Meet Our New Staff

Interview with Mr Ross Anderson

Q: As a scholar of architectural history and theory with an interest in early 20th Century architecture how did your interest in the Bauhutte in respect to the Bauhaus arise?
The Bauhaus represents a key moment in the development of Modern Architecture. Though the work produced by architects and designers associated with the school are significant in a material culture sense, the Bauhaus is possibly even more important for the teaching conducted there and for the thinking it fostered on the nature of modern architectural creativity. There is a vast body of research on aspects of the Bauhaus. Much of it focuses on significant individuals, and generally emphasises the trajectory of the functional, machine-oriented work conducted in the late years of the school. I am more interested in the more complex and often fraught early years, which Joseph Rykwert once termed the ‘dark side of the Bauhaus’. There is much theoretical territory which is yet to be properly explored.

Q: Can you summarise your recent research on the influence of the Bauhutte on Bauhaus?
My dissertation, From the Bauhütte to the Bauhaus: The medieval masons’ lodge as an aesthetic and cultural paradigm from German Romanticism to Early Modernism, identifies the motif of the Bauhütte (the medieval stone-masons’ lodge, both as a physical building and as an institution) and traces its history and meaning as a paradigm for architectural making from the late medieval period through to the Bauhaus. I emphasise its transformation into a particular paradigm of architectural creativity. Using the Bauhütte as a vehicle, the thesis explores themes emerging from German Romanticism, particularly the dilemma of ‘creative culture’ as a remorse at current conditions coupled with the confidence to do something about it, that is, to be historically effective.

Q: As part of your research you used computer modelling to understand and interpret the geometric and constructional techniques employed in late medieval church building? Why did you conduct this particular mode of investigation?
I was particularly interested in understanding how the medieval masons’ were operating with geometry, and what resonances might be found in Modern architecture. In order to establish the primary layout of a church the masons’ would commence with fundamental geometric figures such as the circle and the square, but the way they would manipulate these figures through sequences of operations is fascinating. The drawing techniques they would employ to calculate the properly three dimensional course of the ribs from the exterior walls to the apex of the nave is particularly sophisticated. It is not possible to properly understand what they were doing by analysing plans and sections because orthogonal representation techniques only came to the fore in the nineteenth century and were not at all known to the medieval masons, nor would they have been of any use. It was necessary for me to think like a mason who was interested in calculating how individual stones need to be cut to fit together, so I ‘built’ church vaults virtually in the computer. The results confirmed certain hypotheses and destroyed others, so it was hugely valuable. It was my previous experience working as an architect which gave me the skills to produce these computer models, and I this background in practice will in many ways underpin my contribution to research in architectural history and theory.

Q: You’ve worked with Daniel Libeskind on a number of projects including his successful masterplan for the former World Trade Center site in New York. What affinities do you have with his work?
Daniel Libeskind is a high profile architect, respected as much for his early highly theoretical work as for the more recent built works. He is a wonderfully diverse and provocative thinker, with a deep knowledge of architectural history and how his work sits next to, or perhaps over against, what has been done before. Many architects practising today don’t have a strong stance in respect to what their ambitions beyond a single project are, i.e. the work attaches itself to notions of fulfilling a function or a brief as given, rather than trying to explore what the larger implications of the act of building might be. I was fortunate to work very closely with Libeskind in the studio, particularly on a number of competitions, one of which was the design study for the former World Trade Center site. We went through a really intense couple of weeks just trying to think through what sorts of buildings and programmes might be appropriate at the site, part of which involved taking with various interest groups and trying to reconcile often thoroughly incompatible ambitions for the highly charged location. The way we worked in the office was very similar to the kind of studio culture that is the primary mode of architectural education at University, and will undoubtedly feed into my teaching work here at the University of Sydney.

Q: In Berlin you also worked in Berlin with the architect Zvi Hecker and are now preparing a monograph on his work. What sort of work did you do in his office?
I worked with Zvi Hecker on the design of a very large project at Schiphol International Airport in Amsterdam. Hecker is an idiosyncratic and highly talented architect. He is not as well known outside of close architectural circles as I believe he deserves to be. I think in the years to come his buildings will be recognised as very significant contributions. Once again, geometry underpins the work, but he doesn’t rely on it as a kind of armature which dictates form, he is happy to push and pull it and be open to unforeseen situations that arise in the material act of building. There is a fascinating dialogue between an almost academic rigour and an ad-hoc opportunism and openness that animates the work. Very little has been written on his work, which I hope to redress with my forthcoming monograph. We worked well together as architects, establishing a certain trust and rapport. I hope that my personal insights into his way of going about being an architect will produce a book which gets closer to conveying what he is really about as an architect than would be the case if one relied on a more distant kind of observation and analysis.

Q: What are you teaching this year?
This semester I am running the First Year design studio and am the overall First Year Co-ordinator for the Bachelor of Design in Architecture. It is challenging but ultimately extremely rewarding to guide students through their first design projects. It is as much or more about assisting and encouraging students to find their own ways of negotiating the process of design, as it is about imparting a body of knowledge. I am also teaching a core lecture based architectural theory course in the Master of Architecture program. These two subjects, one for students at the start of their architectural studies and which is oriented to the practice of architecture, and the other for students towards the end of their time here and directed more to the reflective dimension of architecture, work well as counterpoints and enable me to keep an eye on the ongoing dialogue between practice and theory.

Interview with Dr Krishna K. Shrestha

Q: What are your major research interests?
My core area of interest is in the political ecology of community-based environmental planning, policy and management, and socio-environmental justice, particularly in a comparative context of Australia and South Asia. My research interests grow out of my interdisciplinary background and grounded experience, and in the philosophy of conducting innovative, interdisciplinary and policy-oriented research, driven by real world problems, experienced by a range of stakeholders at the local level who are engaged in the research process from defining problems to interpreting results so as to ensure that the research is scientifically rigorous and socially contextualised.

Q: What research are you undertaking now? What projects do you have planned for the forthcoming year?
My active research program is in the interplay between the processes and outcomes of participatory environmental planning, policy and management, focusing on the intersection between political and economic processes at various levels, and the socio-environmental justice at the local level.

My current research project examines the interplay between power, equity and sustainability by investigating the state and effects of decentralized, environmental and natural resource planning and management in Australia and Nepal with a view to improve the way we plan and manage natural resources. I use a "critical realist" and “pragmatic approach” to environment and development problems in which rigorous explanation is generally balanced with the provision of policy alternatives. Most of my work has been based on empirical social science research or action-research.

This year I will be giving a number of conference papers on my research and a proposal for a project in socio-environmental justice in decentralised natural resource planning and management in Australia and Nepal is also underway.

Q: What are you teaching this year?
My teaching focuses on human-environmental relationships, particularly in relation to environmental planning, policy and management, and socio-environmental justice.

I will be co-coordinating and teaching a number of courses in 2008 - namely Planning Dissertation 1 (PLAN9010), Planning Dissertation 2 (PLAN9011) and Planning Report (PLAN9018). I will also be contributing to the teaching of Environmental Design and Planning (PLAN9048), History and Theory of Urban Planning (PLAN9068), and Urban Environment (PLAN9065). I will also be involved in the supervision of a number of research students.

My teaching approach and activities aim at maximising student learning and satisfaction within the constraints of the planning degree program by the provision of a supportive and participatory learning environment and a teaching strategy which encourages critical, independent and reflective learning.

Q: What are you looking forward to in your new role at the University of Sydney?
In the years ahead, I am looking forward to designing and delivering innovative courses in environmental planning and management – courses that are strongly informed by cutting-edge research. I am also looking forward to conducting fundamental and applied research and publications in community-based planning and management of natural resources, particularly in a comparative context of Australia and South Asia, significantly contributing to the emerging theories and practices of environmental planning and management.

I’m also looking forward to establishing strong and productive linkages with communities, NGOs and governments in Australia and overseas (the establishment of a Research Centre within the faculty which is now being discussed – SACRED: South Asia Centre for Research in Environment and Development) so as to work together among interested individuals, organisations and agencies in collaborative research and training (or providing consultancy services) and to assist in delivering socially appropriate, economically viable and ecologically sustainable outcomes.

Interview with Dr Chris L. Smith

Q: Interdisciplinary thinking is central to your doctoral thesis. How does this manifest itself?
The movement of thought between disciplines is an absolutely beautiful and wondrous thing, particularly when that thought has an intense politics to it. My doctoral dissertation, The event of Appropriation: A method derived from the work of Gilles Deluze and Felix Guattari for the analysis of the deployments of body constructs from biological to architectural theory was about architectural appropriations and using poststructural philosophy as a means of understanding or reading appropriations. The dissertation suggests a political reading of appropriations rather than just saying appropriation is useful when an architect wants to borrow legitimacy from another discipline. What the doctorate tends to do is suggest the politics of the act itself. A lot of architectural appropriations are like ‘eating’: interdisciplinary ideas become so digested in architecture that it becomes almost impossible to differentiate one discipline from another.

Q: How does the body and biology relate to architectural theory?
All architectural operations can be seen as being about control and the manipulation of bodies and the formation of self. So it’s not just about building places that contain people but very much the manufacturing of people and bodies and selves or themselves.

Evolutionary biology starts to influence architectural thinking when we start to look at the idea of transformation and the transforming body. This is that the body is never set or stable but always becoming other bodies. It’s a lovely idea because it starts to free up our understanding of architecture in relation to bodies. If we can deal with bodies as moving, transforming, becoming and changing things then we end up with a far more flexible idea of architecture and a far more flexible idea of a city and its flows. It’s perhaps opening the door to a more inclusive type of architecture.

Q: Is this a political theory of space? Does it have political implications?
My theoretical work is concerned with a non-ideological politics of space. I’m thinking through the relationships and habits of thought in contemporary architecture.

A lot of the work I’m thinking through is on materiality. I’m thinking about the technologies of architecture, the technological systems, the technologies of the self, technologies of society, the relationship that we maintain between selves and things. These ideas are important. A lot of the history and pedagogy of architecture suggests that architects act like some sort of gods that descend from above in order to order the chaos of the world in some way. That’s a very dangerous politics. The French philosopher Gilbert Simondon would suggest that the architect who stays outside the workshop and only sees what goes in and comes out is an attitude consistent with a master-slave relation. I’d tend to agree.

Q: How does theoretical thinking about materiality inform practical issues?
You can’t actually make something in some sort of blank state. You’re always using particular materials. You’re always functioning in a particular way. And even the material of the body implies a particular type of making. There’s always an impact of the material of the body in everything you do and in the making of space and in the constructing of buildings and in architecture itself. If you enter the practice of architecture thinking that material will just bend to your whims then you’re in for a shock. It is important that the material conditions of architecture (including the material of bodies) is well understood and explored.

A lot of architects maintain a dislocation between the technology and the matter with which they work so construction and structures tends to be taught in one particular way. It tends traditionally to be a rather ‘concrete’ or realist way. Design, on the other hand, is taught with a much higher level of abstraction. It is necessary to breach this concrete/abstract division. A lot of my teaching emphasises the abstract character of material, of construction and of structures. We’re absolutely blessed in the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning to allow students to be abstract with material in the superb workshops downstairs. Right from the outset of their education the students are ‘making’. This making is the best way to simultaneously understand design as concrete and abstract.

Q: What lessons does this offer when we think about sustainable design?
One of the key problems of sustainable design is something that the psychoanalyst Felix Guitarri has written about: the dualism that is constructed between nature and culture, or between man and everything else, is very much written into the discussion on environmental sustainability because that discussion tends to reinforce the difference between us and the world. It’s a mixed sort of rhetoric that you get in environmental thinking and sustainable discussions because at once it is suggested that our (human) survival is tied intimately to the environment and at the same time the difference between it and us is reinforced. Exploring the dynamic tension involved in the dualism is very important. The matter of the world is also the matter of our bodies. It’s the same matter; not something organized by gods or external forces but organized in complex ways, in emergent ways, in poetic ways.

Q: What are you teaching this year?
I’m teaching one of the streams of the new Masters of Arch, a design stream on architecture and sustainability. That’s an architectural design course that will be around for the first time this year. I’m teaching that with Glen Hill. I’m also teaching a course on contemporary architecture and theory. I’ll primarily be concentrating on contemporary philosophy and looking at relationship of ideas, form and architecture and how these ideas play out. When architects say they’re using some of these ideas what is it they are actually doing? How do they do it? It will primarily be a theory based course but a lot of the work the students will end up doing will be done in the workshops. They’ll be dealing with theory in very much a hands-on and material way.