Sophomore design project should be more like case competition
Frat Row was alive this first weekend back from winter break as hundreds of students braved the icy elements to have a good time. Markedly absent from those hundreds were sophomore students in the Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts.
From Friday, Jan. 20, through Sunday, Jan. 22, the sophomores participated in a design charrette organized by Kyna Leski, head of the Department of Architecture at the Rhode Island School of Design. Even though the project was not graded, all sophomores who were not out of town were required to participate, with the incentive of a $1000 cash reward to be divided among the winning team.
According to one student, the Sam Fox sophomores were notified on Wednesday, Jan. 18—just two days before the assignment was given—that this event was taking place; another student who was gone this past weekend was entirely unaware that the competition actually took place. The groups were divided and the challenge itself presented at 4 p.m. on Friday, and judging was set at 3 p.m. on Sunday.
We understand that this is the first time a project of this type was mandatory for students and that there is a learning curve for all pilot programs. However, the sheer magnitude of complaints from sophomore art and architecture students indicates that there is much room for growth and improvement.
First of all, a different time should have been chosen. Spring semester of sophomore year is the time art school students study abroad, and about one third of sophomore art students were in Florence, Italy, at the time of the competition.
Second, more time should have been given for the actual project. Students were instructed to get an object with a double curvature, “create a second skin on [the] object” out of Vaseline, gesso, paint brushes, rubber cement, paper, masking tape, white glue and tracing paper that is strong yet removable, cut lines in the skin such that it can be laid flat in a single piece, and recreate the skin in a larger pattern out of white industrial felt; this is quite the challenge to complete in only 47 hours.
Third, having art and architecture students work together, although a commendable idea that should foster a stronger relationship between the two schools, only added to the pressure of the time constraint. Students had not only to learn about each other quickly, but also to learn how to work with each other quickly in order to properly utilize each individual’s strengths for the group.
To make matters worse, several studio labs were not available for use because monitor schedules had not yet been finalized for the spring 2012 semester, restricting students to what methods could and could not be used and, for students in other years, limited the time they could work on projects.
Finally, there were no given criteria for judging the projects. According to the same student, different judges were looking for different features in the projects, and these features were never made clear. The end result was an arbitrary judging process that boiled down to what projects appealed to the most individuals.
Student Life recommends that in the future, the Sam Fox School model this competition after the Olin Business School’s case competitions, where students are divided into groups and given prompts well in advance. This would allow for a reasonable time frame for students to complete the project, instead of piling it on top of the demands of a typical student’s schedule and consuming an entire weekend.
The whole experience would benefit from stronger organization and communication between all parties involved. The exercise has the potential to be very useful for all participants with some structural changes that gave students more time to work and a clearer idea of what is expected of them.
I agree with Jason Clevenger’s insightful comments, and want to add that the purpose of the Laskey competition is precisely opposite of the suggestions made in the editorial. The program exists to foster creativity and demands a different type of thought than the Olin School’s case competitions. The problems are specifically designed to infuse the solutions with spontaneity, and a prompt given in advance would take away that very element.
As a juror for two of the previous Laskey competitions, what I sought in a winning solution was an expression of wit, beauty, and elegance. To my knowledge, there is no rubric for elegance.
The more often designers can expose themselves to these very difficult problems and circumstances, the better prepared they will be for the working world. The Laskey competition is just one more opportunity that the Sam Fox School provides to help them prepare for that challenge. The students can choose how they view it.
“A factual correction — Professor Kyna Leski did not organize this event. She provided an important intellectual context for the charette through her lecture and a project brief, but she was not involved in its organization.”
With due respect, following most of the advice in this editorial would be a grave diservice to Art and Architecutre students. A charrette in the design fields is an “intense period of work by one person or a group of people prior to a deadline…involv[ing] both focused and sustained effort.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charrette). Simply put a charrette is hell. But it can also be one of the most stimulating and productive times of your life as you work to overcome adversity against a hard deadline. I applaud Sam Fox for trying to give students a taste of professional experience where life is not always fair and lead times are not long. And by making this a non-graded project early in the semester there is little or no academic consequences for those involved. In the future when a design manager drops a project on their desk on a Friday afternoon with the comment “show me something on Monday”, these students will be thankful for their WashU experience.