n o

The answers of the teacher are uncertain, vague, incomplete and questioning. It is pos-sible to learn – on condition we are prepared to listen to that which we hear around us and are prepared to become responsible by becom-ing human. Maybe it will be possible if we can reflect upon our actions in the context of that which is our legacy? Over and above the vocabulary of philosophers we must learn the words with which philosophers without phi-losophy philosophise and those ordinary words with which architecture without architects is made. Architecture and design are specialised disci-plines, but should not be isolated to the world of the specialist. Creativity is not restricted to science, to art, to literature, but is in every aspect of life.1 Naturally these disciplines have their own vocabularies – but the exclusive sys-tem of the modernist with its private language, is to be distrusted. First year is about the discovery of the self – the imaginations, dreams, visions and personal myths of every student – and the teacher will search for differences and diversity and will stand guard against the accepted theoretical, the credited functional, the trusted routine, the assumed rational, the addictive conduct. And how is learning to be achieved? By dia-logue and confrontation, confrontation with as wide a variety of architectures, as wide a variety of texts, as wide a variety of contexts, as wide a variety of scales, as wide a variety of approaches as is possible. Architecture is learned and taught through discourse. Teachers search for new confrontations, of which they do not know the answers through repetition – especially of earlier successful investiga-tions. They are aware of the refutability of any response and the chasm between word and image