Well
it’s been over a week, so I figure I owe you one.
I would
like to assure you that I am going to school here, and contrary to my blog I am
not just romping around Oxford willy-nilly (although I go wandering so
frequently I’m worried I’m going to be seen as a drifter soon), so I will now
give a brief summary of my classes. Unfortunately there are no pictures to accompany
this entry, but I may post some stand-alone images just to keep you happy. I
must appease the masses.
Museums
and Society
You can tell a lot about my classes simply by their title. This one is about ... museums and the role they play in society. It is an art history course, and judging by the first two weeks, it is mostly populated by art history majors. The class is one of the largest I have, but large at Brookes means 60 or so (as opposed to large classes at Guelph that push 300). So far the content has been interesting. We have discussed museum architecture, and how the concept of a museum (ie. showing off your collection of stuff) came to be. The most promising thing about the class is the prospect of visits. I have already been to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford twice, and we are required to visit the Pitt Rivers Museum (also in Oxford) as well as the National Gallery, the British Museum, Victoria and Albert Museum, the Tate Modern, and the Museum of Natural History (all in London). So, I’m understandably excited. As for the course work, it consists of two essays: one discussing a room in a museum and the way it has been curated, and the other discussing what museums are for.
You can tell a lot about my classes simply by their title. This one is about ... museums and the role they play in society. It is an art history course, and judging by the first two weeks, it is mostly populated by art history majors. The class is one of the largest I have, but large at Brookes means 60 or so (as opposed to large classes at Guelph that push 300). So far the content has been interesting. We have discussed museum architecture, and how the concept of a museum (ie. showing off your collection of stuff) came to be. The most promising thing about the class is the prospect of visits. I have already been to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford twice, and we are required to visit the Pitt Rivers Museum (also in Oxford) as well as the National Gallery, the British Museum, Victoria and Albert Museum, the Tate Modern, and the Museum of Natural History (all in London). So, I’m understandably excited. As for the course work, it consists of two essays: one discussing a room in a museum and the way it has been curated, and the other discussing what museums are for.
Oxford
Buildings
This is the course that has inspired the most jealousy among my friends here. The class is small, only 20 people or so, and although technically an art history course (I’m not an art history major I swear) the content has ranged from art to architecture to urban planning to history in the first two weeks. The buildings in question will be mostly university buildings, but occasionally we will discuss city buildings like the Oxford Castle, and non-university institutions. So far we have covered the Medieval period of the university, and the early colleges. The school really does have a fascinating history. In the Medieval period, bishops from around England were the main founders of the colleges partly because they were interested in training clerics, and partly because they were rich. To clarify, a college is a building or group of buildings that consisted of a library, a chapel, residences, sometimes an armoury (for valuables), and a great hall. So these bishops would found a college (ie the Bishop of Rochester, Walter de Merton, founded Merton College) under the premise that founding a college means you spend less time in purgatory after death. Yup. So the deal was that people figured out that you could never live your life totally free of sin (shocking revelation), so no matter what, you would end up in purgatory after you died. BUT, if you were a rich bishop, you could get a purgatory discount and stay there for a shorter time if you built a college with a chapel where people could pray for your soul. Selfless men these bishops were not. So, in summary, Oxford has some of the most beautiful Medieval buildings in England because a few rich guys didn’t want to spend too long in purgatory. Post-Medieval, and post-Reformation Oxford became more of a citizen institution where lay-people would found colleges for the interests of academics, not just as a get out of jail free card. Course work in this class is an essay on a certain building (I chose the Radcliffe Camera) worth 50%, and a picture exam worth 50%. Best of all, we get a signed letter from our professor that allows us free entry into the colleges which all the other riff-raff would have to pay to see.
This is the course that has inspired the most jealousy among my friends here. The class is small, only 20 people or so, and although technically an art history course (I’m not an art history major I swear) the content has ranged from art to architecture to urban planning to history in the first two weeks. The buildings in question will be mostly university buildings, but occasionally we will discuss city buildings like the Oxford Castle, and non-university institutions. So far we have covered the Medieval period of the university, and the early colleges. The school really does have a fascinating history. In the Medieval period, bishops from around England were the main founders of the colleges partly because they were interested in training clerics, and partly because they were rich. To clarify, a college is a building or group of buildings that consisted of a library, a chapel, residences, sometimes an armoury (for valuables), and a great hall. So these bishops would found a college (ie the Bishop of Rochester, Walter de Merton, founded Merton College) under the premise that founding a college means you spend less time in purgatory after death. Yup. So the deal was that people figured out that you could never live your life totally free of sin (shocking revelation), so no matter what, you would end up in purgatory after you died. BUT, if you were a rich bishop, you could get a purgatory discount and stay there for a shorter time if you built a college with a chapel where people could pray for your soul. Selfless men these bishops were not. So, in summary, Oxford has some of the most beautiful Medieval buildings in England because a few rich guys didn’t want to spend too long in purgatory. Post-Medieval, and post-Reformation Oxford became more of a citizen institution where lay-people would found colleges for the interests of academics, not just as a get out of jail free card. Course work in this class is an essay on a certain building (I chose the Radcliffe Camera) worth 50%, and a picture exam worth 50%. Best of all, we get a signed letter from our professor that allows us free entry into the colleges which all the other riff-raff would have to pay to see.
Sport
and the Modern City
Another
pretty self-explanatory course title. This class is another fairly large one
and is made up of planning students and coaching students. Apparently “coaching”
is a major at Brookes and it’s pretty obvious who the coaching students are,
and who the planning students are. Our teacher is a towering Brit who
apparently played professional rugby back in the day. That may explain why he
walks with a slight limp. He seems like a nice enough guy, just don’t show up
late, because he will stop his lecture mid-sentence to admonish your tardiness.
He does this to every late person so during the first five minutes of his
lecture you hear more “please be on time” than actual subject matter. It takes
him 5 minutes to complete a sentence. Come to think of it, he’s kind of grumpy
but I haven’t been one of the stragglers yet, and I don’t plan on it. The
course work for this class is an essay proposal with an annotated bibliography,
and an essay writing about a sports venue. So basically, one essay will decide
my mark. Good thing it’s an interesting subject. I’ve chosen to discuss the All
England Lawn and Tennis Club and the Wimbledon tennis complex in the London
suburbs. This means I am required to go and take a tour, perhaps multiple
tours. If my selection of courses are an accurate microcosm of the English
university system (and I don’t think they are), the profs have the easiest jobs
ever. They can just let their students loose all over England on field trips and call it “teaching”. What a great gig.
Gaia:
The Earth as a Living System
My final course is the one class without a field trip component. But still 3 out 4 isn’t bad. This class is another small, seminar style one with only 12 or 13 students. This is the biggest “thinker” of all my classes. My three other classes are fairly straightforward. I am learning new content, but none of it has been or looks to be revolutionary or exceptionally challenging. But that all goes out the window of my second floor classroom on Friday afternoons when I sit down and try to make sense of Gaia: The Earth as a Living System. Gaia Theory was the theory championed by Dr James Lovelock, a British chemist who worked with NASA before becoming a sort of “maverick” scientist, conducting experiments from his home lab instead of being restrained by the scientific establishment. The story is long, but in a nutshell, Lovelock (after conducting numerous experiments, and consulting volumes of data) hypothesized that the Earth is a great living organism that regulates its own temperature and keeps conditions on the planet optimal for all of life (of which humans are part). One of the best pieces of evidence for the theory was that since life began on Earth, the Sun has steadily increased its heat output yet Earth’s temperature has remained stable. Lovelock thought that the biota (aka the sum of all life on Earth) through was the regulating factor. He now predicts apocalyptic destruction in the near future for humanity because we have so altered the atmosphere and biosphere that regulate the temperature of the planet. The problem with the theory is that scientists basically ignored it for years, dismissing it as “radical hippie nonsense” and it is not without its critics even today.
My final course is the one class without a field trip component. But still 3 out 4 isn’t bad. This class is another small, seminar style one with only 12 or 13 students. This is the biggest “thinker” of all my classes. My three other classes are fairly straightforward. I am learning new content, but none of it has been or looks to be revolutionary or exceptionally challenging. But that all goes out the window of my second floor classroom on Friday afternoons when I sit down and try to make sense of Gaia: The Earth as a Living System. Gaia Theory was the theory championed by Dr James Lovelock, a British chemist who worked with NASA before becoming a sort of “maverick” scientist, conducting experiments from his home lab instead of being restrained by the scientific establishment. The story is long, but in a nutshell, Lovelock (after conducting numerous experiments, and consulting volumes of data) hypothesized that the Earth is a great living organism that regulates its own temperature and keeps conditions on the planet optimal for all of life (of which humans are part). One of the best pieces of evidence for the theory was that since life began on Earth, the Sun has steadily increased its heat output yet Earth’s temperature has remained stable. Lovelock thought that the biota (aka the sum of all life on Earth) through was the regulating factor. He now predicts apocalyptic destruction in the near future for humanity because we have so altered the atmosphere and biosphere that regulate the temperature of the planet. The problem with the theory is that scientists basically ignored it for years, dismissing it as “radical hippie nonsense” and it is not without its critics even today.
So, this class is making us learn both the intricacies of the
theory (which involves some complex biology, physics and chemistry knowledge
that I simply do not possess) and also learning the criticisms of the theory.
We have to evaluate the critics and come up with an idea of how “Gaia sees the
world”. This is the core of our assessment as we are tasked with writing an “Awakenings
Journal” that outlines our process of thinking, and learning how to think like
a planet. It is very abstract, very complicated, and verys, very hard to fully
comprehend, especially when the literature is discussing the great guessing
game that is the origin of life. That said, I think it’s my favourite class. I
had heard of the theory beforehand, which is why I chose the course. I think
the theory is an important one in that it forces us to loosen our stranglehold
on how we conventionally view the planet. It forces us to ask deep questions,
and it forces us to really think about how we humans interact with the rest of
life on Earth. The theory is asking a lot of us, it is not perfect or without controversy,
and it makes bold statements, offering no apologies. But I think its potential
outweighs its problems or audaciousness. I’m often compelled after reading some
of the course texts to write about the theory (which makes the diary assignment
fairly easy), so a blog on the subject may be forthcoming.
I
think it promises to be an interesting semester, and although the course list
hardly resembles anything close to a conventional BLA timetable, I think there
is value in each class that can be applied to landscape architecture. Sometimes
it’s good to break away from convention for a bit.
For those interested in Gaia Theory, take a gander:
Also, a side note: the BBC has amazing programming. Top Gear obviously sets the bar high, but other shows like Wonders of Life, and The Planners (which is hilarious, Guelph people know what I mean) are great too. It's a pity it's unavailable online anywhere outside the UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment