[THE FUTURE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO IS A SIMULACRUM]

[Dragan Markovi]
[PhD Student, University of Belgrade Faculty of Architecture]
[dragan@superprostor.com]

ABSTRACT
[The basic thesis of the paper is that it becomes more certain that the future of
architectural design studio will be a simulacrum. As a consequence of overemphasizing
the autonomy and self-reference of the starting point and the procedures that are
performed, the architectural education within a design studio is increasingly becoming a
simulacrum: a copy without reference in actual reality.
The main objective of this research was to critically examine the contemporary
perspective of architectural education. Work on this research was aimed at identifying
new limits of the design studio as the basis of architectural pedagogy. Based on facts and
conclusions identified in the literature, the complexity of the role of design studios in the
constitution and verification of simulacra presentations of reality is pointed out, as well as
the production, the imposition and presentations of certain kinds of meanings and
knowledge that don't have their reference in the non-architectural "reality".
The paper doesn't look at studio project as just a practice of production, exchange and
transfer of knowledge, skills and abilities in the field of architecture through the
implementation of unique didactic tools of "reflection in action", but as a discursive
practice and social constitution of verification of meanings, ideologies and paradigms that
are is presented as a self-evident truths. This asymmetry is used as the main argument in
pointing out to a simulacrum future of architectural design studios.]

[BRIEF BIOGRAPHY]
[Dragan Markovic (1987) is a PhD student at the Faculty of Architecture, University of
Belgrade. Since
2009 he was engaged as a teaching assistant at the Department of Architecture within
the introductory courses, elective courses within the BA studies and design studio within
the MA studies. Since 2012 year he is receiving a scholarship from the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia. His student and
award-winning competition entries were exhibited at numerous group exhibitions. He is
one of the four members of the editorial team of the architectural web-site Super
Prostor (www.superprostor.com).]

[PAPER TITLE]
[Dragan Markovi]
[PhD Student, University of Belgrade Faculty of Architecture]

[PAPER HEADING]
[Introduction: Limitations of Contemporary Schools of Architecture
The previous two decades were characterized by the appearance of sharp criticism of the
results, approach and starting points of high education of architects. This criticism mainly
refers to the lack or realistic parameters in the education of architects, self-reference and
isolation of the academic work from the practical domain of architecture. Numerous
authors (Catanese, 1989; Crobie, 1996; Findeli, 2001) point out The Gap (Ford, 2003)
i.e. the mismatch between what is taught in schools and what happens in the practice.
While the profession criticizes the lack of realism in the curriculums and pedagogical
practices, the schools insist on their academic autonomy.
Although there has been an almost two-century debate about the real measure in the
relationship between the technical and the artistic, the practice and the academia, the
real and the imaginary within architectural studies, it is possible to speak about a number
of critical perspectives in the last ten years. For instance, the results of numerous surveys
show the ever-increasing discontinuity between the academic and extra-academic
experience of architecture students (Salama, 2007). The knowledge gained at schools of
architecture and the knowledge gained during professional practice is becoming two
distinctly separated worlds. Even the students with good school results are having
difficulties in applying the gained knowledge when they are solving everyday life
problems or practical tasks (Yager, 1991).
Elaborating on the previous debates on the discontinuity between practice and academia,
and education and reality, this paper starts from the thesis that the architectural design
studio at the beginning of the second half of the 20 th century went through a new,
simulacrum phase of development. In fact, in this text the relationship between the
prevalent cultural paradigm of architecture and the work in design studios is designated
as a simulacrum. The sources for the research were found in the literature dealing with
the topics of theory and status of architecture and the question of using the design studio
model as the foundation for architecture pedagogy respectively.
The paper starts by taking into consideration the different statuses of architecture in the
modern cultural context. Afterwards, some basic characteristics of architecture in the
post-Fordian era are pointed out. Then it moves on to education in architecture, putting

stress on the questions about the design studio. Further, there is talk about the basic
theories of a studio functioning as a simulation of the real and pointing out some of the
criticism and the disadvantages of its use. After the analysis, the debate on the
simulacrum characteristics of the design studio starts. The new limitations on the
architects education and the possibilities of a further examination of the posed subject
are pointed out at the end of the text.
The Question of the Status of Architecture: From Autonomy to Intertextuality
The status and definition of architecture are among the more complex and problematic
questions inside the area of social action which, practically, deals with organizing space
for public and private life. Marko Savi points out that architecture is a field, activity,
discipline and profession which is difficult to position precisely inside a system which
sorts professions or qualifications (Savi, 2008). He also states that depending on the
needs, methods and institutions where the classification formally occurs, architecture can
be found in the field of technical science, art, applied sciences, or as a completely
separate category.
From this viewpoint, Karl Otto Ellefsen points out four different interpretations of
architecture (Ellefsen, 2008). First, he points out that architecture can be defined as a
field within applied arts. A building is qualified as architecture based on its quality. It is a
closed concept which can pinpoint what architecture is. Second, architecture can be
viewed as that which architects do. This view focuses on the professional approach. A
building made by an architect is architecture. Third, Ellefsen points out that architecture
can be viewed as an academic discipline within human sciences. Fourth, viewed from the
standpoint of urbanism, the definition of architecture is limited to buildings and the built
environment. When compared, they are four views of the same term from different
starting points. They are very narrow and superficial identifications in which many of
architectures features cannot be recognized.
Parallel to this, and as a reaction to such a narrow definition, the perception of
architecture at the end of 20th century brings new interpretations which view it in a more
complex and all-encompassing way, making it a complex cultural and discursive practice.
uvakovi stresses that according to these new heterogeneous approaches architecture
is most commonly interpreted as a multimedia material textual event (uvakovi, 2012:
925). The new approaches refer to structuralist and poststructuralist philosophical and
social theories.
The beginnings of the new interpretations can be recognized in two collections of texts
published at the very end of 20th century. The first one is the book Rethinking
Architecture A Reader in Cultural Theory, edited by Neil Leach, and the second is
Architecture Theory since 1968, edited by Michael Hays. The first one points out the
critical thoughts on architecture outside its main stream, posed by philosophers and
cultural and social theorists. Neal Leach claims that architecture can no longer be seen
as an autonomous art discipline, as was once the case (Leach, 2005: xiii). The second
collection points out the critical thoughts on architecture within its main stream, posed by
architects themselves and architecture theorists.
The French architect Jean Nouvel assumes a similar viewpoint. In his Pritzker Architecture
Prize speech in 2008, Nouvel pointed out that a new, revolutionary time in architecture
is coming at the beginning of the new millennium (Nouvel: 2008). According to him, the
paradigm of this revolution is not autopoetic (by itself and from itself), but rather based

on other foundations. Nouvel points out that this revolution, by its nature, is a social,
cultural and economic one, and not an architectural one. Further in his speech which was
based on a text of the same name from 1970s, Nouvel negates the ideological position on
the autonomy of architecture. He even claims that the future of architecture is no longer
an architectural one (Nouvel: 2008) Just like Neal Leach, Nouvel thinks that the answers
to the questions about the purpose and essence of architecture should be sought outside
its disciplinary framework, and not in the parent field.
The new understanding sets architecture as a culture text (Ghandour, 2002). Architecture
is now understood as a culture text in the sense in which text is the mode of producing
visual, verbal, behavioral, spatial, screen, object etc. meanings (uvakovi, 2011: 98). It
is a transgression of key starting points, which show that architecture is not only a
symptom of social reality, but also an important tool for constituting and bringing culture
to its concrete and universal points. The present time is most commonly connected with
the increasingly commercialized architectural production in the service of transnational
neocapitalist globalization. Because of this, one can talk about the architecture today as
the architecture in a global and transitional post-Fordism.
According to the contemporary Italian political theorist Paolo Virno, important features of
the contemporary society are multitude, work, postformism and power (Virno, 2004).
uvakovi stresses the fact that, in such a context architecture and urbanism are no
longer national superstructures of the basics of everyday life, but important forms of
cultural services and therefore realizations of cultural politics which now do not represent
higher values but are the agent of expansive capital itself and economic demands in
overcoming the multitude i.e. transforming the multitude into the mass (uvakovi,
2012: 926). The ideologies of transitional globalism are turned toward an open but
economically controlled, overseen and guided architectural space. A doctrine completely
different from modernist utopianism (that, which is implied by the syntax autonomy of
architecture as a discipline), is established in neoliberal architecture.
Education in the Field of Architecture: From the Studio to the Simulation of the
Real
When viewed in its entirety, the relationship between architectural education and practice
has always varied. Nathaniel Coleman thinks that the academization and
institutionalization of architects education have conditioned, and then increased the
gap between architectural education and practice (Coleman, 2010). In 19 th century the
French Ecole Des Beaux Arts established a new, academic approach to teaching
architecture, thus suppressing the medieval guild model. The idea of abstract
aestheticism as the basic pedagogic approach soon spread across the Western civilization
and became the dominant educational paradigm in the field of the discipline and
profession of architecture.
With the academization and institutionalization of education in 18 th century came the
radical separation of architectural theory, practice and pedagogy which had been one
item until that time. Academized education glorified the isolated beauty and the
conceptual value of individual buildings instead of the usefulness, craftsmanship or the
contribution of the biggest part of its own production (Dickinson, 2010). Making education
academized, elitist and self-referential was reflected most directly through the
architectural design studio.

The design studio is a traditionally accepted, unique model of architectural pedagogy. It

was developed in the Royal academies workshops and during 19 th and at the beginning
of 20th century it was transformed through the workshops of Ecole Des Beaux Arts and
Bauhaus, gradually becoming more open and introducing elements of introductory and
accompanying courses. Throughout the entire history of the education of architects, the
studio project has dominated all other subjects and thematic units within the architecture
curriculum.
Today the term design studio means the concrete physical space in which teaching takes
place, but also a model of teaching design centered on the learning by doing approach.
Because of its lack of precisely defined teaching methodology, the work in a design studio
is dynamic and based on spontaneous acquiring of knowledge, abilities and skills in
accordance with the changeable situations and circumstances. Although it historically
represents the central place for the socialization of new members and the production,
exchange and usage of knowledge in society and the structuring of personal and
collective identities of architects and students of architecture, the principles of work in
design studios were without their theory for a long time, until the 1980s.
The theoretical explanation of studio work was offered by Donald Schon. He formalized
the basic principles of the studio model as reflection in action (Schon, 1985, 1988).
Studios are organized around the application of a pedagogic-didactic principle which
Schon described as learning by doing, or trial and error. In a design studio problems are
intentionally presented as wicked problems. Their solving is made harder, there are
multiple answers and they change during the searching process, so they cannot be
established in advance. Schon thinks that answers can be found only through the
experience of designing i.e. through the creative dialog between students and work on
solving the problem.
The essence of the didactic approach in the studio project is simulation. The design studio
has three basic pedagogic tasks: to teach new skills, to impart a new language and to
enable students to think as architects. The purpose of the studio is to simulate the
working conditions in realistic circumstances as comprehensively as possible. The
situations which architects encounter every day differ in scope and complexity. Solving
one problem using one set of methods and procedures does not create the competence
to solve other problems in another scope or different contexts. Based on this analogy,
Schon thinks that the main role of the studio is to simulate realistic conditions of
professional situations and circumstances.
The studio is also a place of the articulation of the design epistemology. Compared to the
traits of university subjects, the design studio is an open form of learning based on
subjective and not objective or positivistic judgments. Because of this the production,
exchange and usage of knowledge in the studio largely depend on the contextual working
conditions. The essence of studio work is irrational creativity, and not scientific
rationalism, criticality and analytic thought. Metaphorically speaking, studio work can be
compared to a jazz improvisation.
Although it is a central place and an immanent approach to teaching architectural design
and generally to education of architects, the principle of reflection in action was not
disputed for a long time (Webster, 2008). At the beginning of the new millennium there
was a reassessment of the relationship between the design studio, reflection in action
and a wider contextual surrounding in which they take place. These papers point out the
vast asymmetry between the prevalent cultural trends and the procedures within the

studio itself. They talk about the de-contextualization of studio work and the treatment of
architecture as pictures and isolated systems of meaning.
The Criticism of the Design Studio as a Pedagogic Model
Although it simulates the realistic conditions, the results of numerous researches point
to the increasing discontinuity between the academic and extra-academic experience of
architecture students. The knowledge, abilities and skills gained at schools and in the
situations of professional practice are becoming two separate worlds. It is increasingly
difficult for students of architecture to establish a meaningful connection between what
they are taught at university and real professional situations. Even the students with good
school results are having difficulties in applying the gained knowledge when they are
solving everyday life problems (Yager, 1991).
Generally, the design studio is isolated from the usual, everyday life far too often
nowadays. This studio, isolated from the street, continues to represent the normative
instruction model in which the research topics tend to promote theory without
experience. On the other hand, the enormous amount of time spent by students of
architecture on their projects leads to their isolation from the world outside and they learn
to communicate only with other students and architects.
Sam Jacob thinks that the students of architecture are being prepared for a world
completely different from the present one. He points to the fact that the modern
European conceptual model of the education of architects was constituted at the RIBA
conference in 1958 (Jacob, 2013). Jacob claims that it is perfectly clear that this 55-yearold model is not suitable for the dramatically different circumstances of the current social,
technological and cultural reality. Jacob thinks that teaching architecture using old
principles not perceived as such is the absurdity of its pedagogy. Marwan Ghandour
argues similarly and points out that the majority of lectures during studies are based on
the rules established in 1960s and 1970s (Ghandour, 2002).
Ashraf Salama also points out the negative sides of the studio model. (See chart 1)
(Salama, 2005). He claims that the status of the modern design studio model can be seen
as a sub-discourse which becomes a mechanism of control and regulation of discourse
using its synthetical instances: the author, the work and the commentary (Salama,
2005). Each individual design studio is a discourse of creation and imposing certain
systems of values and views of the world, convictions, beliefs and cultural identification.
The design studio imposes forms of thought and systems of meaning by using the
hidden curriculum and the habitus of teachers which are conducted by the application
of the teaching methodology of the design studio.
One of the main criticisms of the studio model refers to the almost complete absence of
scientific realism. On the other hand, the studio culture has its own language, norms and
rituals which are isolated from the rest of the world. The principle of simulation brings
only selected reality into the studio framework. When this is connected with a 55-year-old
conceptual framework, the hidden curriculum and the self-reference of the reflection in
action, the conclusion is reached that the modern studio model is largely noncontextual
and out of its time.
Unlike the situated cognition theories, the reflection in action theory does not
question the context in which it is realized. What Schons reflection in action theory has
not taken into consideration is that the role of education is dialectic and contextually

conditioned. The nature of the design studio is dialectic because it does not represent just
a reflection and a symptom of a sum of conditions which generate it, but also a factor in
their active constitution. The nature of the design studio is also contextual because the
material, work subject, goals, circumstances, situations, participants and tasks inside a
studio are culturally, socially and historically conditioned. The dialectic relationship
between education and culture which remained unquestioned within the Schons principle
of reflection in action is explained by contextual theories of education and learning.

Category

Author

Negative tendencies

The process
of design in
the studio

Kay, J.
(1975)
Watson, D.
(1993)
Watson, D.
(1993)
Weber, C.
(1994)

The process of defining the problem is essential and it

should take place in the studio
The design experience is limited to forming a concept and
a template project.
Students do not have enough opportunities for becoming
capable of exploring the nature of design.
The design studio puts stress on the final presentation of
the designed project rather than the path to the solution
within the studio.
Design teachers focus on the questions about how
design is done although the what and why of design is
an unavoidable component of the design process in reality.
Although many teachers of architecture believe that
research should be presented in the studio, a large number
of them do not have a clear picture of what research is and
how to present it in the studio.
Students work opposite each other but alone, often
guarding their ideas from each other and fighting for the
attention of the studio manager.
The synthetic processes of design in which agreements
and cooperation are the most complex part are limited to
individual attempts.
The design studio represents the mastery of the teacher
and the student has to believe in their abilities.
The design studio focuses on individual work although the
profession of architecture is rather a result of team effort,
collective dedication and cooperation.
The marking of students accomplishments encourages the
view of architecture as a result of individual effort.

Salama, A.
(1995)
Salama, A.
(1995)

AIAS
(2003)
AIAS
(2003)
Method of
teaching

Schon,
(80-ih)
Cuff,
(1991)

D.
D.

Anthony,
K.
(1991)
Weber, C.
(1994)

Chart 1.

The leading ritual in the studio is the revision and the

discussion of projects at the table, which is based on the
assumption that teachers know how to design and how to
react to specific problems.
Seidel, A.
Studio managers are not clear on the aims of the work, so
(1994)
sometimes they change them during the work on a project
and during the marking process.
Salama, A. Teachers in the studio tend to view teaching as an intuitive
(1995)
process based on subjective viewpoints and personal
feelings.
AIAS
The current studio culture rewards students for projects
(2003)
which look best.
Comparative view of the negative tendencies of teaching in the design
studio

Contextual Theories of Education and Learning

Apart from the self-reflective theories of learning, there are also contextual theories of
education. In theories based on social constructivism the importance of the analysis of
social and cultural context during the interpretation of certain social phenomena is
pointed out. uvakovi claims that for social constructivism theorists reality cannot be
discovered outside of the human context, seeing how it is an effect or a product of
cultural or artistic activity (display, interpretation, identification) (uvakovi, 2011: 666).
According to this starting point, any social identity is a social construction in specific
contextual conditions and contexts. Social constructivism is based on the idea that
schools teach not only the academic curriculum, but also develop individual discourses
which are at the disposal of an individual within their culture.
Michel Foucault also wrote about the relationship between culture, power and knowledge.
He viewed upbringing and education as means of social supervision. In his
archaeological research, Foucault claims that educational institutions use specific
microtechnologies of power in order to transform students from one state into another,
thus harmonizing them with the desirable system of norms and meaning. In Foucaults
understanding of knowledge, power and social control the central position belongs to the
term discourse. In his opinion, power acts through discourse to shape acceptable forms
and systems of knowledge and meaning.
Social constructions of reality achieved through institutionalization, objectification and
legitimization are in the center of social constructivism and Foucaults theories (Fuko,
2012, 1998). Both these starting points claim that the theory and the practice of
education are not developed in a vacuum, but are shaped by the prevalent cultural
assumptions. Learning is also seen as an active construction of reality, appearing during
the interaction with the social, cultural and physical environment. In other words, the
status of knowledge can never be taken as a finished and rounded fact or a fixed given.
The Education of Architects Today: The Design Studio as a Simulacrum
The uninterrupted historical rule of the design studio and its functioning on the principle
of reflection in action create a vicious circle whose starting points are reflected in the
uncritical relationship and the absence of awareness of the conditions (discourse) in
which the reflection takes place. Speaking metaphorically, Sam Jacob likens the current
education of architects to a bucket of worms, in which the worms go about their
everyday business without questioning the framework in which they are. Actually, a
vicious circle of isolated production system and exchange and usage of knowledge and
meaning trapped in a closed circle of studio culture is created in the design studio.
The modern education of architects is built on the myth of an abstract profession, i.e. a
fictitious idea of architecture as an autonomous discipline, whose values are understood
by themselves and for themselves. If looked from the standpoint of the knowledge and
meaning it produces, the design studio can be interpreted as a simulacrum. The reason
for this is that it bases its starting points on fictitious ideas of reality and social role of
architecture as an autonomous discipline, and not as a contextually and culturally defined
phenomenon submerged in a complex web of discourse practices which exist outside its
parent field.
The role of schools is no longer reproduction and reflection of social-cultural situation of
the present, but a model constructed out of nothing, one that has no other sources apart

from its own code. They represent abstract ranges which claim to combine theory and
practice in order to educate students ready for the challenges of the profession only on a
verbal level. The design studio as a pedagogic and didactic approach is not based on realworld facts or sources established in culture and society, but on its own fantasies, fiction
and delusional ideas without outside references which are put in the place of the outside
references.
The simulacrum nature of the design studio is not an absolute one, but a partial and a
semipermeable one. It is partial because it does not encompass all its parts. It is
semipermeable because it establishes a dialog conditioned by value on the relation
between the external and the internal worlds of its own discourse. However, it cannot be
said which phenomenon has its basis in reality and which in its opposite. An item and its
simulacrum have become the same in manifestation.
The education of architects is a simulacrum because the model of the design studio as
the foundation of architecture pedagogy is constituted by means of other models, most of
which are anachronous and with no origin in the present reality or cultural and social
context described as post-Fordian. The current simulators of the education of architects
equate the outer reality with their model and they precede it. In such a system illusions
and fiction precede the presence of the real. Although the gap between the education
and the profession appeared at the moment of establishing the first academic pedagogic
practices, i.e. their simulation of the real, the modern shift from simulation to simulacrum
has made the gap even bigger, more complex and problematic.
However, the ever-changing status of architecture and the education of architects cannot
be understood by itself and from itself, but only from the dialectic relationship with other
culture texts. To put it simply, the design studio as a simulacrum is a symptom of not
understanding that life outside culture is not possible.
Conclusion
By the parallel observation of the modern status of society and culture, i.e. architecture
as their concrete and universal text on the one hand, and the attitudes, starting points,
sources, purpose and conduct of teaching within European schools of architecture today
on the other, this paper has shown that the studio project at the beginning of the new
century is transforming and assuming some characteristics of a simulacrum. This points
out the widening of the gap in the modern education of architects.
While the profession most commonly criticizes the lack of realism in school curriculums,
schools are afraid of the potential threat to their academic autonomy. The relation
between the lack of realism and the academic autonomy of schools of architecture is
presented as a simulacrum in this paper. The current simulators of the education of
architects equate the outer reality with their model and they precede it. In such a system
illusions and fiction precede the presence of the real. The reality generated in the studio
precedes the reality of the profession. Their collision is manifested in the symptom of the
gap. However, this situation is not treated as fictional and unreal, but as a hyper-realistic
one: more real than any other reality.
Keeping in mind that education is the basis for the intellectual capacities of future
professionals, and that the relationship with the profession begins forming during
education, it is of crucial importance for the institution of the education of architects to
critically understand and to question itself and the world around it in order to achieve the

highest possible quality of its own work. This research was aimed in this direction
finding new limits and finding the basic conditions for their transgression. The results
found can be used as a basis and a starting point for further, more comprehensive and
complex questions and establishing the limits of the modern education of architects.
Bibliography
Catense, A. (1989). Architectural Education: Bridging the Teaching/Practice Gap.
Architectural Record, Vol. 7, pp. 47-48.
Crobie, J. (1995). The Schools: How Theyre Faling the Profession (and What we
Can Do About It). Progressive Architecture, Vol. 9, pp. 47-51.
Coleman, N. (|2010). The Limits of Professional Architecture Education. Journal of
Art and Desigh Education, Vol. 29/2, pp. 200-212.
Dickinson, D. (2010). Why Modern Architectural Education is Archaic?, Downloaded
on Septembre 4, 203 from: http://architectureboston.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/whymodern-architectural-education-is-archaic/.
Ellefsen, K. O. (2005). A Critical Reading of the ENHSA Thematic Network Debates
on the Content of Architectural Studies. In: Spiridonidis, C and Voyatzaki, M. (eds).
Present Positions (In)Forming Future Challenges Synthesis and Directions Towards the
European Higher Architectural Education Area, pp. 47-52. Leuven: EAAE.
Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking Design Education for the 21st Century: Theoretical,
Methodological, and Ethical Deiscussion. Design Issues, Vol. 17/1, pp. 5-17.
Fuko, M. (1998). Arheologija znanja. Beograd: Plato.
Fuko, M. (2012). Mo/znanje Odabrani spisi i razgovi. Novi Sad: Mediterran
Publishing.
Ford, C. (2003). The Gap and Its Effect on Architectural Education. In: Dulaney,
R., Lyn, F. and Schreiber, S. (eds). Finishing School: Inquiries Into the Completion of an
Architectural Education, pp. 72-76. Tampa: School of Architecture and Community Design.
Ghandour, M. (2002). Building As Social Practice. In: Salama, A. (ed). Architectural
Education Today: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, pp. 63-69. Geneva: Aga Khan Trust for
Culture.
Leash, N. (2005). Rethinking Architecture A Reader in Cultural Theory. London:
Routledge.
Nouvel, J. (2008). The Pritker Architecture Prize Accepance Speach. Downloaded
on
Septembre
1,
2013
from:
www.pritzkerprize.com/sites/default/files/file_fields/field_files_inline/2008_Acceptance_Spe
ech.pdf.
Salama, A. (2007). A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design
Education". International Journal of Architectural Research, Vol. 2/1, 100-128.
Salama, A. (2002). Skill Based/Knowledge Based Architectural Pedagogies: An
Argument for Creating Humane Environments. Paper presented at the 7th International
Conference on Humane Habitat ICHH-05, Mumbai, India, 2005.
Savi, M. (2008). Reforma studija arhitekture u okviru Bolonjskog procesa.
Beograd: Arhitektnski fakulteti.
Schon, D. (1988). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. London: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Schon, D. (1985). The Design Studio. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
uvakovi, M. (2012). Arhitektura kao kulturna praksa, trina aproprijacija
drutvenog ili ideologije mnotva. In: uvakovi, M., Dakovi, N., Ignjatovi, A., Miki, V,
Novak, J. andVujanovi, A. (eds). Istorija umetnosti u Srbiji XX vek, pp. 925-934. Beograd:
Orion Art i Katedra za Muzikologiju Fakulteta muzikih umetnosti.
uvakovi, M. (2011). Pomovnik teorije umetnosti. Beograd: Orion Art.
Virno, P. (2004). A Grammar of the Multitude: For Analysis of Contemporary Forms
of Life. New York: Semiotex.
Webster, H. (2008). Architectural Education after Schon: Craks, Blurs, Boundaries
and Beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 3/2, pp. 63-74.
Yager, R. (1991). The Constructivist Learning Model: Towards Real Reform in
Science Education". Science Teacher, Vol. 58/6, pp. 52-57.
]