The summer 2018 LA Forum newsletter is out and we spoke with editors Andrea Dietz and Rob Berry about the publication titled, Re: Learning. Organized through loose groundings in past, present, future, (and fantasy); the newsletter presents observations on and arguments for changes in architecture education. Check out the digital version online here.

What prompted the idea for a newsletter around architecture education, why now?

RB: The focus on architecture pedagogy was a response to what appeared to be a real moment of change in L.A. architecture academia. At the time of the newsletter’s conception, the directorships at four local architecture schools were open; there had been a few public challenges to the pedagogical status quo; and, given national politics, it was evident that the discipline could not remain static. Also, as a subject, teaching and education had not figured significantly in any of the recent newsletters; in fact, the last issue to take on architecture education specifically, the School Status Report, was published in 1997. Not to mention, the project presented a chance for us personally to explore questions and issues with which we’ve been grappling in our own experiences as architecture faculty.

AD: Rob introduced the subject of architecture pedagogy at a monthly LA Forum board meeting a little over a year ago. I immediately was excited by the prospect of putting a spotlight on architecture education. Our collaboration, then, evolved out of a mutual interest in teasing out the nuances of what we both perceived to be a super-charged topic. Over the process of assembling the newsletter, I was fascinated to discover that we were aligning with an architecture education cycle; it seems that every thirty years or so, there is a challenge to the tenets of the preceding term … and that we are due, once again.

It’s an ambitious publication with two inserts—a zine and a poster—tucked within; can you talk a bit about the newsletter as a design project in itself?

RB:  In the early stages of the editorial process, we had lots of conversations about format, that is, about the instrumentality of form and representation in critiques of architecture pedagogy, current or historical. The contributed works solidified our fledgling observation; each piece criticizes the format of architecture education as much as the content. This undercurrent of format was made visible by the amazing efforts of graphic designer Robyn Baker. Robyn’s ambitions for the physical and graphic qualities of the newsletter to interrogate questions of format easily matched our own editorial goals.

AD: We definitely wanted to push the boundaries, of format, yes, but also of voice. We aspired to be as inclusive as possible, to publish a diverse range of people, places, and perspectives. And, indeed, this newsletter has over fifty contributors at all career stages from across the United States and a few in Canada, Mexico, and Europe. Even this, though, is just a start. We see this question of representation (meaning, both image and authorship) as one of the most significant for architecture education and practice alike.

RB:  Such a significant undertaking demands an ambitious publication.

What was the biggest surprise in the process or in the newsletter’s reception?

RB:  That we found a new take on the nine-square problem. The existing tropes of architecture education are perhaps not as staid or tired as we may have thought.

AD: Honestly, that we came closest to approaching radicality through the format was the biggest surprise for me. When we started this project, I anticipated an exposé of the defining issues of the next architecture education revolution, a list of hot-button provocations. We got some of this. But, what we really got was a challenge to my content bias. This newsletter has reminded me that the delivery is the message.