We want to test the hypothesis that the academic year which started in 2019 and ended in 2020 will be remembered by our working group, for a significant number of reasons and events, such as the year of proxemic experimentation on teaching spaces. The concept of proxemics was formalized by the American anthropologist Edward T. Hall in the 1960s to study the use and perception of space in interpersonal relationships. The English term ‘proxemics’ derives, in fact, from ‘proximity,’ and is used to investigate the meaning assumed by a certain distance that the individual – voluntarily or unconsciously – interposes between themselves and others, as well as between themselves and the objects that give an order to their surroundings. The course called ‘3A Design Laboratory – Architectural Design Tools,’ at the third year of the degree course in Architecture, attended by fifty students, has tested different grades, progressively dilated, of proxemic elasticity: the first semester, which is the subject of analysis in this text, began by involving students in homogeneous working groups, consisting of about ten participants each and guided for four weeks by the same teaching tutor (the course teacher, Valter Scelsi, was joined in this phase by five assistants: Vittoria Bonini, Elisabetta Canepa, Michele Gasperini, Manuel Gelsomino and Fabrizio Polimone); the tutorial sessions were set up by experimenting the learning methodology formulated by the PBL (Problem Based Learning) approach, applied for the first time to this course. Subsequently, during the semester, students went back to the organization usually proposed by the design labs: that is, lecture-based classes and roundtable reviews of the assigned project exercise, during which the individual groups (this time made up of three/four components) gradually showed the evolution of their work to their teacher, referring to a more formal and consolidated relational system, but partly losing that privileged relationship of familiarity that was established in the communicative context of the first weeks. The second semester, coordinated by another teacher, Alberto Bertagna, was structured – due to needs dictated by the occurred global health emergency – opposite to the first semester in terms of proxemics: the lessons held on the Microsoft Teams online platform had to deal with the potential weakening of the usual communication systems, searching for new relational codes that compensated for the lack of physical presence. This path of different interrelational modalities and abilities, which ranged from one extreme to the other, has highlighted the value of the direct relationship in communication and teaching with students. The threshold of ease reached during the workshop sessions of the first didactic experience, that is the one based on the PBL process, confirmed it: encouraged to actively discuss, in the first person, on two different topics deepened in independent sessions, and at the same time aided by the small size of the group, the students participated with greater enthusiasm in the debate, sharing thoughts and points of view. The success in the dynamic involvement of the students, who were ready to intervene spontaneously only a few moments after the launch of the first session, was largely due to the precise and clear preparatory indications each tutor was provided with, on how to proceed in setting the ‘problem’. The arrangement of the desks, grouped so as to set up autonomous ‘islands’, also contributed to strengthening the sense of belonging to the work table and to producing the right climate of informality. Two exercises were carried out within the PBL course, each lasting two weeks. The two cycles were carried out in the same operating scenario, perfected from time to time thanks to the experience acquired by the students: divided into five groups of about ten members each and assigned to a reference tutor, each unit became familiar with three images, printed on paper (A3 format), without receiving any type of information that could suggest their contextualization or the reasons for the choice. For more than two hours, discussing in the group, without a pre-established outline of the topics and questions, the three figures were analyzed trying to foster as much as possible the dynamics of ‘learning to learn.’ At the end of the session, the main issues that emerged, agreed upon by all the members of the group, were summarized by the member in charge of holding the role of secretary, and formalized in a list of questions. Over the following week, the students dedicated themselves to a process of independent research and study. It should be noted that the three images examined were carefully selected so that the students could not immediately locate them on the web, using the Google ‘search by image’ function, but they had to proceed by degrees of approximation. In the second meeting, the students were asked to develop the notions collected in a final report, accompanied by graphic contributions, in which, in addition to formulating a personal explanation of the topic addressed, they re-examined their learning path. Within the framework of the inquiry chosen for the first semester of the workshop, which had the operational and programmatic title of ‘Constituent Characteristics of Architecture,’ two macro-themes were examined, considered complementary in defining the identity of the architectural event: the ‘Elements of Architecture’ and the ‘Atmospheric Substance.’ By elements of architecture, we mean those components that have maintained a relative constancy of use and meaning in the history of architecture; these ‘invariant’ elements, in summary, can be divided into fundamental components of architecture (the window or door, for example) and design tools (such as the two-dimensional representation of the plan of a building). The atmosphere is, on the other hand, the dimension par excellence of the ineffable and ephemeral, of the impalpable and emotional, of the subjective and what is just hinted at; in a nutshell, it is the domain in which the experiential vocation of architecture takes shape, what comes from the material and sensorial nature of the space built and then transcends it, fading into the elusive field of personal impressions and feelings.
Vogliamo tentare l’ipotesi che l’anno accademico iniziato nel 2019 e conclusosi nel 2020 potrà essere ricordato, per un significativo numero di ragioni e di eventi, come l’anno della sperimentazione prossemica sugli spazi della didattica. Il concetto di ‘prossemica’ viene formalizzato dall’antropologo statunitense Edward T. Hall negli anni Sessanta per studiare l’uso e la percezione dello spazio nei rapporti interpersonali. Il termine inglese 'proxemics' deriva, infatti, da 'proximity', ossia ‘vicinanza’, ed è impiegato per indagare il significato assunto da una determinata distanza che l’individuo – volontariamente o inconsciamente – interpone tra sé e gli altri, nonché tra sé e gli oggetti che organizzano il suo intorno. Il Laboratorio di 'Progettazione 3A – Strumenti della Progettazione Architettonica', del terzo anno del corso di laurea in Scienze dell’Architettura, frequentato da cinquanta iscritti, ha testato gradi diversi, progressivamente dilatati, di elasticità prossemica: il primo semestre, oggetto di analisi del presente intervento, ha esordito coinvolgendo gli studenti in gruppi di lavoro omogenei, costituiti da circa una decina di partecipanti l’uno e seguiti per quattro settimane sempre dallo stesso tutor didattico (il docente del corso, Prof. Valter Scelsi, è stato affiancato in questa fase da cinque assistenti: Vittoria Bonini, Elisabetta Canepa, Michele Gasperini, Manuel Gelsomino e Fabrizio Polimone); le sessioni tutoriali sono state impostate sperimentando la metodologia di apprendimento formulata dall’approccio 'PBL – Problem Based Learning', per la prima volta applicata al corso. Successivamente, si è tornati all’organizzazione usuale proposta dai laboratori di progettazione: vale a dire, lezioni frontali e revisioni al tavolo dell’esercitazione progettuale assegnata, durante le quali i singoli gruppi (questa volta formati da tre/quattro componenti) presentavano via via l’evoluzione del proprio lavoro all’insegnante, perdendo in parte quel rapporto privilegiato di confidenza venutosi a instaurare nel contesto comunicativo delle prime settimane. Il secondo semestre, gestito da un altro docente, Prof. Alberto Bertagna, è stato strutturato – per necessità dettate dalla sopraggiunta emergenza sanitaria mondiale – in termini prossemici del tutto opposti rispetto al primo: lo svolgimento delle lezioni sulla piattaforma online Microsoft Teams ha, di fatto, indebolito i sistemi di comunicazione abituali, non solo andando ad annullare la compresenza fisica, ma ostacolando, persino, il contatto visivo tra gli interlocutori. Questa parabola di modalità e capacità interrelazionali differenti, che è sfumata da un estremo prossemico all’altro, ha messo in luce il valore del rapporto diretto nella comunicazione e nell’insegnamento con gli studenti. La soglia di disinvoltura al dialogo raggiunta durante le sedute laboratoriali della prima esperienza didattica, ovvero quella basata sul processo PBL, l’ha confermato: esortati a confrontarsi attivamente, in prima persona, su due diverse tematiche approfondite in sessioni indipendenti, e al tempo stesso aiutati dalla dimensione raccolta del gruppo, gli studenti hanno partecipato con maggior trasporto al dibattito, condividendo riflessioni e punti di vista. Il successo nel coinvolgimento dinamico dei ragazzi, pronti a intervenire spontaneamente dopo soli pochi istanti dal lancio della prima sessione, è stato in buona parte dovuto alle precise e chiare indicazioni propedeutiche, fornite a ogni tutor, su come procedere nell’impostazione del ‘problema’. Anche la disposizione dei banchi, aggregati ad allestire delle ‘isole’ autonome, ha contribuito a rafforzare il senso di appartenenza al tavolo di lavoro e a produrre il giusto clima di informalità. Due sono state le esercitazioni affrontate all’interno del percorso PBL, ciascuna della durata di due settimane. Lo scenario operativo con cui si sono condotti i due cicli è stato il medesimo, di volta in volta perfezionato grazie all’esperienza acquisita dagli studenti: suddivisi in cinque gruppi di circa dieci membri e assegnati a un tutor di riferimento, ogni unità ha familiarizzato con tre immagini, stampate su supporto cartaceo (formato A3), senza ricevere alcun tipo di informazione che potesse suggerirne la contestualizzazione o le motivazioni della scelta. Per più di due ore, discutendo insieme, privi di una scaletta preordinata di argomenti e domande, si sono analizzate le tre tavole cercando di favorire il più possibile la dinamica dell’‘imparare a imparare’. Al termine della seduta, le principali questioni emerse, concordate tra tutti i componenti del gruppo, sono state sintetizzate dal membro incaricato di ricoprire il ruolo di segretario e formalizzate in un elenco di quesiti. Nell’arco della settimana a seguire, gli studenti si sono dedicati a un processo di ricerca e studio autonomo. Si precisa che le tre immagini esaminate sono state accuratamente selezionate in modo che i ragazzi non potessero immediatamente individuarle in rete, ricorrendo alla funzione di Google ‘search by image’, ma procedendo per gradi di approssimazione. Nel secondo incontro, gli studenti sono stati chiamati a sviluppare le nozioni raccolte in una relazione finale, corredata da contribuiti grafici, in cui oltre a formulare una personale spiegazione della tematica affrontata hanno rielaborato il proprio percorso di apprendimento. Nell’ambito del filone di indagine scelto per il primo semestre del laboratorio, dal titolo ‘Caratteri Costitutivi dell’Architettura’, sono state prese in esame due macro-tematiche, considerate complementari nel definire l’identità dell’evento architettonico: gli ‘Elementi dell’Architettura’ e la ‘Sostanza Atmosferica’. Per elementi dell’architettura si intendono quei componenti che hanno mantenuto nella storia dell’architettura una relativa costanza di uso e di significato; tali elementi ‘invarianti’, schematizzando, possono essere divisi in componenti fondamentali dell’architettura (la finestra o la porta, per esempio) e strumenti del progetto (come la rappresentazione bidimensionale della pianta di un edificio). L’atmosfera è, invece, la dimensione per eccellenza dell’ineffabile e dell’effimero, dell’impalpabile e dell’emotivo, del soggettivo e dell’appena alluso; in estrema sintesi, è il dominio in cui si concreta la vocazione esperienziale dell’architettura, ciò che nasce dalla natura materiale e sensoriale dello spazio costruito per poi trascenderla, sfumando nel campo sfuggente delle impressioni e dei sentimenti personali.
Prossimità e progetto — EN: Proximity and Project
Bonini Vittoria;Elisabetta Canepa;Valter Scelsi
2021-01-01
Abstract
We want to test the hypothesis that the academic year which started in 2019 and ended in 2020 will be remembered by our working group, for a significant number of reasons and events, such as the year of proxemic experimentation on teaching spaces. The concept of proxemics was formalized by the American anthropologist Edward T. Hall in the 1960s to study the use and perception of space in interpersonal relationships. The English term ‘proxemics’ derives, in fact, from ‘proximity,’ and is used to investigate the meaning assumed by a certain distance that the individual – voluntarily or unconsciously – interposes between themselves and others, as well as between themselves and the objects that give an order to their surroundings. The course called ‘3A Design Laboratory – Architectural Design Tools,’ at the third year of the degree course in Architecture, attended by fifty students, has tested different grades, progressively dilated, of proxemic elasticity: the first semester, which is the subject of analysis in this text, began by involving students in homogeneous working groups, consisting of about ten participants each and guided for four weeks by the same teaching tutor (the course teacher, Valter Scelsi, was joined in this phase by five assistants: Vittoria Bonini, Elisabetta Canepa, Michele Gasperini, Manuel Gelsomino and Fabrizio Polimone); the tutorial sessions were set up by experimenting the learning methodology formulated by the PBL (Problem Based Learning) approach, applied for the first time to this course. Subsequently, during the semester, students went back to the organization usually proposed by the design labs: that is, lecture-based classes and roundtable reviews of the assigned project exercise, during which the individual groups (this time made up of three/four components) gradually showed the evolution of their work to their teacher, referring to a more formal and consolidated relational system, but partly losing that privileged relationship of familiarity that was established in the communicative context of the first weeks. The second semester, coordinated by another teacher, Alberto Bertagna, was structured – due to needs dictated by the occurred global health emergency – opposite to the first semester in terms of proxemics: the lessons held on the Microsoft Teams online platform had to deal with the potential weakening of the usual communication systems, searching for new relational codes that compensated for the lack of physical presence. This path of different interrelational modalities and abilities, which ranged from one extreme to the other, has highlighted the value of the direct relationship in communication and teaching with students. The threshold of ease reached during the workshop sessions of the first didactic experience, that is the one based on the PBL process, confirmed it: encouraged to actively discuss, in the first person, on two different topics deepened in independent sessions, and at the same time aided by the small size of the group, the students participated with greater enthusiasm in the debate, sharing thoughts and points of view. The success in the dynamic involvement of the students, who were ready to intervene spontaneously only a few moments after the launch of the first session, was largely due to the precise and clear preparatory indications each tutor was provided with, on how to proceed in setting the ‘problem’. The arrangement of the desks, grouped so as to set up autonomous ‘islands’, also contributed to strengthening the sense of belonging to the work table and to producing the right climate of informality. Two exercises were carried out within the PBL course, each lasting two weeks. The two cycles were carried out in the same operating scenario, perfected from time to time thanks to the experience acquired by the students: divided into five groups of about ten members each and assigned to a reference tutor, each unit became familiar with three images, printed on paper (A3 format), without receiving any type of information that could suggest their contextualization or the reasons for the choice. For more than two hours, discussing in the group, without a pre-established outline of the topics and questions, the three figures were analyzed trying to foster as much as possible the dynamics of ‘learning to learn.’ At the end of the session, the main issues that emerged, agreed upon by all the members of the group, were summarized by the member in charge of holding the role of secretary, and formalized in a list of questions. Over the following week, the students dedicated themselves to a process of independent research and study. It should be noted that the three images examined were carefully selected so that the students could not immediately locate them on the web, using the Google ‘search by image’ function, but they had to proceed by degrees of approximation. In the second meeting, the students were asked to develop the notions collected in a final report, accompanied by graphic contributions, in which, in addition to formulating a personal explanation of the topic addressed, they re-examined their learning path. Within the framework of the inquiry chosen for the first semester of the workshop, which had the operational and programmatic title of ‘Constituent Characteristics of Architecture,’ two macro-themes were examined, considered complementary in defining the identity of the architectural event: the ‘Elements of Architecture’ and the ‘Atmospheric Substance.’ By elements of architecture, we mean those components that have maintained a relative constancy of use and meaning in the history of architecture; these ‘invariant’ elements, in summary, can be divided into fundamental components of architecture (the window or door, for example) and design tools (such as the two-dimensional representation of the plan of a building). The atmosphere is, on the other hand, the dimension par excellence of the ineffable and ephemeral, of the impalpable and emotional, of the subjective and what is just hinted at; in a nutshell, it is the domain in which the experiential vocation of architecture takes shape, what comes from the material and sensorial nature of the space built and then transcends it, fading into the elusive field of personal impressions and feelings.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.