Nyheter
Leserbrev til The Architectural Review
It takes more than five minutes to write an article and Peter Cook holds a prestigious name.
10. januar 2007
Sir: It is not without a certain surprise that we read Peter Cook's view on the Oslo architecture scene in the September issue of AR. He criticises the students' work-ethics, their involvement in the school and extra curricular activities, and describes us as ignorant and feeble. Cook is of course entitled to his opinions and to some extent we might agree, but why spend his time whining about this in AR? Might this be connected to his much criticised course at AHO – The Oslo School of Architecture and Design? Being present at this course we believe this is what the article is really all about.
During Cook's first visits to Oslo 38 years ago, the city was a far better place than it is today. In his article he portrays all his earlier experiences here as happy, cheerful and tipsy, while at the same time with the highest architectural awareness, of course. The students he taught in the '80s were no less than 'the most responsive of any of the thousands, before or since'. Peter Cook was probably a hard-working teacher with a strong focus, receiving respect and awe accordingly.
Peter Cook met great resistance during his last year in AHO. The courses Cook led received massive criticism two terms in a row. The courses failed to meet the criteria set by the school; the students didn't receive any lectures and the planned workshops with ESA in Paris and Bartlett's in London weren't realised. At the critiques Cook would spend the first half of the day going on and on about his own ideas rather than engaging in the work at hand, the second half of the day he would repeatedly fall asleep. When he was openly confronted with the need for constructive and relevant feedback on the projects, he responded by putting on his super-architect-authoritarian-demonstration-of-power-suit and got psychoanalytical and nasty.
Professor Cook's teaching method is not new to us. We have travelled and we have studied with guest teachers before, several displaying the idea of the professor as a genius – The Master is always right! The tactics are to break the students down and let them 'rebuild' themselves afterwards. The teachers believe themselves to be advanced psychologists, but the majority do not have formal training in this field. Not that a psychologist would ever try something like that. At AHO there is a consciousness not to follow in this tradition. We believe it is in part a teacher's responsibility to create a constructive and inspirational dialogue with her students.
Peter Cook addresses the issue of arrogance. We are disappointed that Cook refuses to act according to his own words the first day of class the autumn of 2005: 'I despise teachers that blame the students for the failings of a course.'
Yours etc.
During Cook's first visits to Oslo 38 years ago, the city was a far better place than it is today. In his article he portrays all his earlier experiences here as happy, cheerful and tipsy, while at the same time with the highest architectural awareness, of course. The students he taught in the '80s were no less than 'the most responsive of any of the thousands, before or since'. Peter Cook was probably a hard-working teacher with a strong focus, receiving respect and awe accordingly.
Peter Cook met great resistance during his last year in AHO. The courses Cook led received massive criticism two terms in a row. The courses failed to meet the criteria set by the school; the students didn't receive any lectures and the planned workshops with ESA in Paris and Bartlett's in London weren't realised. At the critiques Cook would spend the first half of the day going on and on about his own ideas rather than engaging in the work at hand, the second half of the day he would repeatedly fall asleep. When he was openly confronted with the need for constructive and relevant feedback on the projects, he responded by putting on his super-architect-authoritarian-demonstration-of-power-suit and got psychoanalytical and nasty.
Professor Cook's teaching method is not new to us. We have travelled and we have studied with guest teachers before, several displaying the idea of the professor as a genius – The Master is always right! The tactics are to break the students down and let them 'rebuild' themselves afterwards. The teachers believe themselves to be advanced psychologists, but the majority do not have formal training in this field. Not that a psychologist would ever try something like that. At AHO there is a consciousness not to follow in this tradition. We believe it is in part a teacher's responsibility to create a constructive and inspirational dialogue with her students.
Peter Cook addresses the issue of arrogance. We are disappointed that Cook refuses to act according to his own words the first day of class the autumn of 2005: 'I despise teachers that blame the students for the failings of a course.'
Yours etc.