You are required to select by a case study by the instructor of architectural ‘episodes,’ post 1968. The episode can be an architectural event, publication, declaration, display etc. that you feel has been influential on the contemporary discipline of architecture.
You should provide some form of how this episode circulated in architectural discourse (in what forms was it written about, documented, and made visible/public) and the influence it has had on the discipline. As a base level students are to research their chosen episode according to the following questions:
1. Format of Display: Across what media does the episode present itself? Reviews? Films?
2. Participants: Who is involved and what are their arguments, and what are their affiliations?
3. Content: What is the theoretical topic framed by the episode?
4. Genealogies: How might you present a theoretical genealogy of this episode? What previous events or discussions might it relate to?
Students should form a 2000-word response to this event and how it relates to/effected/influenced the discipline of architecture. The response should be framed as a mini-essay with reasoned argument, demonstrated research the case study topic and context, and citations according to proper academic conventions.
This is primarily so that you find a topic that is interesting and productive, but also so that you further your familiarity with what is out there event-wise in architecture.
The following examples of what an acceptable episode might be as a guide only:
Design Review/Conference Examples:
The Charlottesville Tapes : Transcripts of the Conference Held at the University of Virginia School of Architecture, Charlottesville, Virginia, November 12 and 13, 1982. New York: Rizzoli, 1985. Print.
The Chicago Tapes: Transcript of the Conference at the University of Illinois at Chicago, November 7 and 8, 1986. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 1987. Print.
Museum of Modern Art (New York N.Y.). Five Architects: Eisenman, Graves, Gwathmey, Hejduk, Meier. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. Print.
Conference Examples:
Practice, Theory and Politics in Architecture. Conference Princeton University, 1984.
ANYone. Conference, Los Angeles. May 1991 (first ANY conference)
Politics of Parametricism, USC Architecture, 2012.
Anonymous Architecture, Princeton University, 2014
Any Series (AnyWHERE, AnyPLACE, AnyTIME, AnyBODY etc.). AnyCORP
An example of a pedagogical episode:
Learning From Las Vegas Yale Studio (NOT THE BOOK! The class that Scott-Brown, Venturi taught that produced the research for the book)
An example of a place to search for exhibitions:
MoMA Exhibition History (Look for design or architecture exhibits:
http://www.moma.org/learn/resources/archives/archives_exhibition_history_list
Canadian Center for Architecture (CCA)
http://www.cca.qc.ca/en
An example of a conversation:
An example of a review:
Those example just as a guide only!Do not use anyone to write!!
Writing tips
Academic voice
● Clarity, using terminology relevant to the topic don’t
rightclick
and choose a word from
the thesaurus
● consider the words you use and the annotations they have some
words are more
‘loaded’ in different contexts. For example, in academic writing, saying a statement is
‘true’ means you personally are aligning with it. If you mean to say it is ‘established and
accepted in common discourse’ that is a clearer way to say something can be
understood as relevant without showing that you have definitively aligned yourself with the
idea. This gives you room to move and explain your position and the definition itself for
your own use.
● Strong (minimal first person usage, not passive take
responsibility for the statements
that you make, just make sure you support them with the texts.)
● Non convoluted (bigger words are not always better, in weak writing they often show a
lack of understanding of the concepts beneath them better
to use simpler words that
clearly communicate the concept)
● Best case scenario it
feels like I can hear you reading the essay to me when I read it
Sustaining your position throughout
● Establishing your position early on
● Returning and reinforcing your position
● Using the texts to support your argument or highlight inconsistencies amongst the
multiple texts
● You don’t have to agree with the ideas within the sources that you use, but you do have to
agree with the arguments you make! It is your position and argument after all, so you
should be agreeing with everything you have chosen to write! This is where you need to
be critical of the sources, use them. Being critical doesn’t mean discrediting or
disagreeing you
can most definitely agree, but you have to state why and how this is
relevant to your argument/position.
Structure and paragraphs
● Intro, body, conclusion (of sorts)
● Statement of point, textual example, explain example, return to position, lead to next point
● Uts Harvard referencing is used for a reasonif
you read a sentence with it used
correctly, you should be able to thinly understand the context of the writer immediately as
well as understanding the writers placement within your argument. Having the date and
source title or writer in brackets reminds the reader where the comment comes from,
giving the statement more authority or strength, as well as helping to avoid plagiarising
another’s work. It is better to credit another for the work than to pretend it is your own idea
it
reads differently to your own style of writing and is obvious when you read it alongside
your own statements.
Grammar and spelling
● Editing and rereading work before submission do
not rely on autocorrect, it inevitably
changes half your writing without you knowing (especially when writing lengthier texts)
Synthesising your critique of multiple sources
● Always understand the weekly log is not understanding 35
texts independently, we are
analysing the sustained idea present in every source and making comparisons through
the analysis to explain the varied positions of each writer in relation to the concept/theory.
Your position is therefore vital in the analysis, as you are determining the way the reader
should be interpreting the texts together.
● Your collation and analysis of the texts is new regurgitating
the concepts to show that
you understand them is not presenting anything new
A checklist I would make before submissions:
● Reread the essay ALOUD. It highlights so many issues immediately!
● Double checking that the sources have been explored in relation to one another. If they
are entirely isolated within my argument, I will ensure I have understood them correctly
and that my position is potentially highlighting disparities between them.
● Check uts Harvard is used correctly
When you can’t seem to meet the word count:
● Make sure you are explaining the relevance of the references and quotes you have
incorporated into your argument. Don’t assume I am reading the quote the say way as
you, your position and argument is meant to determine my interpretation
● Make sure you are covering the concepts from every source.
● Make sure your analysis is introducing your sources clearly both as individual references,
as well as collectively part of an argument.
● Ensure you are addressing all of your points/arguments, not just one. VERY common for
people to mainly write about one part of the readings/source/case study and forgetting
the other points that can be made
When you can’t stay within the word count:
● Check you’re not doubling up on your arguments. Sometimes I might find myself making
the same point twice, or overelaborating
on one point without realising. This can
sometimes make your argument uneven and lopsided
● Check you’re not fluffing around when making a point. As much as elaborate writing can
create a mood, voice and narrative within a piece of writing too
much makes it a chore
to read and can confuse the points coming across. Ernest Hemingway is a great
example of writing (fiction) in a concise, simple but beautiful way.
● Don’t feel like you need to explain absolutely everything about every text. You are filtering
what is necessary for your argument, not so much showing that you understand the text
intimately ( your deep analysis of the relevant points should demonstrate this)
● You should not be counting the quotes within the word count they
are excluded. I often
have open a separate document with just the quotes in it, so I can deduct the word
number from the total in the finished essay.
Finally, enjoy writing your work!
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]