A Joint Manifesto for Design Studios based on Residuals and Experiences

Architectural education encompasses different approaches from past to present; it is continuously researched and is both vocational and personality training. An updated manifesto for the current era is essential to ensure that the design approaches and tools updated by the boundless opportunities presented by the 21 century do not overwhelm the proven principles from the past. In the early 21 century, the restructuring process of architectural education is being reawakened through unique education approaches. The studio that constitutes the backbone of design education must also produce the manifesto. Manifesto principles that express the approaches related to the stages and are fictionalised through binary propositions need to provide a paradigm that exceeds a linear process for the studio environment. The proposition for all actors of the design process and learning programmes is based on an independent configuration in which studios focus on learners. Manifestos need to be renewed as long as the epoch is flourishing, while concerns about the internalisation of design knowledge and ways of thinking, skills, and experiences exist. The present manifesto is also a future building block. To rest studio manifestos on a joint manifesto similar to one proposed in this text, because of renewed and diversified practices, it is necessary to maintain an architectural education that does not lose itself and people within the universe of infinite possibilities.


Transforming architectural education
Architectural education encompasses different approaches from past to present; it is continuously researched and is both vocational and personality training. In the architectural education environment that has evolved into a learning-centred process, interaction-based methods and approaches containing different ways of thinking have come into focus. Balamir (1992) suggests that education is a process that aims not only to provide knowledge and skill but also to develop a philosophy of life and professional ethics. The process contains exercises conducted to provide students with systematic thinking and develop skills in relation to the design process through academic and practical knowledge (Inceoğlu and Inceoğlu, 2004). However, defining the architectural profession that continuously renews itself due to economic, social and technological factors leads us to the architectural education that tries to comply with it (Düzgün, 2004). Social and industrial transformation of the globalising world also exercises influence over the architectural discipline. When viewed from this perspective, it is necessary to find new ways that engage in time and space, logic and causality, and remodel architectural education according to ideals that are universally approved (Gür, 2014). It is also aimed at determining criteria, conditions, and qualities at institutional organisations such as UIA (Union of International Associations), NAAB (National Architectural Accrediting Board), TMMOB (Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects), Communication Group of Department Chairpersons of Architectural Schools of Turkey also known as MOBBIG, Architectural Accreditation Board of Turkey also known as MIAK (Kılıçaslan, 2015).

Critical horizons
Despite all changes in this era, the principles, rules, and practices of Beaux-Arts and Bauhaus models still remain effective in design teaching. On the other hand, the criticism raised against the traditional approaches to architectural and design education has increased since the 1960s and 1970s and thus, alternative teaching models and new paradigms have come into view (Salama, 2015). Where changes and transformation are considered principal, Weiner (2006) has formed a common framework for architectural education by determining five horizons. He identifies these five critical horizons under the titles of "teaching, history/theory/criticism, philosophy, literature, and sensitivity". He introduces teaching as power transferred from one to another and suggests that it creates a mutual fellowship between students and teachers, essential for architecture. As the discipline of history that challenges the invariant order of knowledge is trying to find the boundary between changeable and unchangeable, Aristotle's suggestion that only universal ones can have knowledge weakens the position of history. While the apparent existence of the theoretical knowledge disseminated by Aristotle creates the necessary space for action, the formation of the knowledge principles required for the architectural discipline itself feeds on Vitruvius' ideas.
The position that Aristotle's Poetika' occupies in poetry and literature is the same as 'De Architectura' by Vitruvius and the space it occupies in architectural education. Weiner (2006) states that architecture and architectural education is not exempt from criticism; just like literature, it is subject to literary criticism. Research determining the universal one in philosophy generates narratives dating back to Plato and Aristotle, ranging from perceptible to imperceptible, from sensitive to insensitive. The necessity to generate a creative and imaginary dimension in architectural education is associated with the authenticity of both logical and poetical perception, thus synchronising philosophy and literature. Sensitivity refers to a position between thoughts and senses that, free from materialism, deepens experiences based on form and expression, altering students' ability to observe. Critical horizons depend on the coexistence of contrasts and expect each of education's environments to respond in compliance with an approach that is particular to the coexistence.

Restructuring and studio
In the early 21 st century, the restructuring process of architectural education has again been raised due to unique-suggestion education approaches. In the process of architectural education, approaches that allow for information exchange, analysis, and evaluation studies are required, particularly for studio practices. Wang (2010), in recent years, refers to the efforts to set a model for generating new paradigms while assessing and evaluating the general situation of design studios. Restructuring the design studios, described as the heart of architectural education (Dutton, 1987), brings forward some requirements due to the experiences encountered as a result of today's conditions. The learning environment requires content open to the innovations of the era. In the architectural education environment, evolving into a learner-centred process, interaction-based methods and approaches that allow for a different way of thinking come into focus.
Meanwhile, another principal expectation is that architectural education will not break with traditional principles. The crucial point is the possible response to the question 'What are the components that unavoidably change but need to be delicately preserved?' So, the necessity of defining internal and external dynamics generated by changes encountered in the architectural environment is the point in question.
It is said that architectural education must raise vocational awareness and enhance lifelong efforts to learn and gain experience (Kulaksızoğlu, 1995). Studios that provide an experiential environment can contribute directly to personal and vocational development. Architectural education must be treated as a life practice that lives on the interaction of all actors involved in the process. The concern for keeping up with variability inevitably moves into the education programmes. Even though approaches and design tools utilised for architectural education become diversified, 'human' is the focal point for all formed opinions. A learning process in which designers are expected to create their design approaches and where pre-formulated methods and ideas are not dictated must be decided. When the process based on learner-teacher interaction is considered together with life-long learning, bidirectionality that lives in each becomes a current issue. To present the importance of this interaction for the learning environment and determine the steps that will enlighten the process, a leading age/era manifesto is required.
A design studio is an interactive environment that allows learners to find innovations concerning themselves, their age, and architecture (Kalaycı, 2016). Studio culture occurs as a consequence of the flexibility of being able to restructure itself and generates a model indicating how learning will take place. It is a collaborative understanding and learning process rooted in discovering and restructuring the causality of knowledge instead of transferring it (Aydınlı, 2015). Providing learners with a holistic perspective and the ability to establish relationships turns knowledge attainment into an inherent behaviour pattern (Aydınlı, 2003). Studio setup, as it is, is a participative and flexible structure based upon components that are involved in programmes of learning. The structure also expects knowledge obtained through theoretical lessons to be incorporated into the process after being filtered as well as informal education opportunities to be benefited from. Instead of confining themselves to doctrines existing in literature, learners must be provided with an environment that allows them to find knowledge independently. Schön (1985) emphasises that it must be possible for a learner to learn both design fact itself and acquire the design experience. Ochsner (2000) opinions that the design process is internalised and approaches design education from a personal way of thinking rather than problems and solutions.
For studio culture, action-based learning in which all actors cooperate is a given. This learning method shows learners how to act individually in cooperation by observing other actors and how to proceed during the design process (Schön, 1987). That 'the teacher must be an advisor rather than a router ' Yürekli and Yürekli (2002) emphasises raising individuals who learn by experience how to research, think, and design within the architectural education process. According to Inceoğlu and Inceoğlu (2004), the lecturer-centred approach that was once effective has changed in architectural education, and learners have gradually become independent from formal education. Therefore, architectural education has gradually turned into a learner-centred process. In a similar vein, Mutaqi (2018) states that learners will start the studio process, and teachers take an active role in advising learners to comprehend a problem and produce solutions. Accordingly, the process needs a pedagogic framework that is structured, although boundaries are indefinite.
Different approaches can be considered while setting up design studios according to the epoch and current production practices. In this regard, the adversaria obtained from publications between 1999 and 2020 relating to the research area' design studio' of the periodical Journal of Architectural Education, through which worldwide architectural education practices can be examined, reflects unique alternatives that have been incorporated into studio practices.
Studio works of Weather Register focus on site-specific weather and use cases. In studios based on generating small programs and designing them according to specific geographical conditions, designs and analyses through which solutions for different geography, climate, and ground features are produced are given a place (Liu et al., 1999).
Boundary Studies centre upon questioning the notion of boundary in interpersonal relations and casual environments, gaining experience as an architect about the role of students in the world and the world's role for them. Studio exercises target the current habituated environments and search how to reconsider place and configuration according to the circumstances of coexistence (Chi, 1999).
The principle for a studio based on the sense of Design-Build is to build dwellings that necessitate the design-production process to maintain the quality from diagram to construction. In a studio that provides an environment for making design innovations relating to materials and construction, the enforcer is the one who directs designs in cooperation rather than dictates (Archer- Barnstone, 2002).
Rapid Response and Compassionism have a critical pedagogy sense that concentrates on generating architect identity and establishing a connection again with social and moral imperatives (Verderber, 2003).
Studio South provides a framework that adds an intellectual depth to the design-build process of theoretical problems and community interaction. The process, which is handled theoretically, practically and strategically, allows operating on an existing structure to reveal hidden relationships, create new spaces and activate a static site. It allows the investigation of a historic site and to learn about the politics and community that created it as well as the architectural implications (Erdman, 2006).
In the North Studio, serving as a modern version of the traditional Beaux-Arts atelier model, projects with notional content aiming to develop and produce research are given a place. In every project, traditional ideas concerning the relationship between landscape and architecture are interrogated, and concepts and design ideas are generated. The studio collaborates with students and customers to design and apply projects that will be built (Huge, 2009).
Remote Studio casts about for coupling architectural works onto patterns of action. Arranged area/trip works encourage students to think of and redefine their priorities when they are away from the studio. Studio combining practices of architecture with settling conceptions and material features of regional context provides a mechanism to learn coexistence and cooperation (Taylor, 2010).
Design Games offer an approach to discovering the boundaries of design-studio context. Scenarios, diagrams, place/time games benefit in learning urban informality processes. Student-centred pedagogic techniques are formalised by spatial and formal solution-seeking (Owen et al., 2013).
The 8 Mile Baseline Studio formulates a politic-aesthetic project that handles urban inequality by considering the border between a city and its suburbs. It takes advantages of pedagogic means that make the intangible urban dynamics of thinking and visualisation visible (Ghosn, 2015).
The transLAB and transSTUDIO that integrate movement pedagogics into a studio setting aims to develop new transformable-based designs through the cumulative substantiality of theory and practice. Getting involved in an intangible mechanism, including a transformable shading device, makes it possible to heighten awareness of interactions between mechanical limitations and environmental requirements (Kalantar and Borhani, 2016).
Design by Decoding includes code-based research relating to the definition of architecture and the borders of a designer's role. Case studies describe the creation process of digital architectural discourses/spatial production utilising cultural software and plays (Pearson, 2017).
The Social Condenser Studio focuses on generating specific and significant programmatic content for social, cultural and technological context based on the present condition. The pedagogic framework and methodology of the studio do not separate diagram from design. As part of the design, diagrams pertain to the informative and definitive level of the architectural object (Fullaondo and Gauci-Seddon, 2018).
The Un-Working studio model used the workshop format to enact new pedagogical paradigms within design education. The workshop serves as an experimental platform outside curricular credit models. In ateliers, where architectural production is centred, assumptions are problematised through conversations among architects, educators, historians, and, most importantly, students (Jacobs and Utting, 2019).
Alternate Endings handle the approach to new spatial applications and pedagogic models through inventory practices of the modern demolition industry. In studios, material strategies and material management focus on urban networks, from environmental policy to spatial order (Li, 2019).
The Virtual Other Studio, based on virtual agents, contains phases in which three prominent technologies such as design users (or digital human figures), software users, and user avatars become prominent. Various virtual applications corroborate the opinion that design information is a techno-social action in architectural practice and education (Canizares, 2020).
The application and intellectual area of architecture include much theoretical knowledge and the ways to obtain it. Even though the referred to design practices contain various pedagogic approaches, the crucial point is that none of them is sufficiently separate. As a dynamic, variable, and inclusive fact, design studios evolve into processes that aim at changing individual and typical thoughts and are updated through innovative and rich content. Studio applications and interactions focusing on experience need to identify problems and pathfinder paradigms.
Thus, the study focuses on creating a framework manifesto for an anonymous studio environment in consideration of the researchers' studio experiences (13 + 27 = 40-year experience). The aforesaid experiences were blended with residuals left behind by studio applications published in journals that demonstrate the periodic and national practices representing the World practice.
The focal point leads to the following questions: 1. When studio culture is considered as a philosophy/ discipline above all, what may be the components? 2. When it is asked to declare a solution that is likely to correspond to each studio problem area that literature and experience characterise in the form of manifesto clause through a philosophic/associative way, what clauses are particular to the 21 st century?
The study was fictionalised within the context of a phenomenological approach based on events, experiences, and opinions by way of thoroughly examining studio environments (literature+personal experience). Seamon (2000) describes phenomenology rooted in philosophy as a critical approach that intends to comprehend events deeply in an experiential manner rather than create cause-effect relations that contain hermeneutics. Phenomenology, forming the study's methodology, bears upon lived and unique experiences of a phenomenon (Edwards, 2001;Vagle, 2018). According to Merleau-Ponty (2012), phenomenology consistently evaluates and transforms its own method.
In this regard, the researchers' personal experiences make it possible to understand problems related to studio environments in their entirety and tackle the setup-functioning-evaluation stages philosophically. Residuals coming from literature and lived experiences, potential problems, and subjective observations that offer solutions corresponding to these problems have a role in developing a manifesto (Fig. 1).
The impressions/residuals that the literature reviews have generated and the researchers' experiential backgrounds dating back to the end of the last century compose the study's 'setup' stage. Each of the researchers has continued to gain experience in studio environments of different universities. The researchers shared the same studio in the 2019-20 autumn semester and operated, based on their backgrounds from literature and experiences, under a single setup. The 'functioning' part of the study model states these parallel and intersecting experiences. For the final stage of the study, namely 'evaluation', this is a part where fundamental problem areas are determined, and each one is converted to a manifesto clause to create a vision for the future through an accumulation of knowledge that has been, until today, read and acquired after the researchers returned to their parallel actions. Typing manifesto clauses (evaluation result) came to an end when the correspondence between the researchers became invariable/saturated.

Bidirectional manifesto, pedagogical framework proposition
Manifestos that allow taking action against reality can be defined as a body of rules serving actors of the design process and learning programmes. In the present study, manifesto is replaced with studio culture, which forms the backbone of architectural education in terms of scope, setup, and functioning. Manifesto consists of three phases: 'setup', 'functioning', and 'evaluation'. It always makes bidirectional sentences to maintain traditional present continuous.

Setup principles
'Get support from informal, but consider formal as principal!', 'Know, but head away from what you don't know!', 'Be independent, but have a manifesto!' A studio environment retiring into its shell and being dependent on only people inside and their ideas may produce a restrictive situation. For this reason, continuous knowledge flow and sharing, both internally and externally, is required. Emam et al. (2019) call attention to the necessity of active and collaborative group studies for which learners inside and outside of the studio environment interact with each other. Aslan (2016), likewise, draws attention to a collaborative practice environment and references the necessity of actors' collective synergy, who work up a connection with other disciplines and architecture and meet on common ground such as learning. Such activities as workshop, exhibition, panel, tour, forum, competition, e-learning are supposed to occur in studio culture. Studio participants must be oriented to the processes in which they will be able to present their knowledge and experiences and enhance their vocational development in conformity with the necessities of the time. Such an environment prevents the studio process from staying within itself and makes it essential to contact the global dimension. Within all these events, individuals appear as those who activate what they know and try to find out what they do not know. Collective actions in-studio and various extracurricular practices will bring unlimited freedom of thoughts and reveries. In order that infiniteness does not turn into directionlessness and chaos, individuals have principles that they will use while carrying out their self-evaluation; here, a unique studio manifesto is of the essence.

Functioning principles
'Benefit from different viewpoints, but be clear!', 'Determine roles, but generate a non-hierarchical interaction environment!', 'Do a jury, but centre learners!', 'Incorporate computers into the process, but emphasise imagination, thinking, and originality!' The functioning of the studio is open to interaction with the external world. It sometimes provides an interactive environment where architects and other participants are included in the process, and no hierarchical discrimination among individuals exists. Everybody who takes part in the process that can be described as democratic, humanistic, independent, and participative are in the position of learner. Esin (2003) states that education in the design studio is based on some rudiments: learners realise themselves, they are conscious of their ideas, free to choose and able to criticise. The particular language of design is a language generated through the combination of drawing and speaking in a studio environment (Uluoğlu, 2003). The language procures teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions and encourages learners to think by speaking and drawing. Individuals involved in design action tend to speak their mind through both verbal expression and architectural expression language. Introducing the methods to reach the information, group studies arranged in this regard, generating interactive environments like a jury, are defined as the necessities. The digitalisation of design and expression leads to efficiently fixing and sharing designs (Kalaycı, 2020). Taking advantages of all kinds of analogue and digital tools allows for structuring learning habits after reconsideration. Digital architectural tools are supposed to strengthen the objects of representation and production and enhance interaction and productivity. Accordingly, compatibility with the conditions of the existing system, gradually digitalising, is essential. For this, the new generation's socio-cultural habits and comprehension styles need to be perceived, and studio setup and functioning need to be superimposed on these styles.

Evaluation principles
'Grade the product, but remember the process!', 'Declare the result, but indicate transience, plurality, and relativity as well!' The studio contains the processes during which thoughts turn into tangible products and completed designs are evaluated after being criticised through more understandable systems. Onat (2006) defines evaluation as a process within which objective shapes are generally quantified, and assessments are carried out based on the results obtained. Besides this, it emphasises that assessments are carried out based on subjective comments when outcomes cannot be objectively quantified. That is to say that it is a must to carry out subjective assessments on a critical platform. In a studio as an environment where the importance is attached to the process rather than the outcomes, different ways of thinking and interactive methods are utilised; turning it into an independent and critical environment where several methods are used together is unavoidable. Assessments that will be carried out when it comes to the final phase must be sophisticatedly designated for the whole process, and possible further results of a study completed other than giving an absolute final grade. Process evaluation publishes specific criteria of the studio environment for education, and assessment intended for possible further results prepares learners for the values in the real world. Like studio functioning, the evaluation process provides an environment where learners can carry out self-assessment by revealing all aspects of designed products that are deficient, defective and need to be well detailed. Scagnetti (2017) suggested that environments that live on independent thinking and focus on self-assessments must be taken as a model that sympathises with the situation described above. Thus, comprehending how, who, and for what the notion called success is assessed, as well as plurality and sometimes discrepancy in assessments, discloses the fact that no result values relating to success in design are absolute and that the situation named success undergoes change depending on time, actors, and values.

Concluding remarks
Findings, which represent researchers' mental projection, convert each of the solution proposals relating to problems to manifesto clauses and aim to be a resource for new studio processes. Manifesto clauses, each considered a research finding, are assumed to take place in pedagogical setups that will be formed for studios containing various unique trends.
Studios have basic pedagogical strategies and create an opportunity to benefit from several design methods as part of knowledge and experiences (Kalantar and Borhani, 2016). On the other hand, it is also essential to try new methods. Of studio culture, the aspect that provides an inspirational, creative, and engrossing experience is that learners' motivation increases, and personal and vocational development are supported (Koester, 2006).
Today's architectural education environment focuses on architectural suggestions that are open to different types of knowledge and cognition and can commune with place, society, action, and nature and generate such suggestions (Kalaycı, 2016). Setup, functioning, and evaluation are hereinafter put forward as the phases that compose the integrity of studio (Fig. 2).
The most important aspect of studio culture is a manifesto specific to the studio and its consistency with the programme/application. The setup, functioning, and evaluation stages of an architectural design studio require an epoch/age manifesto. Without this, nothing is accomplished; in other words, 'Too many men, too many minds…' Despite renewed and diversified programmes/applications, it is necessary to base studio manifestos upon a joint manifesto similar to that proposed in this text in order to maintain an architectural education that does not disregard itself and humans in the universe of infinite opportunities. That a joint manifesto, representing the beginning of the 21 st century, will take a significant role in moving the past with continuity to the future with uncertainties and therefore needs to be formalised through non-linear binary propositions that are partitioned using 'but' is the unique proposition of the present study. The suggestion concerning the process/methodology of developing such a finding, which can be named manifestation, indicates that more comprehensive philosophical/mental processes will produce unique manifestos for the rest of the 21 st century. The study must be considered as a first step.