The architectural education process can be broadly divided into two large areas of concern. One is the process that focuses on the Why aspect, and the other, which emphasizes more on the How aspect, in producing architectural works. The Why aspect emphasizes the process of thinking, asking questions, creating concepts, dialectics on philosophical matters, and is very close to research on the subject of architecture. A focus on discussing problems and asking questions appropriately is the specialty of this aspect. The problem-solving starts from the right way of asking questions, in accord with the quote “a problem well-defined is a problem half-solved”.
On the other hand, the How aspect emphasizes more pragmatic and technical matters. In the context of producing architectural work, the How aspect will be closer to downstream technical implementation, including such aspects as space planning, support systems, implementation of standards and regulations, to architectural communication techniques within the framework of effectiveness and efficiency. In workflow, AI-based design applications are more operative in this realm.
In the process of architectural work, it is the How aspect that is more easily accessible to the naked eye, because its final product is the target of the observer’s visual enjoyment. Even the experience of space represented by plans or architectural perspective images is the architect’s communication medium for narrating what is in his/her mind.
The product of the How aspect is one that is immediately appreciated by the public, while the Why aspect is an aspect that requires more time for testing and critics. In short, the How aspect is a technique for realizing philosophical and creative thinking, carried out in the Why aspect. From this, it can be implied that to be able to master good AIbased design applications demands mastery of the correct composition of prompts. The ingredients for architects to create effective prompts are of course good concept mastery, appropriate thinking, and of course sufficient theoretical criticism.
Today’s architectural school curriculum is oriented towards the architectural profession. The architectural design studio course is its backbone, one which is strengthened by internships in the architectural industry, either design consultants or construction projects. The final assignment as a graduation requirement is also based on an architectural design project emerging from research on the subject of architecture.
With a design thinking approach, characterized by critical thinking, completed with a spirit of creativity, it strengthens the pedagogical basis of an architectural school, as education oriented towards the architectural profession. This design thinking approach in its implementation is no different from the architect’s activity while designing a project. This approach requires a series of activities such as empathizing, defining problems, ideation and brainstorming, proposing design prototypes, testing, teamworking, and of course carrying out rapid iteration. This process must be complemented by the character of students who are creative and open to all changes. In the architectural design studio course, the above activities are always carried out from the first semester to the final semester. Even after becoming architects, their work stages in the profession will not be separated from this design thinking approach. Critical thinking and focus on problem-solving are also characteristics that are faithfully cultivated in architecture students.
Is it difficult for architecture students to carry out all these learning activities? For me, as a man who has done this before and is still doing it, I still feel that this is not an easy matter. It takes a strong commitment to stay in this lengthy learning process. World facts released by the International Union of Architects (UIA), supported by data from the Indonesian Institute of Architects (IAI) and the Indonesian Association of Schools of Architecture (APTARI), state that no more than 20% of architecture school graduates choose architecture as a profession.
The rest work in other fields, including industrial fields that support the architecture business. The question is, why is the education curriculum oriented towards becoming an architect, when in reality 80% of the graduates pursue careers outside that profession?
The answer is because the design thinking approach, critical thinking, focusing on problem solving, and promoting creativity and entrepreneurship are in fact universal pedagogical disciplines necessary to become ready-to-work intellectuals. Eighty percent of potential prospective students is not a minuscule number to be ignored, in order for a work ethic like an architect to be inculcated.
The presence of AI disruption in architectural design will not easily replace the role of education in architectural schools, in producing intellectuals with a work ethic and the ability to think and act like an architect, one who has been educated in values of entrepreneurship and leadership from the first semester. From the brief explanation above, it can be seen that AI technology for architectural design only plays a small role in the architectural design process.