Recently I was in Europe, speaking with an accomplished young author and professor from Germany. Her name was Lillian, and we spent some time talking about our respective teaching philosophies. Because I so often co-purpose my approaches to my Scarlett Consulting design and construction clients with my approaches in teaching at the university level, the conversation got me to thinking about the business practices of AEC clients and friends.
Specifically, Lillian spoke of a teaching practice that she borrowed from Gruppe 47 –a literary association formed in Germany in 1947, just after the end of World War II. As a Professor of Rhetoric at Universität Tübingen, Lillian structures her classroom so that the students read their written works aloud to their peers. She then invites the peer group to fully share their opinions of the work to the author. So far, sounds normal. The catch: the author is not ‘allowed’ to explain even one detail of the ‘whys’ behind their written creation.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I am always dying to explain ‘why’ when I have an idea. Many times—when working as Director of Business Development in various AEC firms—I would be dying to explain the rationale behind a proposed idea, concept, or strategy. Often I’d either want to build it up by giving background assumptions first, or at a minimum I would want to explain additional details before actually hearing the feedback of others. {In my personal life, even when I am sharing a photograph, drawing, or piece of creative writing, I want to explain it!}
The result? Well, sometimes I’d get: ‘”Ohhh, now I see what you mean. Makes sense.” But in my heart I would realize: “Hmm. If they did not ‘get’ it sans my explanation, will it really work? Especially considering I will not be present to ‘explain’ during execution of this particular idea or strategy.”
These days in my classroom, I vacillate. Sometimes I invite the speaker to share his intentions with the class post-presentation. Other times, I do as Lillian does: insist that the student deliver his speech, hear the feedback of others, and simply absorb with no chance to explain or rebut.
Obviously, the advantage of having creative work ‘speak for itself’ is that it’s the true test of how (or if!) your audience receives it. For example, if a marketing campaign needs explanation in order to get results and action from the ‘audience’, then will it succeed? Presumably not. If a corporate client needs an explanation of your proposed design for the lobby in it’s new building {“Sure, Mr. Client, do you see how the juxtaposition of this glass wall with that water wall speaks to your brand?”}, then will it really be a winning design solution?
This brings me back to you, AEC industry readers. In university, all of us were frequently delivering design presentations to colleagues/classmates of our work. In those cases, we would have the chance to expand/explain through Q&A sessions. But are there times, perhaps, when we might have benefited from simply letting the design speak for itself? No explanation whatsoever, beyond perhaps the simple parameters (budget; user group/type; timeframe).
Many design firms integrate some sort of semblance of ‘school’ into their firm culture by providing forums for pin-up critiques, charettes, etc. Give some thought to whether or not you think this teaching method would be helpful and relevant in your firm—-in all of the creative departments (including business development and marketing!)