Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilDossiers22Teaching Practices in Architectur...

Teaching Practices in Architecture, Cities and Landscapes: From Interdisciplinarity to New Professional Skills

Introduction
Anne Debarre, Maxime Decommer et Juliette Pommier
Cet article est une traduction de :
Les Pédagogies de l’architecture, de la ville et du paysage au XXIe siècle : de l’interdisciplinarité aux nouvelles professionnalités [fr]

Texte intégral

  • 1 To describe a similar process, the notion of “universitarization” has been developed for vocational (...)

1To investigate recent developments in architectural, urban and landscape education, this issue invited contributions to focus on institutional changes that began at the end of the 20th century. This includes the internationalization of study programs through student exchange, teacher mobility, and the transfer of content and curricula, along with the standardization of architectural education through reforms that bring closer architecture schools and universities. In Europe, the Bologna Process initiated in 1999 aimed to homogenize higher education curriculum frameworks. In France, for example, this led to the Licence, master, doctorat reform (LMD, BMD in english: Bachelor, Master and Doctoral degrees). The majority of architecture schools have now been integrated into universities, even in France, where they have joined them as “components”, or into their doctoral training programs. These schools often have specific doctoral programs and research departments, along with new internationally adopted expectations for their professors and doctoral students. The French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation—a joint overseer of higher education alongside the Ministry of Culture—has also recognized architecture degrees, aligning studies even further to the university model.1

  • 2 R. Wittorski, Professionnalisation et développement professionnel, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2007.
  • 3 A. Debarre, “Quel professionnalisme des écoles françaises à l’heure de l’Europe ?”, in A. Debarre, (...)
  • 4 É. Macaire, M. Nordström (dir.), “Génération HMONP. La formation à l’habilitation à exercer la maît (...)

2This trend, however, has not lessened goals towards professionalization, which remains present in all educating institutions for architecture, cities and landscape—albeit to varying degrees depending on country2—by means of upholding or reinforcing ties between training and professional activities. The liberalization of the European market in the 1990s gave rise to fears surrounding the suitability of students’ and architects’ professional skills in a competitive environment.3 Curricula thus shifted towards a global standard, with new architectural professions, internship opportunities, specialized post-graduate courses and European-level licenses emerging, such as the French Habilitation à la maîtrise d’œuvre en son nom propre.4

  • 5 R. Legendre, Dictionnaire actuel de l’éducation, Montréal, Guérin, 2005, p. 896.
  • 6 G. Lambert, É Thibault (dir.), L’Atelier et l’amphithéâtre. Les écoles de l’architecture, entre thé (...)

3How have architecture, city and landscape teachings been adapting to these new circumstances? This initial question prompted an examination of the evolving relationship between academic and professional contributions to teaching. It was based on the assumption that changes in the international context had spawned new hybridizations between the two, which can be observed at different scales, from teaching practices, to curricula, to academic networks. Drawing on the definition of modèles pédagogiques (teaching models) as “sets of interrelated educational activities based on representations of human beings, learning and society,”5 this issue seeks to explore both learning environments6 (auditoriums, workshops, travel, etc.), and the many visions of architecture, cities and landscapes underlying these teachings.

  • 7 Among existing works, let us cite: C. Cohen, L. Devisme (dir.), “L’Architecture et l’urbanisme. Au (...)
  • 8 Especially: A.-M. Châtelet, A. Diener, M.-J. Dumont, D. Le Couédic (dir.), L’Architecture en ses éc (...)
  • 9 R. Johannes (dir.), Entwerfen Architektenausbildung in Europa von Vitruv bis mitte des 20. Jahrhund (...)
  • 10 G. Lambert, É. Marantz (dir.), Architectures manifestes. Les écoles d’architecture en France depuis (...)
  • 11 Cl. Cariou, T. Manola, S. Tribout (dir.), “De l’incertitude des savoirs aux nouvelles fabriques de (...)
  • 12 A. Urlberger (dir.), Enseigner en temps de crise: les 100 ans du Bauhaus, École nationale supérieur (...)
  • 13 T. Holert, Politics of Learning, Politics of Space. Architecture and the Education Shock of the 196 (...)

4While historical research on architecture, landscape and urban science teachings has developed, the contemporary practices remain understudied.7 And despite the increasing international circulation of teaching methods, comparative studies are lacking. These researches remain focused on the national scale,8 and more rarely the international,9 often from a historical point of view with a focus on the 20th century. Teaching has been addressed from various angles, such as sociohistorical studies of educational actors and institutions, investigations of educational sites and materials,10 the relationship between educational and professional fields11. New forms of teaching have also been studied,12 namely those emerging around 1968.13

5Thus, to examine teaching through the relationship between academic and professional models, the call for papers initially had three themes: teaching at the individual scale, at the scale of the school and at the scale of inter-institutional networks. In response, 16 articles were received, 11 of which were reviewed and 9 of which have been published in this current issue, along with an interview exploring architectural teaching in Germany. None of these papers address urban studies education, and only two cover landscape teachings. The diverse backgrounds of contributors reveal the relevance of the subject. Around a third are doctoral students presenting their doctoral research; more than half are faculty from a variety of disciplines dealing with teaching; and some of the contributors provide critical analyses of their own teaching practices, sometimes shedding light on their involvement in various networks. Most of the articles are by teachers, thus constituting “inside” investigations combining objectivity with first-hand sources.

  • 14 F. Mancuso, A. Zevi (dir.), Lo IUAV di Giuseppe Samonà e l’insegnamento dell’architettura, Rome, Fo (...)

6Nevertheless, several unaddressed questions in this issue suggest the way which contemporary educational challenges are understood. At the individual level, the figure of the teacher is largely absent from the research. Although a few self-analyses of teaching have been carried out, the idealization of a teacher or educational staff has not been recognized in any of the contributions, leaving the relevance of this approach to historical studies.14 When individuals do appear, they are analyzed as anonymous groups. Two contributions focus on students, questioning the impact of teaching and career trajectories, and in several articles, teachers appear as secondary to their teachings. Finally, the evolving role of enseignants-chercheurs (tenured professors) and its effect on teaching is also absent, perhaps since it is too recent to be properly explored.

  • 15 A.-M. Bardagot, A. Snyers (dir.), Les Grands Ateliers : un lieu unique de formation, d’expérimentat (...)
  • 16 É. Lengereau (dir.), Architecture et construction des savoirs. Quelle recherche doctorale ? Paris, (...)
  • 17 HEnsA20 (Histoire de l’enseignement de l’architecture au XXe siècle), 2016-2021, program supported (...)
  • 18 D. Amouroux (éd.), Le Livre de l’École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Nantes, Paris, Infoli (...)
  • 19 P. Blundell Jones, University of Sheffield School of Architecture: 1908-2008, A Centenary History, (...)

7Teaching scale (design studios in particular) is frequently the topic of focus, with authors addressing themes, modalities, objectives and even typologies. Experimental forms of teaching—intensive, studios, full scale construction apprenticeships15—are the focus of several contributions, demonstrating the relevance of these issues in both practice and research. Curriculum on the whole, however, is overlooked, as is the identity and particularity of individual institutions, with the exception of one article. Topics that also deserve further exploration include new courses offered in France and abroad, such as joint degree programs (i.e., architect-engineer, architect-landscape designer, architect-manager, architect-designer, architect-urban planner, etc.), chairs, international design studios and increasingly diversified post-graduate programs (specialized degrees, doctorate programs,16 etc.). Although recent research programs17 have examined school histories and identities, in this current issue, the founding narratives recently published in France18 and abroad19 give way to a more distanced, often comparative approach, involving several schools, the national or even international scale through thematic networks.

  • 20 Among others, the European Architectural History Network (EAHN), Architectural Research Network (Ar (...)
  • 21 For a non-exhaustive list: Réseau activités et métiers de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme (Ramau); (...)

8Combining local, national and even international scales, several authors highlight how subjects have evolved, along with the interaction between contemporary issues and education, particularly through the study of academic and teaching networks. Since the creation of the European Association for Architectural Education (EAAE) in 1975, new networks of institutional or teacher initiatives emerged at the beginning of the 21st century, both internationally20 and in France.21 Some of these seek to promote specific research within architectural, urban and landscape teachings, and to open up new ways of considering education beyond the confines of individual institutions. The impact of these initiatives is highlighted in the issue. Yet, while an overall assessment of networks has enabled a greater overall analysis of educational developments in France, contributions lack both an international perspective and a comparison of divergent teaching models.

9Thus, upon reception of the proposals, the three initial themes of the call seem to have lost relevance, leading to four new ones. And since several of these themes may apply to any single article, the sections are put forth in a sequence outlined below, rather than having definite boundaries. First, at the heart of architectural and landscape education, related disciplines and their relationships are reexamined in the current context. Then, practical relationships based on the reality of a constructed materiality are put forth, followed by the development of operational practices that mobilize actors involved in the production of a design project. This relationship to the real world is then reflected within interests in new professionalities, emerging through training courses and in student trajectories.

The Interrelation of Disciplinary Fields

10This issue opens with an interview with Cornelia Escher, Professor at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts, who puts into perspective the scope of the Bologna Process and its aim to standardize European training. She describes the four types of architectural training institutions in Germany—the Technische Universität (TU), applied science universities, the Fachhochschule (FH), and certain departments in schools of fine arts—and analyzes their differences. The variety of perspectives encountered in this neighboring country is reflected in the openness of the disciplines involved in architecture. This encourages greater recognition of the individual contributions of the teachers themselves, as well as of the specific paths taken by students. For example, compared to other schools, the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts has been able to maintain the freedom necessary for experimentation, and to approach ecology in an artistic rather than a technical way.

11The next article looks at teaching in France since the Bologna Process introduced the LMD and the enseignant-chercheur status was established for all tenured professors at French schools of architecture in 2018. Based on ongoing doctoral research, supervised by Jérôme Eneau and Jacques Audran, Rachel Metzger's survey of teachers at architecture schools examines the relationships between disciplines, or more precisely, the real demands made of design project teachers, those working in architecture disciplines and those working in design project disciplines. It shows that the enseignant-chercheur status does not seem to have had any noticeable effect on interdisciplinary relations around project design, nor has it erased the legacy of the École des Beaux-Arts studio system.

12Conversely, as Dimitri Toubanos points out, ecology permeated architectural and landscape school teaching in the 1970s through research carried out in newly-created laboratories. Starting off as marginal individual initiatives, its momentum spread as a result of growing international awareness at the turn of the 21st century, followed by educational meetings between professors within architecture schools. The latter spawned the creation of the EnsaÉco network, set up by the French Ministry of Culture to support environmental transition training. An inventory of these programs shows that transition involves a wide range of disciplines—from economics, history, sociology, politics and philosophy, to a more technical approach, along with energy and climate issues and living environments, particularly in the landscape. The author notes that taking ecology into account has led not only to a search for interdisciplinarity, but also to new experiential and “outside the walls” teaching methods.

Practical Teaching Methods

13Ecology implies a close relationship with materiality, which is present in a number of teaching methods. This second theme is central to the next two articles, one of which is devoted to the importance of “what already exists,” and the other to design-build. Through a textometric analysis of syllabi in architecture schools, Camille Bidaud and Matthieu Cisel highlight the exponential increase in the use of the terms “existing,” “rehabilitation,” and “transformation.” In fact, they point out that governmental directives on the subject have been less impactful than exchanges between teachers from different schools and the creation of an Architecture, Patrimoine et Création network. While such courses have struggled to take off in the schools studied—due to teachers' lack of training on the subject and their reluctance to address heritage issues—they are now seen as essential to the ecological transition.

14This is followed by Coline Madelaine's presentation of design-build studios and live projects, the topic of her ongoing dissertation. Having made a detour in the United States, these teaching practices are currently being revived and developed in French and even European schools, as part of teaching-by-doing initiatives or non-technical skills of design. The author shows what is the role of networks and international exchange in collectively building bodies of knowledge and educational reflection, as well as in ensuring the spread of varied experiences. The aim is to provide alternatives to conventional forms of teaching, but also to promote architects' social involvement.

Operational Practices and How they Relate to Actors

15The two articles in the third section, on cooperative teaching, deal with experiences similar to those of live projects. The authors take a critical look at their own teaching and that of colleagues. Entitled “hors les murs” (“outside the walls”), the first article by a team of researchers—Fanny Delaunay, Laurence Feveile, Hélène Hatzfeld, Rainier Hoddé, Xavier Lagurgue and Vincent Laureau—addresses questions raised by a number of teaching interventions in the field, which were then analyzed as part of their Lieux et Enjeux research seminar. Besides “going outside,” these teachings encourage “doing,” being immersed in hands-on environments, and meeting project players—all of which are characteristics of the experiential teaching methods outlined in the previous article. Ultimately, these can lead to investigating teachers themselves, or even result in self-management by students with the aim of developing both architectural training and careers.

16Similarly, Rémi Laporte reflects on the present development of architectural design courses rooted in real-life situations, and on personal experience with the cooperative eco-design of an architectural project. The involvement of associations, the reduced role of teachers, collective dynamics and student empowerment combine once again to ensure that students acquire skills “relating to the socialized dimension of architectural practices.”

New Professionalities, From Study to Action

17Openness to new forms of professionalism, a theme also covered in the articles grouped around real-life situations, is further emphasized in these last three articles. The first is devoted to rural student residencies—at different levels of training courses—which, through cooperative teaching methods, aim to socialize students in participatory professional practices. Isabelle Genyk and Élise Macaire analyze the effects of the “outside the walls” experiences—which they oversaw—on the future practices and career paths of the students involved. Of this small sample, three quarters ultimately do not partake in project management professions, criticizing the hierarchical relationships it implies and instead opting for occupations related to mediation, or emerging professionalities.

18In the next contribution, Natalia Escar Otín, Élise Geisler and Fabienne Joliet explore the evolution of landscape education in dedicated institutions as it relates to expanding professional practices on a large territorial scale; which entails new tasks and an increasing number of actors. Consequently, training courses have benefited from multiple disciplinary contributions, including ecology, as well as theoretical research with the recruitment of “generation 2000” enseignants-chercheurs alongside professionals, and the introduction of doctorate programs. They have thus contributed to the development of new professional skills surrounding the growing landscape project.

19As with the previous researchers, Bettina Horsch and Pauline Ouvrard interview former students, assessing their post-graduate careers at the Nantes School of Architecture. They focus on those who have “branched off” and “reconverted,” abandoning the conventional practice of architecture and noting its deteriorating professional conditions. Although most of them make use of their initial or advanced training to different degrees, depending on their social background, they remain part of the architectural, urban and landscape fabric, participating in an evolution of the profession “from the sidelines.” Thus, while training courses in landscape design schools have adapted to changes in professional practices, students in schools of architecture are themselves applying various teaching experiments outlined herein, to develop careers outside the field of project management, and towards architectural trades.

20Although the articles in this issue are structured around these four themes, many of them also raise issues of their own. They confirm the assumption that contextual developments and educational methods are strongly interrelated, albeit more greatly in terms of the ecological and political context than institutionally. The interaction can thus be seen in the gradual integration of these issues into teaching, both in terms of knowledge and know-how, as well as teaching formats. Ecology has become an inescapable part of the current context, as reflected in the architecture and landscape courses presented here. This is true in many ways, from teaching devices often found outside lecture halls, to the technical and social issues raised by architectural and landscape design.

21While authors focused on emerging teaching experiments that revitalize traditional methods and content, these undoubtedly remain unevenly distributed across architecture schools. Nevertheless, these contributions also testify to the collective dimension behind these developments. Despite the lack of individual perspective, most articles mention networks, research seminars and encounters: the places in which teachers from different backgrounds and schools can exchange ideas and develop new approaches to teaching.

  • 22 GRESA/CNOA/DAPA-OEA_DGP, LET, É. Macaire, 2023.
  • 23 Margherita Nasi, “Architecture : une génération qui dit non au béton”, Le Monde, 13 novembre 2024, (...)

22Lastly, while the relationship between professional and academic contributions was not studied directly, it can be implicitly explored through the case studies proposed. These are often interdisciplinary, representing hybrid responses between current professional issues and skills that are reinforced by academic contributions from the social sciences or technical sciences. Indeed, one of the aims of these new courses is to expand the range of architectural and landscape professions, at a time when the number of architecture graduates is estimated to be more than double that of registered architects.22 However, it is clear that the greatest contributors to this professional diversification today seem to be the students, who are building their careers around concerns about the future in a world in crisis.23 Though limited in scope, the perspective offered in this issue nevertheless highlights the changes occurring in architectural and landscape education, which are attempting to respond to, if not anticipate, these concerns.

  • 24 Maxime Decommer, “Les Enseignements de pratique opérationnelle après 1968 : le cas des antennes péd (...)

23We will conclude with a historical perspective based on our initial hypothesis that recent developments in education form part of a relative continuity dating back to the second half of the 20th century. The contributions, however, allow to reveal certain discontinuities in this process. A comparison of current experiments with those conducted post-May 1968 and the oil crisis of 1973 brings out a number of striking parallels and similarities: a continuation of the multidisciplinary scope introduced at the foundation of teaching units, along with their desire for interdisciplinarity and experimentation; real-life teaching initiated through various practical situations24 can be found in cooperative and outdoor learning approaches, such as design-build; and ecology, integrated on an ad hoc basis as early as the 1970s, is now being widely disseminated in all schools and teaching formats. However, more recent developments in architecture schools are well documented in the contributions, including rehabilitation practices, openness to diversity in the architectural professions, and consideration for all phases of the project, both prior to and after design.

24Perhaps these continuations and updates embody a “second wave” of educational experimentation, based on similar questions that can be answered using today's tools. The scope and visibility of these experiments are now enhanced by networks that allow these transformations to be “demarginalized,” and by the institutionalization of new architectural and urban issues, particularly ecological ones, which have become governmental imperatives. When the history of architecture, city and landscape education emerged in the 2010s, it also undoubtedly helped to promote pedagogical practices, adding research and publications to networks of reflection. After all, studying history helps build the present.

Haut de page

Notes

1 To describe a similar process, the notion of “universitarization” has been developed for vocational schools in the health sector. See R. Bourdoncle, “Universitarisation”, Recherche et formation, n° 54, 2007, p. 135-149. Through time, universities opened up to the idea of professionalization: C. Agulhon, “Savoirs académiques versus savoirs opérationnels à l’université” in J. Biarnes and J. Rose, Les Portefeuilles d’expériences et de compétences. Approche pluridisciplinaire, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, Presses du Septentrion, 2016.

2 R. Wittorski, Professionnalisation et développement professionnel, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2007.

3 A. Debarre, “Quel professionnalisme des écoles françaises à l’heure de l’Europe ?”, in A. Debarre, G. Morel Journel (dir.), 1989, hors-champ de l’architecture officielle : des petits mondes au grand. Transmissions, Paris, ACS/ENSAPM, 2020, p. 51-62.

4 É. Macaire, M. Nordström (dir.), “Génération HMONP. La formation à l’habilitation à exercer la maîtrise d’œuvre en nom propre comme fabrique de l’architecte. Étude qualitative et quantitative sur la mise en situation professionnelle de l’HMONP”, final rapport, LET-Lavue, ministère de la Culture, CNOA, May 2021.

5 R. Legendre, Dictionnaire actuel de l’éducation, Montréal, Guérin, 2005, p. 896.

6 G. Lambert, É Thibault (dir.), L’Atelier et l’amphithéâtre. Les écoles de l’architecture, entre théorie et pratique, Wavre, Mardaga, 2011.

7 Among existing works, let us cite: C. Cohen, L. Devisme (dir.), “L’Architecture et l’urbanisme. Au miroir des formations”, Cahiers Ramau, n° 9, 2018, and N. Spiller (dir.), Educating Architects. How Tomorrow’s Practitioners Will Learn Today, London, Thames & Hudson, 2014.

8 Especially: A.-M. Châtelet, A. Diener, M.-J. Dumont, D. Le Couédic (dir.), L’Architecture en ses écoles. Une encyclopédie de l’enseignement de l’architecture au XXe siècle, Châteaulin, Éditions Locus Solus, 2022; J. Ockman (éd.), Architecture School. Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America, Cambridge/Londres, The MIT Press, 2012; K. J. Philipp, K. Renz (dir.), Architekturschulen. Programm-pragmatik-propaganda, Tübingen/Berlin, Wasmuth, 2012.

9 R. Johannes (dir.), Entwerfen Architektenausbildung in Europa von Vitruv bis mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts: Geschichte, Theorie, Praxis, Hamburg, Junius, 2009.

10 G. Lambert, É. Marantz (dir.), Architectures manifestes. Les écoles d’architecture en France depuis 1950, Geneva, Métispresses, 2018.

11 Cl. Cariou, T. Manola, S. Tribout (dir.), “De l’incertitude des savoirs aux nouvelles fabriques de l’expertise”, Cahiers Ramau, n° 11, 2022.

12 A. Urlberger (dir.), Enseigner en temps de crise: les 100 ans du Bauhaus, École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Toulouse, 2022.

13 T. Holert, Politics of Learning, Politics of Space. Architecture and the Education Shock of the 1960s and 1970s, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2021; C. Maniaque (dir.), Les Années 68 et la formation des architectes, Rouen, Éditions Point de vues, 2018; A. Debarre, C. Maniaque, É. Marantz, J.-L. Violeau (dir.), Architecture 68. Panorama international des renouveaux pédagogiques, Geneva, Métispresses, 2020; B. Colomina, I.-G. Galán, E. Kotsioris, A.-M. Meister (éd.), Radical Pedagogies, Cambridge, The MIT Press, 2022.

14 F. Mancuso, A. Zevi (dir.), Lo IUAV di Giuseppe Samonà e l’insegnamento dell’architettura, Rome, Fondazione Bruno Zevi, 2007; C. Raffaele, Eugène Beaudouin et l’enseignement de l’architecture à Genève, Lausanne, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes (Cahier de théorie, n° 7), 2010.

15 A.-M. Bardagot, A. Snyers (dir.), Les Grands Ateliers : un lieu unique de formation, d’expérimentation et de recherche en architecture, Saint-Étienne, Presses universitaires de Saint-Étienne, 2020.

16 É. Lengereau (dir.), Architecture et construction des savoirs. Quelle recherche doctorale ? Paris, Éditions Recherches, 2008. Two issues of Craup have been devoted to doctoral trajectories: n° 26/27, 2012 et n° 30/31, 2014.

17 HEnsA20 (Histoire de l’enseignement de l’architecture au XXe siècle), 2016-2021, program supported by the Comité d’histoire of the ministry of Culture et EnsArchi (L’enseignement de l’architecture au XXe siècle), 2019-2023, financed by l’Agence nationale de la Recherche.

18 D. Amouroux (éd.), Le Livre de l’École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Nantes, Paris, Infolio, 2009. A.-M. Châtelet, F. Storne (dir.), Des Beaux-Arts à l’Université : enseigner l’architecture à Strasbourg, 2 vol., Paris, Éditions Recherches, 2013. E. Chapel, C. Ringon (dir.), L’Enseignement de l’architecture à Toulouse. Prémices d’une histoire, Paris, Archibooks, 2019. G. Bolle, L. Chevallier (dir.), L’École d’architecture de Bordeaux. Héritages et perspectives, Bordeaux, Presses universitaires de Bordeaux, 2021. S. Dadour, S. Le Vot (dir.), Enseigner l’architecture à Grenoble : une histoire, des acteurs, une formation, Paris, Éditions Recherches, 2022. D. Le Couédic, A. Sauvage, L’École d’architecture de Bretagne. Un siècle de fabrique des architectes, Châteaulin, éditions Locus Solus, 2022.

19 P. Blundell Jones, University of Sheffield School of Architecture: 1908-2008, A Centenary History, Sheffield, BDR Publications, 2008. J. Dunne, P. Richmond, The World in One School: The History and Influence of the Liverpool School of Architecture 1894-2008, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2008. C. Powell, The Welsh School of Architecture: 1920-2008, A History, Cardiff, Welsh School of Architecture, 2009. R. Heynickx, S. Sterken, Y. Schoonjans (dir.), Tekenen en betekenen. Opstellen over het architectuurinstituut Sint-Lucas, 1862-2012, Louvain, Leuven University Press, 2012.

20 Among others, the European Architectural History Network (EAHN), Architectural Research Network (Arena), Pédagogie, architecture, arts et paysage (Papier).

21 For a non-exhaustive list: Réseau activités et métiers de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme (Ramau); Architecture, patrimoine & création (APC); Architecture cultures numériques (ACN); Réseau pour l’enseignement de la transition écologique dans les écoles nationales supérieures d’architecture et de paysage (Ensaéco).

22 GRESA/CNOA/DAPA-OEA_DGP, LET, É. Macaire, 2023.

23 Margherita Nasi, “Architecture : une génération qui dit non au béton”, Le Monde, 13 novembre 2024, p.  18.

24 Maxime Decommer, “Les Enseignements de pratique opérationnelle après 1968 : le cas des antennes pédagogiques expérimentales”, in Histoire de l’Enseignement de l’Architecture au 20e siècle, cahier n° 3, 2017, p. 41-48.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Anne Debarre, Maxime Decommer et Juliette Pommier, « Teaching Practices in Architecture, Cities and Landscapes: From Interdisciplinarity to New Professional Skills »Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère [En ligne], 22 | 2024, mis en ligne le 26 décembre 2024, consulté le 18 février 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/craup/15878 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/1334x

Haut de page

Auteurs

Anne Debarre

Architecte DPLG, Anne Debarre est chercheure associée au laboratoire ACS, à l’école nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais–PSL. Ses dernières recherches portent sur l’histoire de l’enseignement de l’architecture en France, dans le cadre du programme national HEnsA20, de la recherche ANR EnsArchi et du programme 1989. Elle a notamment codirigé, avec Caroline Maniaque, Eléonore Marantz-Jean et Jean-Louis Violeau, Architecture 68. Panorama international sur des renouveaux pédagogiques, Genève, MetisPresses (VuesDensemble), 2020, et avec Guillemette Morel Journel,1989, hors-champ de l’architecture officielle : des petits mondes au grand. Transmissions, ACS/EnsaPM, 2020. Elle est également coauteure, avec Maxime Decommer, de La Fabrique de l’École des beaux-arts à Paris, Éditions Beaux-Arts de Paris, 2024.

Maxime Decommer

Diplômé d’État en architecture et docteur en architecture, Maxime Decommer est maître de conférences en sciences humaines et sociales à l’école nationale supérieure d’architecture de Bretagne et chercheur au GRIEF. Ses recherches portent sur les acteurs des transformations des espaces et, plus particulièrement, sur le groupe professionnel des architectes. Elles questionnent conjointement les évolutions des formations et celles des activités, des métiers, des modes d’exercice et des identités professionnelles des acteurs concernés. Il est notamment l’auteur de l’ouvrage Les Architectes au travail. L’institutionnalisation d’une profession, 1795-1940, paru aux Presses universitaires de Rennes en 2017 et, avec Anne Debarre, de l’ouvrage La Fabrique de l’École des beaux-arts à Paris, paru aux Éditions Beaux-Arts de Paris en 2024. Il a dirigé plusieurs numéros thématiques de revues, dont « L’Agence d’architecture (XVIIIe-XXIe siècle) » avec Gauthier Bolle et Valérie Nègre, n°9-10 des Cahiers de la recherche architecturale, urbaine et paysagère publié en 2020.

Articles du même auteur

Juliette Pommier

Architecte DPLG et docteur en architecture, Juliette Pommier est maître de conférences en théorie et pratique de la conception architecturale et urbaine à l’école nationale supérieure d’architecture de Paris-La-Villette et chercheuse au laboratoire Architecture Histoire Technique Territoire Patrimoine (AHTTEP). Ses recherches portent sur la théorie architecturale, urbaine et paysagère et sur l’enseignement de l’architecture et de la ville. Elle a notamment publié De l’architecture à la ville. Une anthologie des écrits de Bernard Huet (Paris, Éditions Zeug, 2020), codirigé, avec Nathalie Lancret et Christian Pédelahore de Loddis, Métropoles d'Asie-Pacifique. Formation, recherche, coopération en architecture et urbanisme, 1981-2011 (Gand, Éditions Snoeck, 2024), et codirigé, avec Cristiana Mazzoni et Flavia Magliacani, Paris, Mirroring Metropolises. Île-de-France As New Ecoregion (Paris, Éditions la Commune, 2023).

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search