A New History Course Concept at TuSA

Beginning in the spring of 2021, the School of Architecture’s Graduate and Undergraduate history courses were reconfigured into a series of half-semester “mini-courses;” each of which begins with a contemporary figure in architectural practice and proceeds in a reverse chronology to explore the precedents and linages of architectural thought that have been synthesized in the work of that contemporary practice. We have chosen four such figures of contemporary practice as key points of departure to examine a range of architectural origins and influences. Teaching by example, these courses will offer a lesson in precedent research methods and equip students to apply such procedures on their own in subsequent design and research work. The instructors of these “mini-courses” teach a seven-week segment twice in the semester, to graduate and undergraduate groups. Much of the course material is the same from the graduate to the undergraduate versions, but the delivery methods and course products vary to suit the student group.

Received Traditions and Conventional History/ Theory Education in Architecture

The standard or traditional form of architectural history instruction often begins with some form of historical survey with canonical examples and significant architectural achievements. These valuable elements of the historical framework are often presented in a chronological sequence that creates a backdrop for later elaboration and deeper exploration. This continuum of typically western (or mostly western) architectural periods is now, more commonly, punctuated with parallel or contrary developments in non-western contexts. This method presents some diversity of architectural activity through time but tends to be presented from a western point of reference and is measured, implicitly, relative to western norms.

Likewise, this standard survey sequence is offered beginning with origins in the distant past (often ancient Egypt or pre-history) and moves forward through two or three semesters to a roughly contemporary moment and an engagement of present-day practice. Placing the most immediately relevant portions of a survey at the end of a long sequence often presents challenges to the relative utility of the material in the early courses, since they commonly deal with subjects, technologies, and societies long discontinued. The early portions of chronological surveys can sometimes seem more like archaeology than architecture per se.

After a foundational series of survey courses, most programs offer advanced courses in architectural history and theory that are narrower in focus — often predicated on a basic historical framework acquired in the survey courses. The idea has been that a broad frame of reference comes first and then areas of depth are developed through small seminar-formatted coursework.

Obviously, this form of architectural education is valuable and there are many useful points of reference communicated through this treatment of history and through this time-honored teaching method. As well, it should be said that our previous “survey sequence” at TuSA was more complex and richly configured than the generic examples described above. This new method is not intended to replace a “broken” or “dis-functional” system or unsuccessful faculty efforts. However, some of the objections (implicit in the descriptions above) have made us question the norm and the premise of our modified survey-ba-