of new york architects don’t overlap. the public school requires a different type of commitment to process. it is discursive. participation turns the tables; changes the authority of student and instructor; architect and public. perhaps with the general public, the groups and communities that are defined through participation, understand this better than architects themselves.

the  public  school  (for  architecture)  new  york

common  circular  4  –  public  school  for  architecture  new york fall  2009