ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

GEOGRAPHICAL AND INTELLECTUAL INTERACTIONS IN THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: PROGRESSIVE PEDAGOGIES RE-SHAPING THE FIRST HALF OF TWENTIETH CENTURY İsta

Asst. P of. D . De a Yo ga ıoğlu ul Ke e u gaz U i e sit , “ hool of E gi ee i g a d A hite tu e, Depa t e t of Architecture e-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction In the history of architectural education, the first half of the twentieth century is recognized to be informed by interactions between ideas and practices that originated in and traveled across different parts of the world. These interactions took place both in the realm of architectural education, and between architectural education and other disciplinary areas. The aim of this paper is to delineate a picture that addresses the geographical and intellectual interactions that played part in reshaping architectural education in the first half of the twentieth century. One important point accentuated in this paper is the fact that progressive reforms in education do not happen at once. As underlined by Edward Said (1983) ideas a d theo ies t a el through different time periods and intellectual contexts, and they can be comprehended and internalized in their new environments provided that proper conditions and a receptive climate exist. Despite an examination of the encounters and interactions between different contexts may help to better understand the history of architectural education, evidence indicates that every educational context also needs to be examined within the framework of its internal conditions. However, the scope of this paper is limited to an attempt to highlight the existence a shared intellectual background of educational reforms that were actualized in different parts of the world. 2. 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY EUROPEAN PROGRESSIVE EDUCATORS The innovative ideas and practices of European educators and educational theorists of the 18th and 19th century like Jean Jacques Rousseau (1717-1778), Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-1827), Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841) and Friedrich Wilhelm Froebel (1782-1852) constitute a major influence on modern educational thought. They fostered a child-centered educational pedagogy and are acknowledged as the pioneers of student or learner-centered education that is at the center of academic interest today. Their ideas had a distinct contribution to the development of progressive pedagogies that re-shaped architectural education in the first half of the twentieth century.

1

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

Image1. Left to right: Jean Jacques Rousseau, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Johann Friedrich Herbart and Friedrich Wilhelm Froebel.

In their article Ne “ hools fo a Ne Wo ld Harry G. Good and James T. Teller (1969, p. 493) remark that the reform process actualized in elementary school pedagogy in the mid-19th century was informed by the progressive ideas and practices of figures like Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Herbart and Froebel. Child education was reshaped through a growing attention towards unique personality of each child. The ultimate educational goal was redefined as the development of child s o ature, capabilities and interest (Wilds, 1952, p. 454). The pedagogical models delineated by Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel and Herbart meet on the common ground of their conceptions of individuality and society based on democratic principles. ‘ousseau as a p opo e t of atu alisti edu atio . The idea that the natural virtues of individual should be respected and protected and, thus, education should allow children to grow up naturally was the foundation of his position. Of prime significance for Pestalozzi was the concurrent intellectual (head), o al hea th a d p a ti al ha d t ai i g fo the ha onious development of the child (Good and Teller, 1969, p. 506). He stimulated the ele e ta s ie e o e e t i hich emphasis was placed on hands-on and real-world learning through the observation and experimentation of nature, living animals and plants, as well as arithmetic, geography, language, drawing, reading and writing (Good and Teller, 1969, p. 494). For Pestalozzi, elementary education was to encourage children s active participation to education. Froebel, inspired by the ideas of Rousseau and Pestalozzi, is known by his conception of kindergarten. The kindergarten was based on a ti e curriculum that covered the exercises of plays, games, songs, gifts, and o upatio s (Wilds, 1952, p. 503). Pla , a e t al F o elia the e, as o side ed as the ha a te isti ethod of g o th a d lea i g fo ou g hild e (Butts and Cremin, 1953, p. 381). Froebel, as did Pestalozzi, has recognized the educational vi tues of g oup a ti it a d ad o ated that working together encourages selfrecognition and expression, and that learning best occurs in social interaction. The German educational theorist Herbart was another well-known advocate of a childcentered education and curriculum. Within the framework of the emphasis he placed on the i telle tual- o al edu atio of hild e , Herbart considered the study of history and literature as the o e of the u i ulu (Butts and Cremin, 1953, p. 381). What unfold in the pedagogical models envisioned by these European educators and educational theorists were the new conceptions of human nature, intelligence and learning derived from the De elop e talist o e e t of 18th century psychology (Wilds, 1952; Mayer, 1963). These conceptions were based on greater respect to individual and the development of his/her unique personality, and 2

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

stimulated the attempts to approach education from the point of the psychological development of children. The hild s elatio ith othe hild e a d his e i o e t as o side ed to pla the major role in his/her development, which would also encourage active participation of the child to the learning process (Wilds, 1942, 455). The influence of these European educational reformers was not limited to elementary education. Their ideas gained more and more adherents in all domains of education, in Europe and worldwide, and aroused a keen interest in educational reform in the late 19th and early twentieth century. 3. JOHN DEWEY AND PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION MOVEMENT IN AMERICA American philosopher and psychologist William James, psychologist Edward Lee Thorndike, educator Francis W. Parker were among key figures who were inspired by the European leaders of educational reform such as Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel (Wilds, 1942; Freeman and Cremin 1953). Also informed by the philosophical reflections of Pragmatism and Progressivism, their ideas influenced educational theory and practices in America in the turn of the century (Brameld, 1955). Gert J. J. Biesta and Siebren Miedema (1996, p. 1) poi t to the educational reform that took place around the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the t e tieth e tu , hi h is a k o ledged i the lite atu e as e edu atio , p og essi e edu atio or efo pedagog . Biesta and Miedema argued that the turn-of-the-century educational reform was an international phenomenon, and one a e plo e its i telle tual a kg ou d o l situati g this e o p og essi e education within an international perspective (Biesta and Miedema, 1996, p. 2).

Image2. John Dewey, American progressive educator.

Progressive Education Movement, under the leadership of John Dewey, emerged through such an intellectual background. This movement was a consequence of the innovative atmosphere informed by the 18th and 19th century educational reforms. Progressive education was a major intellectual force that shaped American education from the late 19th century to 1930s and Dewey was an important figure in the tu -of-the-century educational reform. Biesta a d Miede a e a k that the intellectual context in which Dewey operated was under the influence of European traditions in philosophy and pedagogy a d Herbartianism, and the ideas of Froebel

3

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

to a large extent defined the context in which Dewey was to articulate the pedagogical consequences of his own philosophical and psychological ideas (1996, p. 9). The motives behind De e s position were manifold. Firstly, like the European pioneers of the child-centered education, Dewey emphasized the education of children as the most important phase of their development as individuals and the formation of fi fou datio s upo hi h edu atio should e uilt C oss, , p. . For Dewey, education should seek for the development of individual freedom, and encourage self-recognition of students, which would in turn enhance their creative capacities. Therefore, school curriculum was to be designed in accordance with hild e s interests and activities (Dewey, 1972). Dewey advocated the Froebelian view that s hool should e a o u it a d that lea i g should e a a ti e, oope ati e p o ess i ol i g i estigatio , o st u tio a d a tisti eatio Good a d Telle , 1969, p. 511). As it becomes apparent in his well-known statement that edu atio is life itself, for Dewey education should not be isolated from real life. In his experimental schools like the Laboratory School, the ethods of a ti it a d p oje t e e e e ised for the study of real world affairs. All these ideas demonstrated the intertwining of individualistic and social concerns of his educational approach. At a time of political, social and educational unrest he was an impassioned advocate of democracy and a democratic education. He considered democracy as the only proper way of living that could enable and encourage the realization of individuality and the formation of a community. The major educational task was, in his view, to develop open-minded and socially responsive individuals who would be well-equipped and eager to act as members of a democratic society. For Dewey (1997, p. 99) a democratic society was a society which makes provision for participation in its good of all its members on equal terms and which secures flexible readjustment of its institutions through interaction of the diffe e t fo s of asso iated life. Dewey (1997, p. 98) maintained that education had a ital ole i o st u ti g a de o ati a of life f eei g of i di idual apacity in a p og essi e g o th di e ted to so ial ai s. The focus on scientific method in Dewe s edu atio al philosoph echoed the ideas of Rousseau and Pestalozzi. Education was to encourage experimentation and invention, and cultivate habits of reflecti e thi ki g as a edu ational method of problem-solving (Butts and Cremin, 1953, p. 344). In his account, this would help students to challenge the constantly changing situations confronting them and pave the way for their continuous learning and growth. In the first half of the twentieth century, the influence of De e s ideas a d practices extended to the field of higher education. The curricular and pedagogical reforms actualized in leading schools such as Colu ia s “ hool of A hite tu e, Harvard Graduate School of Design and the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Fine Arts are notable examples of a pedagogical shift from the traditional Beaux-Arts methodologies to a modern design pedagogy, which was in essence a shift toward a democratic educational system framed by respect for individual freedom and creativity. It deserves to be noted that De e s democratic educational philosophy and progressive pedagogy created a world-wide effect, including Turkey (Anton and Canevi, 2003; Turan, 2000; Biesta and Miedema, 1996). 4

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

4. BAUHAUS AT WEIMAR A significant phenomenon that informed the educational thought and practices in the twentieth century was the Bauhaus School. It would not be a misinterpretation to say that the revolutionary pedagogical concepts of the Bauhaus transformed art, design and architecture education of the period. The Bauhaus impact transcended its fourteen years existence as a school of design, architecture and applied arts in Germany. Its g ou di g o je ti e of esta lishi g the fundamental unity underlying all a hes of desig , as defi ed the fou de a d di e to of the s hool Walte Gropius (Gropius 1935, cited in Cross, 1983, p. 43), developed into a systematic educational approach and an experimental model for numerous schools all over the world. Rainer K. Wick (2000, p. 15) points to the su sta tial o t i utio s [of the Bauhaus] to the foundation of what we now generally characterize as design.

Image3 Bauhaus building in Dessau. Image4. Bauhaus masters; left to right: W. Kandinsky and his wife Nina, Georg Muche, Paul Klee, Walter Gropius.

A deeper understanding of Bauhaus s intellectual heritage would help locating the Bauhaus pedagogy to a more inclusive historical context. Cross (1983, p. 48) writes that the Bauhaus a e see to ha e a so ed a d to efle t the i flue e of educational ideas which were inherent in the intellectual climate of the time. The historical references of this climate extend far back to the progressive ideas of the 18th and 19th century European educators such as Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel and Herbart (Cross, 1983; Lerner, 2005). The otio of lea i g doi g that as advocated by Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel provided a ground for the Bauhaus School to develop a coherent pedagogical system. A contemporary reference for the Bauhaus was the Deutscher Werkbund, a reform venture in the turn of the century in Germany. Cross (1983, p. 48) underscores the key role the Werkund played i eati g the o ditio s a d the intellectual climate for which the Bauhaus as to e e ge. Defi ed as Ge a s leadi g association of progressive architects, artists, craftsmen, light industry manufacturers, a d ultu al iti s Joh V. Ma iuika, , p. , Werkbund had an agenda concerning artistic, ethical and social problems in Germany. The primary aim was "to increase the quality of industrial production with the cooperation of art, industry and crafts, through the use of education, propaganda, and the articulation of unified stands on relevant questions" (Gutschow, 2005, p. 326). A need was recognized for reform in artistic education. The principles of child education introduced by Rousseau, Pestalozzi a d F oe el, a d the i di idualisti a d so ial p i iples of De e s educational 5

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

philosophy seem to have informed the basic concerns of the Werkbund. As underlined by Cross (1983, p. 48), Werbund s i flue e as lea i the ea l a ifesto of the Bauhaus de la ed G opius ho e phasized the esta lish e t of i dust ial li ks ith the s hool. There was also a direct reference to educational merits of vocational training and craftwork, which were earlier promoted by Pestalozzi and Froebel (Wick, 2000, p. 66). Gropius, who was previously a leader of the Werkbund movement, explained the grounding rationale of the Bauhaus as a de a d fo a e a d po e ful o ki g correlation of all the processes of creation (Gropius, 1959, p. 28). This informed one of the main goals of the Bauhaus: an aestheti s thesis, defi ed as the integration of all genres of art and branches of the crafts under the primacy of architecture Wi k, 2000, p. 52). A re-orientation in educating artists, designers and architects was seen necessary in order to actualize this goal.

Image5. Metal workshop at the Bauhaus in Dessau. Image6. Preliminary course discussion.

Bauhaus aimed at a pedagogical reform. This pedagogical reform, firstly, sought to integrate practical and formal work and establish a ha o et ee stude ts intellectual and manual training. Gropius (1959, p. 125) maintained that as a ieties of talent cannot be distinguished before they manifest themselves, the individual must be able to discover his proper sphere of activity in the course of his own de elop e t. Of prime significance for students to discover their potentialities was the formation of a collaborative learning environment. It was argued that working together would enhance the development of the individual artistic creativity of students. Wo kshop as practiced as the basic method of teaching and learning. Karl-Hei z Füssl , p. e plai s that the e i e t pedagogi al alue of o kshop was seen in its o t i utio to tu i g a a f o a ade i a st a tio a d o i g towards active, real work in the introductory course as well as presenting students with a method for gaining experience on their own and gaining increased productive k o ledge.

6

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

Image7. Johannes Itten. Image8. Diagram of the Bauhaus teaching program.

Preliminary course –Vorkurs-- had a central place in Bauhaus pedagogy. This course, which constituted the first step of stude ts t ai i g, was developed by Johannes Itten ho had p og essi e ie s o edu atio . To li e ate the eati e fo es a d the e the artistic talents of the stude ts , to ake the stude ts hoi e of a ee easie a d to p ese t the p i iples of eati e o positio to the stude ts fo thei futu e a ee s as a tists e e the th ee asi goals of Itte s s p eli i a ou se Itte , cited in Wick 2000, pp. 101-102). He explained: … I o sidered it esse tial, i tea hi g the ea s of artisti represe tatio , to evoke an individual response in students of various temperaments and talents. This was the only way to generate the creative atmosphere conducive to origi al ork. The ork as to e ge ui e. (Itte , 1963, pp. 7-8 cited in Wick 2000, p. 102). Itte s ea lie a ee as a ki de ga te tea he o stituted the fou datio of his pedagogical approach at the Bauhaus. The influence of Froebelian pri iples o Itte s work was pointed out by Lerner (2005, p. 216): Fo oth F oe el a d Itte , stude ts lea ed doi g, e pe i e tatio fo its o sake as e ou aged a d pla as o side ed ke i i pa ti g i po ta t theo eti al dis o e ies. I E el Aköze s ie (2009), hat u folds i Itte s pedagogi al app oa h as the notion of respect for individual freedom and creativity. Aköze a gues that the aim of art education for Itten as to e a ipate the i di idual f o conventional patterns of thought, which necessitated an educational approach that would allow pe so al e pe ie es a d discoveries that would help [the individual] see his/her own limits and responsibilities as ell as pote tialities ‘aleigh, , p. 284 ited i Aköze , , p. 113). As u de li ed Aköze , p. , this i di ates that Itte s pedagogi al app oa h was , in essence, a lea e - e te ed app oa h i hi h i di idual diffe e es as espe ted a d stude ts de elop e t as ope -minded individuals was encouraged. A learning environment that would allow and encourage students to freely develop their own creative forces and act on them was valued as a fertile ground for their development as individuals. In the turn of the century a reform process in education was continuing across the Atla ti , i hi h the i flue e of De e s ideas ould ha dl e ig o ed. An interaction between these two contexts was obvious, and expected, since Dewey 7

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

himself was not external to European educational tradition and was highly influenced by progressive ideas of European educators (Biesta and Miedema, Nov. 1996). The so ial s thesis goal of the Bauhaus had u h i o o ith Deweyan democratic principles. It was envisioned to achieve the o ie tatio of aestheti p odu tio around the needs of a broad segment of the population and not exclusively around the de a d of a ti st atu of the so iall a d e o o i all p i ileged Wi k, , p. 52). The quality of design and artistic production was to be elevated and opened to mass production, penetrating to all levels of everyday living from a tea glass or chair to architecture and urban planning. Bauhaus sought for a new way of living, and a new architecture that would fulfill the functional, technological and aesthetic demands of this new life. It was argued that i a up ooted o ld hi h has lost the o o ill necessary for all correlated effort, also the tie between individual creativity and production was weakened (Bayer, Gropius and Gropius, 1959, p. 24). To generate a reative co-ope atio as fu da e tal a d this ould e a hie ed o l th ough the u io of a ts a d afts Hi s hfeld-Mack, p. 53). The roots of such a union was to be cultivated in arts, design and architecture education. Dewey s iti al sta e against the dualism of thought and action find its way toward the Bauhaus pedagogy “ hö , , p. . De e a o ept of i ui as a p o ess i hi h the i ui e does ot sta d outside the p o le ati situatio like a spectator; he is in it and in transactio ith it “ hö , , p. , constituted the asis of Bauhaus s educational claim that the proper way of learning is applied learning originating f o p a ti al e pe ie es. Lea i g doi g as o e of the pillars of the pedagogical approach advocated and practiced by the Bauhaus masters. For Gropius, the education of creative arts, design and architecture could not be based merely on theoretical knowledge but, rather, knowledge was to be integrated with and advanced through practice (Gropius, Spring 1951). Thus, the educational process should allow and encourage gaining practical experience. Wi k a gues that [t]he pedagogical ideas of the American John Dewey (1859-1952) seem to have had an especially lasting influence on Albers (2000, p. 174). In the view of Albers, one-sided education was a barrie agai st the de elop e t of stude ts creative potentials. He insisted that a learning originated from active experience was much more influential than bookish learning. His instruction was based o a strenuous, constantly disciplined inductive experiential process in which learning increased step by step to highe le els Füssl, , p. ). 5. BAUHAUS IN AMERICA The migration of prominent members of the Bauhaus School to America in the late s, hi h Do ald Fle i g a d Be a d Baile defi ed as a i telle tual ig atio , e e ted a i flue e o American design and architectural education of the period. The dynamics that engendered such a geographical and intellectual interaction were manifold. To begin with, the political pressure of Nazi regime on the Bauhaus School, which resulted in the dissolution of the school in 1933, pushed prominent Bauhaus teachers to migrate to other European countries or America, as more supportive and libertarian environments. What is more, the climate of change in 8

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

professional and educational circles of architecture in America paved the way for a positive reception of the Bauhaus ideas. It should also be remarked that this was not the first contact between America and Europe regarding design and architecture. William H. Jordy (1969, p. 492) argues that the migration of Bauhaus ideas to America and the impact they created could be better u de stood ithi the f a e o k of the e te sio of the Eu opean movement in modern architecture to the United States from the twenties through the thirties.

Image9. Bauhaus masters in America; left to right: Walter Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, Joseph Albers.

As highlighted by Jordy (1969, p. 486), teaching was one of the most powerful ha els th ough hi h Ge a é igrés as a le to i ple e t thei ideas o design, architecture and education. By the late thirties, the most prominent Bauhaus masters including Walter Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, Joseph Albers and Laszlo Moholy-Nagy started teaching at schools like Harvard Graduate School of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology and Black Mountain College. Although the shift from traditional Beaux-Arts pedagogy, dominating the programs of most of the American schools, to modern design pedagogy could not be associated merely with these European educators, the fact that they accelerated ongoing transformative endeavors in postwar design and architectural education could hardly be ignored. In the related literature it is pointed out that Bauhaus was not (and could not be) transplanted to America, but the é igré Bauhaus masters paved the way for the development of an American version of Bauhaus. The transformation of Bauhaus ideas in America was highlighted by Jordy (1969, p. 485) for whom the i pa t of Ge a é igrés i A e i a a hite tu e a d desig ould e u de stood ot [as] its o ti uatio , ut [as] its posts ipt. Ga iele Dia a G a e reiterated the same line of thought when she stated that one could hardly speak of the existence of a si gula Bauhaus pedagog i A e i a. I he ie , although the e as a u if i g Bauhaus idea that bounded all masters under the roof of the Bauhaus School in Germany, the case was different in America. For Grawe (2000, p. 338) it as ot Bauhaus pedagogy as a general concept, but rather individual Bauhaus members who e jo ed a e thusiasti e eptio as tea he s at a ious No th A e i a i stitutio s. Grawe remarked that their new intellectual environment encouraged Bauhaus masters like Gropius, van der Rohe, Moholy-Nagy and Albers to present their individual pedagogical positions. G opius s o k at Ha a d G aduate School of Design (GSD) was a noteworthy example of the influence that Bauhaus masters created in American design and 9

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

architectural education. Jill Pearlman (December 1997, p. 452) points to a widespread isi te p etatio i the lite atu e that Walte G opius t a sfo ed Ha a d's old Beaux-A ts “ hool of A hite tu e i to a Ha a d Bauhaus, a adically new school with a si gle outlook. I e og itio of G opius s i pa t o the GSD, she cautions that a transformative change in the program of the school was already started before G opius s a i al. It was Dean Joseph Hudnut, she remarks, who initiated a reform process by bringing the programs of architecture, landscape architecture and city planning to fo the G aduate “ hool of Desig i . Hud ut ai ed to oot the Harvard School in the larger humanistic traditions of architecture and civic design, though without surrendering to the old ways of the Beaux-A ts edu atio al s ste (Pearlman, Dec. 1997, p. 452). In 1937 Dean Hudnut recruited Gropius as professor and chairman of the Department of Architecture at Harvard GSD. Gropius played part in the ventures initiated by Hudnut to re-shape of the G“D s pedagogi al di e tio , though their ideas on architecture, design and education differed from each other in the following decades (Pearlman, 1997; 2000; 2007). At the GSD, Gropius helped to launch new ways of teaching architecture and design. In a statement on the primary concerns of Gropius s pedagogi al app oa h at the GSD one of his former graduate students, Charles Burchard, notes as follows: It as at Har ard as a graduate stude t i 1 3 (this was the second year both Gropius and Marcel Breuer were at Harvard) that, for the first time in the experience of most of us, architecture was taught as a function of a contemporary situation from which appropriate methods of designing were developed. The design problems given were set within realistic limits and were related to real sites. Research, programming and study were made a significant part of the design sequence and we were brought in touch with other disciplines: engineers, economists, city planners, public administrators, businessmen who could help us to understand and relate some aspect of our problem to the total solution. We also began to work in groups toward the solution of one common problem. This was done not as a speedy and efficient way of pooling individual resources but as a method of education; for Gropius felt that group working was a valuable educational vehicle and a technique needed to be learned for the role the architect had to play in contemporary e ha ized so iety. (Burchard, Autumn 1959, p. 23) Gropius advocated a design approach that was responsive to real-world problems. He proposed that to integrate theory with practice and to work collaboratively would inspire students to develop integrative ways of thinking and acting; the skills they needed for achieving a o sta t e plo atio of the pote tials of our time and how to assimilate them to our ever- ha gi g eeds Bu ha d, Autu 1959, p. 23). As underlined by Burchard (Autumn 1959, p. 23), in the late s it was an enormous change from the rather remote academic philosophy of the schools in A e i a that ost of us i that g aduate lass had o e f o . The principal change Gropius aimed to actualize in the curriculum of Harvard GSD involved the famous first-year preliminary course known as Basic Design. Basic Design was envisioned as a joint course for the students of architecture, landscape architecture and city planning. This was the reflection of G opius s attempt to 10

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

implement Bauhaus principles and methodologies to Harvard GSD (Pearlman, 2007, p. 203). G opius s claim that the Basic Design course should serve as the core of program was one of the key issues that fueled his disagreement with Dean Hudnut and a po e st uggle et ee the t o (Pearlman, 2007). As pointed out by Pearlman, G opius s p eli i a ou se as ot i luded i the p og a u til Pea l a , 2007, p. 218). However, it was still Gropius who de ided the di e tio of ode is at Harvard and beyond (Pearlman, 1997, p. 452). The significance of the first half of the twentieth century for design and architectural education in America lies in the ongoing attempts of the period to question the Beaux-Arts pedagogical tradition and to strive for a reform. Numerous schools like Columbia University School of Architecture, Harvard Graduate School of Design, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Fine Arts, the College of Environmental Design in the University of California at Berkeley were beginning to turn away from the methods of the Beaux-Arts. The literature on the history of architectural education in this period points to a shift from the Beaux-Arts system to modern architectural pedagogy. It is also underlined that this sift indicated the inauguration of a democratic educational model. The pedagogical reforms Hudnut actualized successively at Columbia and Harvard were based on Deweyan educational ideals (Pearlman, 1997). Together with the internal dynamics of the A e i a o te t that had implications for professional and academic circles (Jordy, 1969), the principles of the Bauhaus pedagogy were not external to the pedagogical shift in American architectural education in the first half of the twentieth century. 6. CONCLUSION A fuller understanding of the history of architectural education depends to a large extent upon an ability to scrutinize the relations between phenomena that may seem disconnected at the first sight, explore the shared principles behind them and, re-construct an intelligible whole, which all could open the way for new interpretations. The goal of this paper has been, by bringing together important notions of geographical and intellectual interactions between Europe and America, to delineate a comprehensive picture of the progressive pedagogies that re-shaped architectural education in the first half of the twentieth century. It attempted to highlight the significance of this period of institutional responses to the challenges of modern world, in the way towards a pedagogical change informed by progressive principles. Among the main purposes of this pedagogical change were improving stude ts intellectual and creative capacities, cultivating scientific habits of thought, promoting learning by doing, and practicing interdisciplinary collaboration for the development of open-minded, creative, and socially responsible individuals. Respect for individuality of students and an attempt to make them vital and active agents in their own education was central to this educational approach. The pedagogical principles of hild-centered edu atio pioneered by Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Herbart and Froebel, the democratic ideal in education as advocated by Dewey and the premises of the Bauhaus pedagogy were the interconnected references that framed the intellectual background of the

11

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul

new ways of thinking on the education of architects in the first half of the twentieth century. It should be noted that the educational themes addressed in this paper are highly relevant for today. They are very much with us in the debates over how to reshape our present architecture programs on the basis of a learner-centered and competence-based educational approach. A deeper understanding of the principles of progressive pedagogies that re-shaped architectural education in the first half of the century may be particularly timely for schools of architecture which are, indeed, proceeding in redefining the goals of architectural education in accordance with a new profile of architect and of his changing professional and societal responsibilities in the 21st century. REFERENCE LIST Aköze , E., . Mi a ı Özgü lüğü F eedo of the A hite t . I : A. A tu a d E. Aliça uşoğlu eds. . Bauhaus: Moder leş e i Tasarı ı (Bauhaus: The Design of Mode izatio . Ista ul: İletişi Pu li atio s, pp. 111-133. Anton, J. P. and Canevi, P. eds., 2003. Cu huriyet, Eğiti ‘efor u e De ey (The ‘epu li , Edu atio al ‘efo a d De e . Ista ul: C eati e Ya ı ılık e Ta ıtı Ltd. Şti. Bayer, H., Gropius, W. and Gropius, I., 1959. Bauhaus, 1919-1928. Ch. T. Branford Company. Biesta, G. J. J. and Miedema, S., Nov. 1996. Dewey in Europe: A Case Study on the International Dimensions of the Turn-of-the-century Educational Reform. American Journal of Education, 105(1), pp. 1-26. Blaser, W., 1981. Mies van der Rohe, Continuing the Chicago School of Architecture. Birkhauser Verlag. Brameld, T. B. H., 1955. Philosophies of Education: in a Cultural Perspective. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Burchard, C., Autumn 1959. Gropius at Harvard; ACSA-AIA Seminar: The Teaching of Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education 14(2), pp. 23-25. Butts, F. R. and Cremin, L. A., 1953. A History of Education in American Culture. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Butts, F. R. 1955. A Cultural History of Western Education; Its Social and Intellectual Foundations. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Cross, A., Jan. 1983. The Educational Background to the Bauhaus. Design Studies, 4(1), p. 43-52. Dewey, J., Interest in Relation to Training of the Will. In: Boydston, A. ed., 1972. The Early Works of John Dewey, 1882-1898. Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J., 1916 (reprint 1997). Democracy and Education; an Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: The Free Press. Droste, M., 2010. The Bauhaus, 1919-1933: Reform and Avant-garde.Taschen. Fleming, D. and Bailey, B. eds., 1969. The Intellectual Migration. Europe and America, 1930-1960. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Füssl, Ka l‐Hei z. . Pestalozzi i De e s ‘eal ? Bauhaus Maste Josef Al e s a o g the Ge a ‐ speaki g E ig és Colo at Bla k Mou tai College –1949). Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, 42(01-02), pp. 77-92. Good, H. G. and Teller, J. D. New Schools for a New World. In: Good and Teller eds., 1969. A History of Western Education. London: The Macmillan Company, pp. 492-545. 12

ARCHHIST 12:International Conference on History of Architecture 23-26 May 2012, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Istanbul Grawe, G. D., 2000. Continuity and Transformation: Bauhaus Pedagogy in North America. In: R. K. Wick, ed. 2000. Teaching at the Bauhaus. Germany: Hatje Cantz Publishers, pp. 356-359. Gropius, W., 1935. The New Architecture and the Bauhaus. Faber and Faber Ltd. Gropius, W., 1951. Address by Walter Gropius; Proceedings of the 36th Annual Convention Source. Journal of Architectural Education, 6, Spring Issue, pp. 78-87. Gutschow, K. K., 2005. The Culture of Criticism: Adolf Behne and the Development of Modern Architecture in Germany, 1910-1914. Ph.D. Columbia University. Hirschfeld-Mack, L., 1963. The Bauhaus: an Introductory Survey. Longmans Green. Holmes, B., 1965 (reprint 1967). The Reflective Man: Dewey. In: P. Nash, A. M. Kazamias and H. J. Perkinson eds. 1967. The Educated Man: Studies in the History of Educational Thought. New York, London, Sydney: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 305-336. Itten, J., 1963. Design and Form: the Basic Course at the Bauhaus. Thames and Hudson, London. Jordy, W. H., 1969. The Aftermath of the Bauhaus in America: Gropius, Mies and Breuer. In: D. Fleming and B. Bailey, eds. 1975. The Intellectual Migration. Europe and America, 1930-1960. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, pp. 485-527. Lerner, F. 2005. Foundations for Design Education: Continuing the Bauhaus Vorkurs Vision. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), pp. 211-226. Maciuika, J. V. The Deutcher Werbund and the Ottoman Empire: Design Reform, Economic Policy and Foreign Policy before the First World War. In: A. Artu a d E. Aliça uşoğlu eds. 2009. Bauhaus: Moder leş e i Tasarı ı (Bauhaus: The Design of Modernization). Ista ul: İletişi Pu li atio s. Mayer, F., 1963. Foundation of Education. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc. Pearlman, J., December 1997. Joseph Hud ut s Othe Mode is at the Ha a d Bauhaus . Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 56(4), pp. 454-458. Pearlman, J., 2000. Joseph Hudnut and the Unlikely Beginnings of Post-Modern Urbanism at the Harvard Bauhaus. Planning Perspectives, 15(3), pp. 201-239. Pearlman, J., 2007. Inventing American Modernism: Joseph Hudnut, Walter Gropius, and the Bauhaus Legacy at Harvard. Virginia: University of Virginia Press. Raleigh, H. P., 1968. Johannes Itten and the Background of Modern Art Education. Art Journal, 27(3), pp. 284-287, 302. Said, E. W., 1983, The World, the Text and the Critic. London: Vintage. “ hö , D., . The Theo of I ui : De e s Lega to Edu atio . Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2), Summer Issue, pp. 119-139. Turan, S., 2000. John Dewey's Report of 1924 and his recommendations on the Turkish educational system revisited. Journal of the History of Education Society, 29(6), pp. 543-555. Wick, R., 2000. Teaching at the Bauhaus. Germany: Hatje Cantz Publishers. Wilds, E. H., 1942 (reprint 1952), The Foundations of Modern Education. New York: Rinehart & Company Inc. Publishers.

13