TRACING	
  THE	
  WILD	
  BEAM:	
  
AN	
  INVESTIGATION	
  OF	
  THE	
  PROCESS	
  APPROACH	
  IN	
  USE	
  	
  
AT	
  PRICKLY	
  MOUNTAIN,	
  VERMONT	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  by	
  	
  KELSIE	
  M.	
  GREER	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  A	
  THESIS	
  	
  Presented	
  to	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  the	
  History	
  of	
  Art	
  and	
  Architecture	
  and	
  the	
  Graduate	
  School	
  of	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Oregon	
  in	
  partial	
  fulfillment	
  of	
  the	
  requirements	
  for	
  the	
  degree	
  of	
  Master	
  of	
  Arts	
  	
  March	
  2014	
  
	
  	
   ii	
  
THESIS	
  APPROVAL	
  PAGE	
  	
  Student:	
  Kelsie	
  M.	
  Greer	
  	
  Title:	
  Tracing	
  the	
  Wild	
  Beam:	
  An	
  Investigation	
  of	
  the	
  Process	
  Approach	
  in	
  Use	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Vermont	
  	
  This	
  thesis	
  has	
  been	
  accepted	
  and	
  approved	
  in	
  partial	
  fulfillment	
  of	
  the	
  requirements	
  for	
  the	
  Master	
  of	
  Arts	
  degree	
  in	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  the	
  History	
  of	
  Art	
  and	
  Architecture	
  by:	
  	
  Albert	
  Narath	
   Chairperson	
  Brook	
  Muller	
   Member	
  Ocean	
  Howell	
   Member	
  	
  and	
  	
  Kimberly	
  Andrews	
  Espy	
   Vice	
  President	
  for	
  Research	
  and	
  Innovation;	
  	
   Dean	
  of	
  the	
  Graduate	
  School	
  	
  	
  Original	
  approval	
  signatures	
  are	
  on	
  file	
  with	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Oregon	
  Graduate	
  School.	
  	
  Degree	
  awarded	
  March	
  2014	
  	
   	
  
	
  	
   iii	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   ©	
  2014	
  Kelsie	
  M.	
  Greer	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   iv	
  
THESIS	
  ABSTRACT	
  	
  Kelsie	
  M.	
  Greer	
  	
  Master	
  of	
  Arts	
  	
  	
  Department	
  of	
  the	
  History	
  of	
  Art	
  and	
  Architecture	
  	
  March	
  2014	
  	
  Title:	
  Tracing	
  the	
  Wild	
  Beam:	
  An	
  Investigation	
  of	
  the	
  Process	
  Approach	
  in	
  Use	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Vermont	
  	
   This	
  thesis	
  attempts	
  to	
  shed	
  light	
  on	
  the	
  process	
  approach	
  developed	
  at	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain,	
  Vermont	
  by	
  investigating	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  Yale	
  professors	
  Robert	
  Engman	
  and	
  
Chris	
  Argyris.	
  As	
  a	
  sculptor,	
  professor	
  Engman	
  influenced	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain	
  builders	
  interacted	
  with	
  their	
  materials,	
  allowing	
  space	
  for	
  discovery.	
  On	
  the	
  
other	
  hand,	
  professor	
  Argyris	
  from	
  the	
  Industrial	
  Administration	
  program	
  inspired	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain	
  builders	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  element	
  of	
  human	
  behavior	
  in	
  interacting	
  with	
  their	
  
structures.	
  Argyris’	
  teaching	
  also	
  inspired	
  critical	
  engagement	
  with	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
  
architectural	
  education.	
  Together,	
  Engman	
  and	
  Argyris	
  present	
  a	
  more	
  in	
  depth	
  picture	
  of	
  
the	
  design	
  process	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  and	
  thus	
  help	
  to	
  provide	
  an	
  academic	
  footing	
  for	
  this	
  
otherwise	
  eccentric	
  practice.	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   v	
  
CURRICULUM	
  VITAE	
  	
  NAME	
  OF	
  AUTHOR:	
  	
  Kelsie	
  M.	
  Greer	
  	
  	
  GRADUATE	
  AND	
  UNDERGRADUATE	
  SCHOOLS	
  ATTENDED:	
  	
  	
   University	
  of	
  Oregon,	
  Eugene	
  	
   University	
  of	
  California,	
  Santa	
  Cruz	
  	
  	
  DEGREES	
  AWARDED:	
  	
  	
   Master	
  of	
  Arts,	
  History	
  of	
  Art	
  and	
  Architecture,	
  2014,	
  University	
  of	
  Oregon	
  	
   Bachelor	
  of	
  Arts,	
  History	
  of	
  Art	
  and	
  Visual	
  Culture,	
  2008,	
  University	
  of	
  	
  	
   	
   	
   California	
  Santa	
  Cruz	
  	
  	
  AREAS	
  OF	
  SPECIAL	
  INTEREST:	
  	
  	
   History	
  of	
  Architecture	
  	
   Urban	
  Development	
  	
  	
  	
  PROFESSIONAL	
  EXPERIENCE:	
  	
  	
   Program	
  Coordinator,	
  San	
  Luis	
  Obispo	
  Regional	
  Rideshare,	
  2009-­‐2011	
  	
  GRANTS,	
  AWARDS,	
  AND	
  HONORS:	
  	
  	
   Roger	
  Keith	
  Swim	
  Innovation	
  Award,	
  University	
  of	
  Oregon,	
  2013	
  	
  	
   Ina	
  McClung	
  Scholarship,	
  University	
  of	
  Oregon,	
  2013	
  	
  	
   Ina	
  McClung	
  Scholarship,	
  University	
  of	
  Oregon,	
  2011	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  
	
  	
   vi	
  
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	
  	
  I	
  wish	
  to	
  express	
  sincere	
  appreciation	
  to	
  Albert	
  Narath,	
  for	
  inspiring	
  my	
  research	
  
topic	
  and	
  for	
  his	
  continual	
  support	
  and	
  encouragement	
  throughout	
  my	
  graduate	
  studies.	
  I	
  also	
  
am	
  grateful	
  for	
  the	
  support	
  of	
  Brook	
  Muller,	
  whose	
  enthusiasm	
  encouraged	
  my	
  progress	
  and	
  
to	
  Ocean	
  Howell	
  for	
  his	
  assistance	
  in	
  completing	
  this	
  project.	
  In	
  addition,	
  special	
  thanks	
  are	
  
due	
  to	
  Daniel	
  Sagan	
  for	
  sharing	
  his	
  personal	
  research	
  and	
  wisdom	
  on	
  the	
  subject	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  to	
  
David	
  Sellers,	
  Jim	
  Sanford,	
  Louis	
  Mackall	
  and	
  the	
  many	
  others	
  in	
  Warren,	
  Vermont	
  who	
  gave	
  
me	
  their	
  time.	
  Finally	
  special	
  thanks	
  to	
  Jordan	
  Koel,	
  Rachel	
  Barth,	
  Janet	
  Northey,	
  Katrina	
  
Kuglar,	
  May	
  Schlotzhauer,	
  Kate	
  Beaver,	
  Katie	
  D.	
  Hall	
  and	
  Sierra	
  Tanner	
  for	
  providing	
  a	
  
foundation	
  for	
  my	
  life	
  in	
  Eugene.	
  	
  
	
   	
  
	
  	
   vii	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
To	
  my	
  friends	
  and	
  colleagues	
  who	
  kept	
  my	
  spirits	
  lifted	
  throughout	
  this	
  process	
  and	
  
to	
  my	
  family,	
  who	
  always	
  checked	
  in.	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
   	
  
	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   viii	
  
TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  
Chapter	
   Page	
  	
  	
  I.	
  INTRODUCTION	
  ...........................................................................................................................................	
  	
   1	
  
II.	
  ROBERT	
  ENGMAN:	
  LEARNING	
  HOW	
  TO	
  SEE	
  ................................................................................	
  	
   9	
  
	
   The	
  Beginnings	
  .........................................................................................................................................	
  	
   9	
  
	
   What	
  They	
  Did	
  There	
  .............................................................................................................................	
  	
   10	
  
	
   Bob	
  Engman:	
  Encouraging	
  Invention	
  .............................................................................................	
  	
   14	
  
	
   Why	
  This	
  Matters	
  to	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  ..........................................................................................	
  	
   19	
  
III.	
  CHRIS	
  ARGYRIS	
  .........................................................................................................................................	
  	
   26	
  
	
   Personality	
  and	
  Organization	
  ............................................................................................................	
  	
   28	
  
	
   Interpersonal	
  Competence	
  ..................................................................................................................	
  	
   31	
  
	
   Theory	
  in	
  Practice	
  ...................................................................................................................................	
  	
   33	
  
	
   Steele’s	
  Work	
  .............................................................................................................................................	
  	
   37	
  
IV.	
  BEING	
  .............................................................................................................................................................	
  	
   43	
  
	
   Dimetrodon	
  ................................................................................................................................................	
  	
   43	
  
	
   The	
  Wadsworth	
  House	
  ..........................................................................................................................	
  	
   47	
  
	
   Where	
  Did	
  It	
  Go	
  from	
  There?	
  .............................................................................................................	
  	
   49	
  
	
   Yale	
  ................................................................................................................................................................	
  	
   52	
  
	
   Dear	
  Joe	
   	
  .................................................................................................................................................	
  	
   54	
  
APPENDIX:	
  FIGURES	
  ......................................................................................................................................	
  	
   59	
  
REFERENCES	
  CITED	
  ......................................................................................................................................	
  	
   71	
  
	
   	
  
	
  	
   ix	
  
LIST	
  OF	
  FIGURES	
  	
  Figure	
   Page	
  	
  	
  1.	
   Tack	
  House,	
  1965	
  ....................................................................................................................................	
  	
   59	
  	
  2.	
   Tack	
  House	
  Interior,	
  1965	
  ...................................................................................................................	
  	
   60	
  	
  3.	
   Mackall	
  House	
  Interior,	
  1967	
  .............................................................................................................	
  	
   61	
  
4.	
   Construction	
  No.	
  1,	
  Robert	
  Engman,	
  1961-­‐1962	
  ........................................................................	
  	
   62	
  
5.	
   Tack	
  House	
  Additions,	
  2013	
  ...............................................................................................................	
  	
   63	
  
6.	
   Pinhead	
  House	
  Interior,	
  1967	
  ............................................................................................................	
  	
   64	
  
7.	
   Cylinder	
  Room,	
  Pinhead	
  House,	
  1967	
  ............................................................................................	
  	
   65	
  
8.	
   Dimetrodon,	
  East	
  and	
  West	
  Exterior,	
  1971	
  .................................................................................	
  	
   66	
  
9.	
   Wadsworth	
  House	
  ...................................................................................................................................	
  	
   67	
  
10.	
  Design	
  Center,	
  1971-­‐1977	
  ...................................................................................................................	
  	
   68	
  
11.	
  Design	
  Center	
  Interior,	
  Sculpture	
  Center	
  Interior	
  ....................................................................	
  	
   69	
  
12.	
  New	
  Zion	
  Community	
  Center,	
  1967	
  ................................................................................................	
  	
   70	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   1	
  
CHAPTER	
  I	
  	
  INTRODUCTION	
  
The	
  Tack	
  House	
  (Fig.	
  1.	
  See	
  appendix	
  for	
  all	
  figures).	
  Built	
  in	
  1966	
  as	
  a	
  joint	
  project	
  
between	
  David	
  Sellers	
  and	
  William	
  Reineke,	
  two	
  recent	
  graduates	
  of	
  the	
  Yale	
  School	
  of	
  
Architecture,	
  it	
  was	
  the	
  first	
  of	
  several	
  homes	
  to	
  be	
  constructed	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  in	
  
Warren,	
  Vermont.	
  The	
  name	
  of	
  the	
  building	
  adequately	
  describes	
  its	
  shape,	
  as	
  the	
  house	
  
bends	
  to	
  one	
  side,	
  coming	
  to	
  a	
  sharp	
  point	
  that	
  pierces	
  the	
  air.	
  	
  Shortly	
  after	
  the	
  completion	
  
of	
  the	
  Tack	
  House,	
  Progressive	
  Architecture	
  published	
  an	
  interview	
  with	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Reineke	
  
and	
  author	
  C.	
  Ray	
  Smith	
  that	
  framed	
  these	
  designers	
  as	
  “renegade	
  architects,”	
  turning	
  away	
  
from	
  the	
  traditions	
  of	
  the	
  profession.	
  The	
  article	
  describes	
  the	
  Tack	
  House	
  with	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  
curiosity	
  and	
  a	
  bit	
  of	
  sarcasm,	
  calling	
  it	
  a	
  “sculpture	
  for	
  living”.1	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  Smith	
  
proposed	
  that	
  the	
  house	
  might	
  indicate	
  a	
  potentially	
  revolutionary	
  development	
  in	
  
architecture.	
  	
  
What	
  was	
  so	
  intriguing	
  was	
  not	
  just	
  the	
  home’s	
  eccentric	
  appearance	
  but	
  the	
  fact	
  
that	
  this	
  home	
  and	
  those	
  to	
  follow,	
  were	
  built	
  without	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  plans.	
  The	
  building	
  
materials	
  were	
  simple,	
  consisting	
  mainly	
  of	
  concrete,	
  plywood,	
  two-­‐by-­‐fours	
  and	
  whatever	
  
other	
  low	
  cost	
  lumber	
  they	
  could	
  purchase	
  from	
  the	
  local	
  yard.	
  The	
  houses,	
  however,	
  did	
  
not	
  come	
  together	
  in	
  a	
  typical	
  building	
  procedure.	
  Looking	
  back	
  on	
  the	
  work	
  at	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain,	
  Sellers	
  explained	
  that	
  often	
  the	
  only	
  drawing	
  completed	
  before	
  the	
  start	
  of	
  
construction	
  was	
  a	
  basic	
  design	
  for	
  the	
  foundation	
  and	
  outer	
  frame.	
  2	
  As	
  they	
  went	
  about	
  
building,	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  the	
  structure	
  would	
  emerge	
  piece-­‐by-­‐piece,	
  staircase	
  and	
  doorway.	
  
Sellers	
  believed	
  that	
  “the	
  best	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  building	
  isn’t	
  always	
  available	
  to	
  be	
  known	
  before	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  1	
  C.	
  Ray	
  Smith,	
  “Architecture	
  Swings	
  Like	
  a	
  Pendulum	
  Do,”	
  Progressive	
  Architecture,	
  47	
  (May	
  1966):	
  154.	
  	
  2	
  David	
  Sellers	
  conversation	
  with	
  author,	
  March	
  22,	
  2013.	
  
	
  	
   2	
  
you	
  are	
  making	
  it”	
  and	
  stated	
  “If	
  everything	
  you	
  know	
  is	
  already	
  known…there	
  is	
  no	
  point	
  
in	
  doing	
  it.”3	
  This	
  notion	
  of	
  “process”	
  in	
  building	
  became	
  the	
  guiding	
  force	
  behind	
  the	
  
construction	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  allowing	
  the	
  self-­‐taught	
  builders	
  to	
  make	
  design	
  decisions	
  
within	
  the	
  space	
  as	
  they	
  were	
  needed.	
  	
  The	
  materials	
  provided	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  direction,	
  and	
  
the	
  rest	
  was	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  instinct,	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  one’s	
  presence	
  in	
  the	
  space,	
  and	
  
a	
  developing	
  knowledge	
  of	
  how	
  to	
  actually	
  nail	
  something	
  together.	
  It	
  is	
  this	
  curious	
  
process	
  of	
  architectural	
  practice	
  that	
  caught	
  the	
  attention	
  of	
  Progressive	
  Architecture	
  and	
  
many	
  lifestyle	
  publications	
  in	
  the	
  late	
  1960s,	
  including	
  Glamour	
  and	
  Life	
  Magazine.	
  It	
  is	
  also	
  
this	
  method	
  that	
  has	
  served	
  as	
  the	
  thread	
  for	
  my	
  investigation.	
  	
  
Aside	
  from	
  these	
  early	
  mentions	
  in	
  scholarly	
  and	
  popular	
  publications,	
  the	
  
scholarship	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  is	
  limited.	
  Today,	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  is	
  largely	
  referenced	
  for	
  
its	
  contribution	
  to	
  what	
  is	
  known	
  as	
  “design-­‐build.”	
  Design-­‐build	
  in	
  the	
  professional	
  world	
  
today	
  has	
  come	
  to	
  mean	
  that	
  the	
  person	
  hired	
  to	
  design	
  a	
  space	
  or	
  building	
  is	
  also	
  the	
  one	
  
who	
  builds	
  it.	
  In	
  the	
  realm	
  of	
  education,	
  design-­‐build	
  programs	
  are	
  geared	
  towards	
  
providing	
  students	
  with	
  hands-­‐on	
  experience	
  in	
  construction	
  and	
  the	
  business	
  of	
  
architecture.	
  The	
  work	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  is	
  often	
  credited	
  in	
  discussions	
  around	
  the	
  
development	
  of	
  both	
  professional	
  design-­‐build	
  endeavors	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  
many	
  educational	
  programs	
  that	
  followed,	
  such	
  as	
  The	
  Yale	
  building	
  project,	
  and	
  
Yestermorrow	
  Design/Build	
  School.	
  	
  
In	
  2008,	
  Daniel	
  Sagan,	
  a	
  Professor	
  at	
  Norwich	
  University,	
  curated	
  and	
  co-­‐authored	
  
an	
  exhibit	
  and	
  accompanying	
  catalogue	
  for	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Vermont’s	
  Robert	
  Hull	
  Fleming	
  
Museum	
  entitled	
  “Architectural	
  Improvisations:	
  A	
  History	
  of	
  Vermont’s	
  Design/Build	
  
Movement,	
  1964	
  -­‐1977.”	
  This	
  catalogue	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  extensive	
  investigation	
  of	
  Prickly	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  3	
  David	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Daniel	
  Sagan,	
  “An	
  Interview	
  with	
  David	
  Sellers,”	
  Chicago	
  Architectural	
  Journal	
  10	
  (2002):	
  33.	
  	
  
	
  	
   3	
  
Mountain	
  to	
  date.	
  In	
  this	
  study,	
  Sagan	
  re-­‐introduced	
  process	
  oriented	
  methods	
  practiced	
  at	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  calling	
  it	
  “one	
  of	
  continual	
  design	
  and	
  problem	
  solving”.	
  4	
  While	
  Sagan’s	
  
work	
  serves	
  as	
  a	
  solid	
  foundation	
  for	
  further	
  study	
  into	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  I	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  
term	
  design-­‐build	
  is	
  limiting	
  when	
  discussing	
  the	
  processes	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  Today,	
  
design-­‐build	
  comes	
  in	
  stages,	
  design	
  and	
  then	
  build.	
  The	
  work	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  however,	
  
happened	
  simultaneously;	
  they	
  designed	
  as	
  they	
  built.	
  	
  
Sagan	
  does	
  however	
  mention	
  various	
  influences	
  to	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain,	
  most	
  notably	
  the	
  teachings	
  of	
  distinguished	
  Yale	
  faculty	
  members	
  Robert	
  
Engman,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Sculpture,	
  and	
  Chris	
  Argyris,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Industrial	
  Administration.	
  5	
  	
  
This	
  is	
  where	
  I	
  pick	
  up	
  the	
  discussion.	
  
My	
  thesis	
  seeks	
  to	
  flesh	
  out	
  the	
  interdisciplinary	
  and	
  intellectual	
  foundations	
  that	
  
influenced	
  the	
  processes	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  by	
  linking	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  design	
  
approach	
  to	
  the	
  architect’s	
  Yale	
  training,	
  or	
  more	
  specifically,	
  the	
  teachings	
  of	
  Robert	
  
Engman,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Sculpture,	
  and	
  Chris	
  Argyris,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Industrial	
  Administration.	
  
The	
  study	
  of	
  these	
  individuals	
  provides	
  for	
  the	
  reader	
  a	
  better	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  
foundation	
  upon	
  which	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  was	
  built.6	
  As	
  recent	
  graduates	
  from	
  the	
  Yale	
  
Architecture	
  program,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Reineke	
  appeared	
  to	
  be	
  turning	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  traditional	
  
practice	
  of	
  architecture	
  as	
  laid	
  out	
  to	
  them	
  in	
  the	
  Yale	
  program.	
  However,	
  by	
  looking	
  deeper	
  
into	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Engman	
  and	
  Argyris,	
  one	
  may	
  begin	
  to	
  understand	
  just	
  how	
  this	
  education	
  
served	
  to	
  inspire	
  the	
  creative	
  approach	
  to	
  design	
  that	
  made	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  revolutionary	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  4	
  Janie	
  Cohen,	
  Danny	
  Sagan,	
  and	
  Kevin	
  T.	
  Dann,	
  Architectural	
  Improvisations:	
  A	
  History	
  of	
  Vermont’s	
  Design	
  Build	
  Movement	
  1964-­‐1977	
  (Burlington:	
  University	
  of	
  Vermont	
  Press	
  and	
  Robert	
  Hull	
  Fleming	
  Museum,	
  2008),	
  12.	
  	
  5	
  Ibid.	
  	
  6	
  While	
  Sagan	
  mentions	
  Engman	
  and	
  Argyris,	
  he	
  gives	
  little	
  attention	
  here	
  to	
  their	
  work	
  and	
  how	
  it	
  relates	
  to	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   4	
  
in	
  the	
  1960s.	
  My	
  thesis	
  thus	
  adds	
  to	
  the	
  discourse	
  around	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  by	
  framing	
  it	
  
within	
  a	
  discussion	
  of	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  not	
  design-­‐build,	
  but	
  as	
  a	
  design-­‐process	
  rooted	
  
in	
  a	
  strong	
  intellectual	
  foundation.	
  
Recently	
  there	
  has	
  also	
  been	
  an	
  outpouring	
  of	
  writings	
  that	
  revisit	
  this	
  era	
  of	
  
architectural	
  education.7	
  While	
  my	
  thesis	
  is	
  not	
  specifically	
  focused	
  on	
  this	
  area,	
  I	
  non-­‐the-­‐
less	
  contribute	
  a	
  piece	
  to	
  the	
  story	
  of	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  education	
  in	
  architecture	
  schools,	
  
particularly	
  highlighting	
  the	
  interdisciplinary	
  approach	
  to	
  architecture	
  that	
  developed	
  at	
  
Yale	
  and	
  how	
  this	
  later	
  helped	
  to	
  change	
  this	
  school’s	
  architectural	
  curriculum.	
  	
  
During	
  the	
  young	
  architect’s	
  studies,	
  Yale	
  was	
  under	
  the	
  leadership	
  of	
  Paul	
  Rudolph.	
  
Rudolph	
  held	
  the	
  belief	
  that	
  theory	
  was	
  more	
  important	
  than	
  action	
  when	
  it	
  came	
  to	
  the	
  
development	
  of	
  one’s	
  architectural	
  practice	
  and	
  Sellers	
  fundamentally	
  disagreed.	
  Sellers	
  felt	
  
that	
  Rudolph’s	
  method	
  of	
  teaching	
  made	
  students	
  rely	
  too	
  heavily	
  on	
  their	
  instructors	
  and	
  
steered	
  students	
  away	
  from	
  taking	
  risks	
  in	
  design.	
  Disillusioned	
  by	
  the	
  traditional	
  role	
  of	
  
the	
  architect	
  as	
  hiding	
  behind	
  a	
  drafting	
  table,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Reineke	
  entered	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  
as	
  entrepreneurs,	
  with	
  the	
  goal	
  to	
  break	
  away	
  from	
  theory	
  and	
  be	
  physically	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  
entire	
  process	
  of	
  building,	
  from	
  conception	
  to	
  sale.	
  They	
  purchased	
  450	
  acres	
  of	
  land	
  just	
  
outside	
  of	
  Warren,	
  Vermont	
  with	
  the	
  intent	
  to	
  design,	
  build	
  and	
  sell	
  ski-­‐homes	
  to	
  those	
  who	
  
frequented	
  the	
  nearby	
  resorts.8	
  	
  At	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  the	
  young	
  designer’s	
  arrival	
  in	
  Vermont,	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  7	
  See,	
  Joan	
  Ockman.	
  Architecture	
  School:	
  three	
  Centuries	
  of	
  Educating	
  Architects	
  in	
  North	
  America	
  (Cambridge:	
  MIT	
  Press,	
  2012).	
  	
  8	
  David	
  Sellers	
  conversation	
  with	
  author.	
  Sellers	
  was	
  not	
  interested	
  in	
  waiting	
  around	
  for	
  work,	
  Instead,	
  he	
  and	
  Reineke	
  chose	
  to	
  follow	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  if	
  you	
  build	
  it,	
  the	
  clients	
  will	
  come.	
  In	
  the	
  interview	
  with	
  Smith,	
  Sellers	
  delivered	
  his	
  disapproving	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  state	
  of	
  architectural	
  practice:	
  “The	
  architect	
  is	
  irresponsible	
  today	
  in	
  terms	
  that	
  he	
  thinks	
  there	
  again	
  that	
  he	
  has	
  to	
  sit	
  in	
  his	
  office	
  and	
  wait	
  for	
  some	
  client	
  to	
  come	
  up	
  and	
  say	
  all	
  right,	
  build	
  me	
  that”.	
  Smith,	
  Architecture	
  Swings	
  Like	
  a	
  Pendulum	
  Do,	
  150.	
  Other	
  architects	
  at	
  this	
  time,	
  such	
  as	
  John	
  Portman,	
  were	
  working	
  in	
  a	
  similar	
  vein,	
  acting	
  as	
  both	
  architect	
  and	
  entrepreneur.	
  “Portman	
  has	
  learned	
  to	
  think	
  of	
  real	
  estate	
  architecturally,	
  and	
  architecture	
  entrepreneurially.”	
  For	
  more	
  information,	
  see	
  John	
  Portman	
  and	
  Jonathan	
  Barnett,	
  The	
  Architect	
  as	
  Developer	
  (New	
  York:	
  McGraw-­‐Hill	
  Book	
  Company	
  1976),	
  4.	
  	
  
	
  	
   5	
  
there	
  were	
  little	
  to	
  no	
  building	
  codes,	
  the	
  land	
  was	
  available	
  and	
  affordable	
  and	
  there	
  was	
  
simply	
  no	
  one	
  there	
  who	
  would	
  tell	
  them	
  not	
  to	
  build.	
  9	
  	
  
Sellers	
  and	
  Reineke	
  chose	
  Vermont	
  as	
  the	
  location	
  of	
  their	
  endeavor	
  for	
  a	
  few	
  
simple	
  reasons.	
  	
  First,	
  they	
  needed	
  space.	
  The	
  Mad	
  River	
  Valley	
  is	
  245	
  miles	
  north	
  of	
  New	
  
Haven,	
  situated	
  amongst	
  acres	
  of	
  undeveloped,	
  wooded	
  land.	
  Just	
  before	
  graduation,	
  Sellers	
  
convinced	
  a	
  few	
  of	
  his	
  fellow	
  classmates	
  to	
  invest	
  in	
  what	
  he	
  believed	
  would	
  become	
  a	
  
lucrative	
  business	
  venture.	
  They	
  began	
  building	
  with	
  loans	
  from	
  the	
  local	
  lumberyard,	
  
hardware	
  store	
  and	
  grocer,	
  each	
  of	
  whom	
  they	
  promised	
  to	
  pay	
  back	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  
summer.	
  At	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  the	
  young	
  designer’s	
  arrival	
  in	
  Vermont,	
  there	
  were	
  little	
  to	
  no	
  
building	
  codes,	
  the	
  land	
  was	
  available	
  and	
  affordable	
  and	
  there	
  was	
  simply	
  no	
  one	
  there	
  
who	
  would	
  tell	
  them	
  not	
  to	
  build.	
  	
  At	
  the	
  time,	
  Vermont	
  allotted	
  a	
  freedom	
  unavailable	
  to	
  
them	
  in	
  in	
  New	
  Haven.	
  	
  
	
  As	
  it	
  turned	
  out,	
  many	
  others	
  held	
  similar	
  ambitions.	
  Rather	
  than	
  attracting	
  wealthy	
  
homebuyers	
  as	
  initially	
  planned,	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  drew	
  the	
  attention	
  of	
  architecture	
  
students	
  from	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  top	
  architecture	
  schools,	
  including	
  Princeton,	
  Yale	
  and	
  
University	
  of	
  Pennsylvania.	
  10These	
  included	
  Peter	
  Gluck,	
  Jim	
  Sanford	
  and	
  Steve	
  Badanes,	
  
who	
  went	
  on	
  to	
  start	
  the	
  design/build	
  firm	
  Jersey	
  Devil.	
  11	
  Students	
  from	
  various	
  
architectural	
  programs	
  purchased	
  plots	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  from	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Reineke	
  and	
  
used	
  the	
  space	
  to	
  develop	
  their	
  own	
  building	
  projects.	
  By	
  1971,	
  at	
  least	
  seven	
  buildings	
  had	
  
been	
  or	
  were	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  being	
  constructed	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  9	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Reineke	
  put	
  $1,000	
  down	
  on	
  the	
  450-­‐acre	
  parcel.	
  Sellers	
  conversation	
  with	
  author.	
  	
  10	
  Sellers	
  went	
  to	
  Yale	
  to	
  recruit	
  students	
  to	
  help	
  with	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  on	
  during	
  their	
  summer	
  break.	
  He	
  offered	
  to	
  pay	
  them	
  each	
  a	
  $500	
  stipend	
  for	
  their	
  efforts.	
  David	
  Sellers,	
  conversation	
  with	
  author.	
  	
  11	
  Ibid.	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   6	
  
	
   Though	
  they	
  were	
  leaving	
  the	
  walls	
  of	
  their	
  Ivy	
  League	
  institution	
  to	
  get	
  their	
  hands	
  
dirty,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  his	
  colleagues	
  took	
  many	
  lessons	
  with	
  them	
  from	
  those	
  they	
  studied	
  with	
  
at	
  Yale.	
  The	
  first	
  to	
  be	
  discussed	
  in	
  this	
  thesis	
  is	
  the	
  sculptor	
  Robert	
  Engman.	
  Engman’s	
  
method	
  was	
  to	
  release	
  the	
  natural	
  shapes	
  within	
  a	
  material	
  by	
  applying	
  a	
  hammer	
  to	
  metal	
  
and	
  observing	
  the	
  results.	
  	
  Engman	
  stressed	
  that	
  his	
  students	
  come	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  uses	
  
and	
  limits	
  of	
  their	
  materials.	
  To	
  Engman,	
  the	
  final	
  product	
  was	
  not	
  as	
  important	
  as	
  the	
  
process.	
  On	
  his	
  website,	
  the	
  artist	
  explains:	
  
What	
  I	
  saw	
  was	
  how	
  those	
  warped	
  surfaces	
  bent	
  and	
  twisted	
  the	
  environment	
  around	
  me.	
  More	
  importantly,	
  I	
  realized	
  that	
  the	
  thickness	
  of	
  the	
  metal	
  was	
  conceptually	
  unimportant	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  polished	
  surface	
  represented	
  what	
  seemed	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  cerebral	
  metaphor.	
  It	
  no	
  longer	
  was	
  a	
  thing	
  or	
  an	
  object	
  with	
  a	
  name	
  like	
  sculpture,	
  but	
  rather	
  it	
  stood	
  as	
  a	
  metaphor	
  for	
  a	
  very	
  complicated	
  wonderment	
  or	
  dream.12	
  	
  	
  Sellers	
  was	
  exposed	
  to	
  Engman’s	
  teachings	
  as	
  a	
  student	
  at	
  Yale	
  and	
  speaks	
  fondly	
  of	
  the	
  
sculptor’s	
  lessons:	
  “[Engman]	
  had	
  a	
  theory	
  of	
  design	
  and	
  a	
  way	
  of	
  teaching	
  it	
  which	
  was	
  
magnetic.	
  …	
  He	
  would	
  talk	
  about	
  quality	
  and	
  beauty	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  which	
  was	
  just	
  so	
  clear	
  and	
  so	
  
graspable.	
  He	
  had	
  these	
  exercises	
  he	
  would	
  have	
  you	
  do	
  which	
  would	
  really	
  help	
  you	
  
understand	
  it.	
  He	
  didn’t	
  just	
  ask	
  you	
  to	
  believe	
  what	
  he	
  said.	
  He	
  would	
  have	
  you	
  try	
  it	
  out.”13	
  	
  
Engman	
  had	
  a	
  significant	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  Sellers	
  approached	
  design	
  at	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain,	
  allowing	
  the	
  environment	
  and	
  materials	
  to	
  dictate	
  the	
  structural	
  form.	
  	
  
Chris	
  Argyris	
  is	
  the	
  other	
  line	
  of	
  influence	
  that	
  this	
  thesis	
  traces.	
  Argyris	
  was	
  a	
  
professor	
  of	
  Industrial	
  Administration	
  at	
  Yale	
  from	
  1951	
  to	
  1971,	
  Argyris’	
  research	
  was	
  in	
  
human	
  behavior	
  and	
  he	
  focused	
  on	
  interpersonal	
  relationships	
  within	
  organizations.	
  He	
  
was	
  a	
  professor	
  of	
  Industrial	
  Sciences	
  at	
  Yale	
  in	
  the	
  1950s	
  and	
  1960s,	
  a	
  time	
  when	
  the	
  
behavioral	
  sciences	
  were	
  still	
  an	
  emerging	
  field.	
  Argyris	
  helped	
  to	
  build	
  a	
  foundation	
  for	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  12	
  Robert	
  Engman,	
  “Writings,”	
  Robert	
  Engman.	
  accessed	
  December	
  15,	
  2012,	
  http://www.robertengman.com/?view=writings.	
  	
  	
  13	
  Cohen,	
  Architectural	
  Improvisations,	
  36.	
  	
  
	
  	
   7	
  
this	
  area	
  of	
  inquiry.	
  His	
  early	
  work	
  focused	
  on	
  studying	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  people	
  interact	
  
and	
  react	
  within	
  the	
  workplace.	
  He	
  later	
  developed	
  methods	
  to	
  improve	
  the	
  workplace	
  
relationships	
  by	
  teaching	
  people	
  how	
  to	
  recognize	
  and	
  positively	
  change	
  their	
  behavioral	
  
patterns.	
  Overall,	
  Argyris	
  called	
  for	
  an	
  open	
  mind,	
  setting	
  aside	
  judgments	
  until	
  one	
  
understands	
  the	
  full	
  scope	
  of	
  the	
  person	
  or	
  project	
  at	
  hand.	
  	
  
The	
  theories	
  of	
  these	
  seemingly	
  separate	
  areas	
  of	
  study	
  were	
  combined	
  by	
  the	
  
builders	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  and	
  translated	
  into	
  architectural	
  methods.	
  Through	
  building,	
  
these	
  young	
  architects	
  were	
  learning	
  how	
  to	
  work	
  with	
  the	
  materials,	
  understanding	
  their	
  
uses,	
  gaining	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  what	
  was	
  possible	
  in	
  a	
  space	
  and	
  putting	
  their	
  education	
  to	
  a	
  
physical	
  and	
  very	
  real	
  test.	
  The	
  process	
  approach	
  to	
  building	
  was	
  not	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  escape	
  from	
  
the	
  classroom	
  as	
  Milne	
  expressed,	
  but	
  rather	
  served	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  dive	
  deeper	
  into	
  their	
  
education.	
  	
  
The	
  second	
  chapter	
  explores	
  the	
  teachings	
  of	
  Robert	
  Engman	
  and	
  the	
  impact	
  that	
  
his	
  methods	
  had	
  on	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  builders,	
  using	
  the	
  Tack	
  House	
  and	
  the	
  Mackall	
  
House	
  as	
  examples.14	
  This	
  chapter	
  also	
  touches	
  upon	
  the	
  history	
  of	
  the	
  Yale	
  School	
  of	
  
Architecture	
  from	
  the	
  early	
  1950’s	
  under	
  the	
  leadership	
  of	
  George	
  Howe	
  to	
  the	
  mid	
  1960’s	
  
when	
  Paul	
  Rudolph	
  finished	
  his	
  term	
  as	
  department	
  head.	
  It	
  is	
  during	
  these	
  early	
  years	
  that	
  
many	
  of	
  the	
  philosophical	
  ideas	
  that	
  influence	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  are	
  at	
  their	
  height	
  under	
  
the	
  influence	
  of	
  Howe	
  and	
  Art	
  Professor	
  Joseph	
  Albers.	
  Albers	
  was	
  a	
  prominent	
  professor	
  at	
  
Yale	
  with	
  roots	
  in	
  the	
  Bauhaus	
  and	
  Black	
  Mountain	
  College	
  and	
  deeply	
  impacted	
  Engman’s	
  
work.	
  A	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  later	
  years	
  attests	
  to	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  school	
  during	
  the	
  time	
  that	
  Sellers	
  
was	
  a	
  student	
  at	
  Yale.	
  This	
  foundation	
  serves	
  to	
  highlight	
  the	
  educational	
  methods	
  that	
  
inspired	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Sellers	
  and	
  his	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  partners.	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  14	
  Both	
  constructed	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  in	
  the	
  1960s.	
  
	
  	
   8	
  
The	
  third	
  Chapter	
  begins	
  to	
  unpack	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Chris	
  Argyris	
  and	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  
human	
  behavior	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  educational	
  and	
  process	
  oriented	
  approach	
  taken	
  at	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  It	
  also	
  introduces	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  his	
  student	
  Fred	
  Steele.	
  Together,	
  Steele	
  
and	
  Sellers	
  conceived	
  and	
  built	
  the	
  Pinhead	
  House.	
  Shortly	
  following	
  the	
  completion	
  of	
  the	
  
home,	
  Steele	
  published	
  his	
  own	
  theories	
  on	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  environmental	
  understanding	
  
in	
  organizational	
  development	
  based	
  on	
  his	
  experiments	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.15	
  In	
  this	
  
sense,	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  acted	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  test	
  not	
  only	
  architectural	
  practices,	
  but	
  served	
  as	
  
a	
  means	
  to	
  better	
  understand	
  how	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  and	
  shape	
  one’s	
  environment.	
  	
  
The	
  fourth	
  and	
  final	
  chapter	
  discusses	
  the	
  impact	
  and	
  implications	
  that	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain	
  had	
  and	
  may	
  continue	
  to	
  have	
  on	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  educational	
  practices	
  within	
  
and	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  realm	
  of	
  architectural	
  practice.	
  In	
  this	
  chapter,	
  Dimetrodon,	
  a	
  multi-­‐unit	
  
home	
  constructed	
  in	
  the	
  1970s,	
  serves	
  as	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  the	
  culmination	
  of	
  the	
  theories	
  and	
  
practices	
  that	
  were	
  developed	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  This	
  chapter	
  will	
  also	
  explore	
  the	
  
programs	
  that	
  sprang	
  from	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  most	
  notably	
  the	
  architecture	
  program	
  at	
  
Goddard	
  College	
  and	
  Charles	
  Moore’s	
  program,	
  the	
  Yale	
  Building	
  Project.	
  	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain’s	
  methods	
  extend	
  beyond	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  initial	
  construction	
  and	
  
continue	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  lasting	
  impact	
  on	
  those	
  who	
  had	
  a	
  hand	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  in	
  some	
  way,	
  
either	
  at	
  its	
  beginning,	
  or	
  even	
  now,	
  on	
  those	
  who	
  are	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  spaces.	
  The	
  final	
  chapter	
  
will	
  examine	
  these	
  impacts,	
  both	
  on	
  individuals	
  and	
  on	
  educational	
  establishments,	
  tying	
  
the	
  network	
  together.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  15	
  Fred	
  Steele,	
  Physical	
  Settings	
  and	
  Organization	
  Development	
  (Reading:	
  Addison-­‐Wesley	
  Publishing	
  Company,	
  Inc.,	
  1973).	
  
	
  	
   9	
  
CHAPTER	
  II	
  
ROBERT	
  ENGMAN:	
  LEARNING	
  HOW	
  TO	
  SEE	
  
The	
  course	
  of	
  discovery	
  has	
  no	
  measure	
  of	
  use	
  or	
  standard.	
  All	
  the	
  advances,	
  even	
  in	
  the	
  
most	
  useful	
  disciplines,	
  were	
  once	
  dreams,	
  outrageous	
  dreams,	
  at	
  one	
  time.	
  
-­‐Robert	
  Engman16	
  	
  The	
  Beginnings	
  
Driving	
  up	
  to	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  today	
  is	
  not	
  unlike	
  driving	
  into	
  many	
  other	
  American	
  
wooded	
  housing	
  developments.	
  The	
  homes	
  are	
  generally	
  organized	
  into	
  a	
  familiar	
  
neighborhood	
  system	
  with	
  three	
  main	
  roads,	
  each	
  feeding	
  into	
  one	
  another	
  to	
  create	
  an	
  
oval	
  loop.	
  What	
  is	
  not	
  so	
  familiar,	
  however,	
  is	
  the	
  form	
  and	
  presence	
  of	
  these	
  buildings.	
  
Jutting,	
  sharply	
  angled	
  roofs	
  are	
  balanced	
  by	
  bulbous	
  plexiglass	
  windows.	
  Many	
  come	
  to	
  a	
  
towering	
  point	
  as	
  though	
  they	
  are	
  striving	
  to	
  bridge	
  the	
  space	
  between	
  the	
  earth	
  and	
  the	
  
sky.	
  Their	
  exteriors,	
  constructed	
  largely	
  from	
  local	
  timber,	
  blend	
  into	
  their	
  wooded	
  
surroundings.	
  The	
  forms	
  on	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  which	
  protrude	
  from	
  the	
  ground,	
  appear,	
  as	
  
Sagan	
  stated,	
  like	
  “rock	
  outcroppings”	
  amongst	
  the	
  wooded	
  landscape.	
  As	
  one	
  moves	
  
around	
  the	
  buildings,	
  they	
  seem	
  to	
  transform.	
  Each	
  side	
  can	
  look	
  wildly	
  different	
  than	
  the	
  
others.	
  The	
  materials,	
  both	
  natural	
  and	
  manmade,	
  coupled	
  with	
  the	
  angled	
  construction,	
  
allow	
  these	
  structures	
  to	
  appear	
  at	
  once	
  integrated	
  into	
  their	
  surroundings	
  and	
  alien	
  to	
  
them.	
  Though	
  each	
  house	
  is	
  distinct,	
  these	
  characteristics	
  are	
  shared,	
  thus	
  making	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain	
  homes	
  immediately	
  identifiable.	
  
The	
  interiors	
  of	
  these	
  homes	
  are	
  equally	
  unique.	
  Moving	
  through	
  the	
  space,	
  one	
  
begins	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  movement	
  of	
  the	
  body	
  played	
  a	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  layout.	
  
There	
  is	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  fluidity	
  despite	
  the	
  angled	
  ceilings.	
  Staircases	
  twist	
  and	
  turn	
  in	
  
unexpected	
  directions,	
  sloping	
  doorways	
  seem	
  to	
  roll	
  you	
  through	
  them,	
  and	
  there	
  are	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  16	
  Nancy	
  Schiffer,	
  Robert	
  Engman:	
  Structural	
  Sculpture,	
  (Atglen:	
  Schiffer	
  Publishing,	
  Ltd,	
  2012),	
  64.	
  
	
  	
   10	
  
endless	
  nooks,	
  portholes	
  and	
  passageways	
  to	
  provide	
  privacy	
  and	
  comfort.	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  too	
  far	
  a	
  
reach	
  to	
  say	
  that	
  the	
  country’s	
  recent	
  obsession	
  with	
  space	
  exploration	
  inspired	
  the	
  
imaginations	
  of	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  designers,	
  as	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  elements	
  give	
  the	
  sense	
  of	
  
being	
  encapsulated	
  in	
  a	
  spaceship.17	
  The	
  towering	
  roofs	
  and	
  decks	
  that	
  overhang	
  the	
  sides	
  
of	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  provide	
  a	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  valley	
  and	
  town	
  as	
  though	
  the	
  inhabitant	
  is	
  
looking	
  down	
  from	
  a	
  platform	
  in	
  the	
  sky.	
  	
  
What	
  They	
  Did	
  There	
  
The	
  foundation	
  for	
  the	
  unusual	
  aesthetic	
  of	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  homes	
  was	
  largely	
  
established	
  by	
  the	
  construction	
  of	
  the	
  Tack	
  house.	
  Reineke	
  and	
  Sellers	
  began	
  building	
  with	
  a	
  
simple	
  sketch	
  of	
  the	
  frame	
  and	
  used	
  whatever	
  inexpensive	
  materials	
  they	
  could	
  purchase,	
  
or	
  rather,	
  get	
  on	
  credit	
  from	
  the	
  local	
  lumber	
  supplier.	
  As	
  they	
  built,	
  they	
  also	
  began	
  to	
  
incorporate	
  elements	
  and	
  materials	
  that	
  they	
  reclaimed	
  from	
  older	
  buildings	
  in	
  the	
  area.18	
  C.	
  
Ray	
  Smith	
  explained	
  this	
  apparent	
  curiosity:	
  “what	
  they	
  [Sellers	
  and	
  Reineke]	
  praise	
  is	
  a	
  
virtue	
  of	
  the	
  building	
  process	
  as	
  a	
  source	
  of	
  inspiration,	
  and	
  the	
  virtue	
  of	
  allowing	
  things	
  to	
  
happen	
  when	
  they	
  do.”19	
  	
  Smith	
  continued	
  by	
  proclaiming	
  that	
  their	
  work	
  indicates	
  the	
  
design	
  of	
  a	
  “new	
  generation”,	
  one	
  where	
  “young	
  architects	
  [are]	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  joy	
  of	
  
building,	
  the	
  joy	
  of	
  creation,	
  who	
  are	
  rediscovering	
  the	
  fun	
  and	
  games	
  of	
  architecture	
  and	
  
building,	
  of	
  improvising	
  new	
  solutions	
  during	
  on-­‐site	
  construction,	
  of	
  calculating	
  tactile	
  
surprises	
  and	
  imaginative	
  detailing…these	
  are	
  architectural	
  happenings.”20	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  17	
  Though	
  no	
  direct	
  reference	
  is	
  made	
  to	
  space	
  exploration	
  in	
  the	
  architect’s	
  writing	
  or	
  articles	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Louis	
  Mackall,	
  a	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  builder,	
  assured	
  me	
  that	
  this	
  was	
  certainly	
  on	
  the	
  minds	
  of	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  architects.	
  	
  	
  18	
  As	
  Sagan	
  notes,	
  beams	
  from	
  an	
  old	
  sugarhouse	
  are	
  still	
  visible	
  with	
  the	
  supporting	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  building.	
  Cohen,	
  Architectural	
  Improvisation,	
  14.	
  	
  19	
  Smith,	
  154.	
  	
  20	
  Ibid.	
  Around	
  this	
  time,	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
  participatory	
  design	
  was	
  on	
  the	
  rise	
  around	
  the	
  world	
  and	
  artistic	
  happenings	
  were	
  becoming	
  more	
  and	
  more	
  frequent.	
  The	
  term	
  “happenings”,	
  as	
  the	
  author	
  
	
  	
   11	
  
The	
  idea	
  behind	
  the	
  building	
  was	
  to	
  start	
  with	
  a	
  very	
  basic	
  and	
  undeveloped	
  idea	
  
and	
  allow	
  the	
  form	
  to	
  emerge	
  from	
  the	
  foundation	
  and	
  frame.	
  	
  Sellers	
  explained	
  it	
  this	
  way:	
  
“If	
  you	
  can	
  take	
  the	
  simplest,	
  most	
  important	
  thing	
  and	
  call	
  it	
  the	
  seed,	
  then	
  the	
  building	
  
may	
  just	
  generate	
  itself…	
  It	
  is	
  a	
  growth	
  process:	
  It	
  starts	
  with	
  nothing	
  and	
  it	
  evolves.”21	
  This	
  
organic	
  imagery	
  played	
  a	
  large	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  conception	
  and	
  writing	
  around	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  
It	
  was	
  viewed	
  as	
  a	
  cultivation	
  of	
  an	
  idea,	
  planted	
  and	
  cared	
  for	
  but	
  not	
  forced.	
  	
  
It	
  was	
  through	
  the	
  construction	
  of	
  the	
  Tack	
  House	
  that	
  the	
  builders	
  developed	
  the	
  
seeds	
  of	
  the	
  “Wild	
  Beam	
  Theory,”	
  a	
  design	
  principal	
  that	
  would	
  ultimately	
  inform	
  the	
  
methods	
  and	
  aesthetics	
  of	
  many	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  homes.	
  As	
  Reineke	
  explained,	
  the	
  idea	
  
was	
  this:	
  “When	
  you	
  have	
  a	
  joist	
  that	
  you	
  put	
  in	
  that	
  happens	
  to	
  be	
  6’	
  too	
  long,	
  and	
  [then]	
  
you	
  put	
  ‘em	
  all	
  in...they	
  may	
  start	
  to	
  develop	
  something…But	
  if	
  you	
  had	
  something	
  drawn,	
  
and	
  you	
  cut	
  them	
  up	
  to	
  follow	
  the	
  drawing	
  before	
  you	
  put	
  them	
  all	
  in,	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  it,	
  and	
  
you	
  wouldn’t	
  learn	
  what	
  the	
  pieces	
  are	
  doing	
  themselves.”22	
  By	
  leaving	
  the	
  beams	
  the	
  length	
  
and	
  shape	
  that	
  they	
  were	
  when	
  they	
  were	
  pulled	
  off	
  of	
  the	
  lumber	
  truck,	
  there	
  arose	
  the	
  
potential	
  for	
  new	
  opportunities	
  for	
  the	
  direction	
  of	
  the	
  house.	
  In	
  a	
  way,	
  the	
  beam	
  acted	
  as	
  a	
  
line	
  in	
  a	
  sketch,	
  wildly	
  drawn.	
  It	
  coaxed	
  the	
  builder	
  to	
  think	
  of	
  new	
  possibilities,	
  and	
  
allowed	
  the	
  materials	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  hand	
  in	
  directing	
  the	
  form.	
  The	
  form	
  of	
  the	
  beams	
  reveals	
  
the	
  process	
  of	
  the	
  building	
  experience	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  method	
  of	
  inquiry.	
  The	
  interior	
  of	
  the	
  Tack	
  
House	
  exhibits	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  these	
  “wild	
  beams”	
  came	
  to	
  crisscross	
  one	
  another	
  or	
  
meet	
  in	
  unpredictable	
  ways	
  (Fig.	
  2).	
  The	
  principals	
  behind	
  the	
  Wild	
  Beam	
  Theory	
  carried	
  
over	
  into	
  other	
  design	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  houses	
  as	
  well.	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  evoked,	
  is	
  a	
  term	
  that	
  is	
  often	
  used	
  in	
  reference	
  to	
  artistic	
  practices	
  of	
  the	
  1960s,	
  an	
  idea	
  that	
  will	
  prove	
  to	
  be	
  important	
  to	
  our	
  understanding	
  of	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  	
  21	
  Ibid.,	
  153.	
  	
  22	
  Ibid.	
  	
  
	
  	
   12	
  
The	
  Luis	
  Mackall	
  House	
  serves	
  as	
  a	
  prime	
  example	
  of	
  this	
  burgeoning	
  approach	
  to	
  
architecture.	
  Luis	
  Mackall	
  was	
  a	
  fellow	
  student	
  at	
  Yale	
  who	
  joined	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  
crew	
  in	
  1967	
  to	
  build	
  his	
  own	
  summer	
  home.	
  In	
  the	
  article	
  “Adult	
  Tree	
  Houses	
  on	
  Potato	
  
Road”	
  published	
  in	
  Progressive	
  Architecture	
  that	
  year,	
  the	
  Mackall	
  House	
  was	
  described	
  as	
  
an	
  example	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  phenomenon	
  in	
  design.	
  Much	
  like	
  Smith,	
  the	
  author,	
  Jim	
  Burns,	
  
emphasized	
  the	
  organic,	
  experimental	
  and	
  often	
  playful	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  architecture	
  and	
  
construction	
  was	
  approached	
  at	
  this	
  site.23	
  He	
  stated,	
  “If	
  there	
  is	
  anything	
  that	
  characterizes	
  
this	
  approach,	
  it	
  is	
  spontaneity,	
  the	
  willingness	
  to	
  operate	
  from	
  few	
  or	
  no	
  preconceived	
  
ideas	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  see	
  what	
  will	
  happen	
  in	
  solving	
  the	
  problems	
  of	
  design	
  and	
  construction	
  as	
  
they	
  arise.”24	
  Examples	
  of	
  this	
  appear	
  throughout	
  the	
  Mackall	
  house.	
  When	
  the	
  pipes	
  burst	
  
from	
  freezing	
  in	
  the	
  winter,	
  Mackall	
  cut	
  them	
  off	
  at	
  the	
  wall	
  and	
  re-­‐routed	
  them	
  into	
  the	
  
living	
  space	
  to	
  make	
  for	
  easier	
  access	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  The	
  architect	
  took	
  a	
  similarly	
  
unconventional	
  approach	
  to	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  stairs	
  leading	
  from	
  the	
  ground	
  floor	
  into	
  a	
  loft	
  by	
  
abandoning	
  his	
  original	
  spiral	
  concept	
  for	
  one	
  that	
  turned	
  at	
  a	
  sharp	
  right	
  angle,	
  deciding	
  
that	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  more	
  natural	
  movement	
  for	
  the	
  body	
  (Fig.	
  3).25	
  	
  The	
  idea	
  was	
  again	
  that	
  the	
  
building	
  was	
  allowed	
  to	
  emerge	
  almost	
  as	
  if	
  it	
  was	
  doing	
  it	
  on	
  its	
  own.26	
  	
  
Burns	
  argued	
  that	
  unlike	
  the	
  architects	
  that	
  came	
  before	
  Mackall	
  (specifically	
  Paul	
  
Schweikher	
  and	
  Edward	
  D.	
  Dart,	
  also	
  Yale	
  graduates),	
  the	
  important	
  thing	
  for	
  Mackall,	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  23	
  Jim	
  Burns,	
  “Adult	
  Tree	
  House	
  on	
  Potato	
  Road:	
  House	
  for	
  Louis	
  Mackall,	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Warren,	
  VT,”	
  Progressive	
  Architecture,	
  48	
  (1967),	
  119.	
  	
  24	
  Ibid.,	
  120.	
  	
  25	
  Ibid.,	
  125.	
  	
  26	
  This	
  notion	
  coincides	
  with	
  the	
  ideals	
  of	
  vernacular	
  architecture	
  that	
  was	
  explored	
  by	
  others	
  during	
  this	
  time.	
  Though	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  mention	
  that	
  I	
  have	
  found	
  of	
  Sellers	
  referencing	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Christopher	
  Alexander,	
  or	
  vice	
  versa,	
  there	
  are	
  similarities	
  in	
  their	
  approach.	
  Alexander	
  was	
  interested	
  in	
  the	
  notions	
  of	
  vernacular	
  architecture	
  and	
  building	
  within	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  a	
  place.	
  He	
  and	
  others	
  were	
  interested	
  in	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  non-­‐architectural	
  buildings	
  merged	
  with	
  and	
  seemingly	
  morphed	
  from	
  the	
  surrounding	
  landscape.	
  	
  
	
  	
   13	
  
Sellers,	
  Reineke,	
  and	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  others	
  who	
  had	
  a	
  hand	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  was	
  
“involvement”.	
  With	
  this	
  method,	
  the	
  architect	
  was	
  able	
  to	
  easily	
  swap	
  out	
  one	
  idea	
  on	
  the	
  
spot	
  for	
  another	
  that	
  might	
  prove	
  to	
  function	
  more	
  effectively;	
  as	
  Sagan	
  described,	
  “The	
  
process	
  of	
  working	
  with	
  the	
  materials	
  was	
  one	
  of	
  continual	
  design	
  and	
  problem	
  solving”.27	
  	
  
Each	
  beam	
  that	
  was	
  placed	
  opened	
  the	
  possibility	
  for	
  a	
  new	
  way	
  of	
  looking	
  at	
  the	
  building	
  
and	
  asked	
  the	
  designers	
  to	
  answer	
  questions	
  they	
  may	
  not	
  have	
  faced	
  should	
  they	
  had	
  it	
  all	
  
pre-­‐planned.	
  Each	
  nail	
  also	
  invited	
  a	
  new	
  avenue	
  for	
  creativity,	
  and	
  as	
  problems	
  arose,	
  new	
  
creative	
  solutions.	
  To	
  be	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  building	
  was	
  like	
  being	
  involved	
  in	
  a	
  social	
  event	
  as	
  
the	
  builders	
  interacted	
  and	
  were	
  in	
  dialogue	
  with	
  the	
  space.	
  They	
  gained	
  an	
  intimate	
  
relationship	
  with	
  and	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  buildings	
  that	
  they	
  could	
  not	
  have	
  developed	
  
simply	
  through	
  drawing.	
  	
  
Involvement	
  also	
  pertained	
  to	
  their	
  working	
  relationships.	
  Throughout	
  construction,	
  
the	
  builders	
  were	
  in	
  constant	
  dialogue	
  with	
  one	
  another	
  to	
  flesh	
  out	
  details	
  of	
  the	
  design	
  or	
  
lend	
  a	
  hand	
  in	
  construction.	
  Ed	
  Owre,	
  a	
  Yale	
  sculpture	
  graduate	
  and	
  friend	
  of	
  Sellers,	
  recalls	
  
the	
  air	
  of	
  collaboration	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain:	
  “The	
  Tack	
  House	
  gave	
  us	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  work	
  
together.	
  We	
  learned	
  more	
  from	
  each	
  other	
  when	
  we	
  were	
  working	
  together	
  than	
  we	
  
[would	
  have]	
  sitting	
  around	
  making	
  drawings,	
  and	
  I	
  don’t	
  remember	
  anybody	
  sitting	
  
around	
  making	
  drawings.	
  It	
  just	
  wasn’t	
  part	
  of	
  it.”28	
  They	
  learned	
  by	
  working	
  and	
  designing	
  
together,	
  hashing	
  out	
  their	
  dreamed	
  ideas	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  might	
  actually	
  bring	
  them	
  to	
  life.	
  It	
  
was	
  a	
  collective	
  pool	
  of	
  skilled	
  workers-­‐in-­‐training	
  and	
  each	
  could	
  bring	
  their	
  insights	
  to	
  the	
  
table.	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  27	
  Cohen,	
  Architecture	
  Improvisation,	
  12.	
  	
  28	
  Ibid.,	
  8.	
  	
  
	
  	
   14	
  
For	
  Sellers,	
  the	
  involvement	
  with	
  the	
  building	
  itself	
  was	
  also	
  necessary	
  in	
  that	
  it	
  
helped	
  to	
  give	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  what	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  like	
  to	
  live	
  in	
  the	
  space.	
  Sellers	
  argued	
  that	
  the	
  
drawing	
  only	
  created	
  an	
  idealized	
  picture	
  of	
  living	
  and	
  that	
  through	
  their	
  processes,	
  the	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain	
  designers	
  understood	
  how	
  people	
  do	
  and	
  would	
  want	
  to	
  live.29	
  It	
  was	
  a	
  
sophisticated	
  method	
  of	
  learn-­‐by-­‐doing,	
  as	
  they	
  were	
  conducting	
  an	
  experiment	
  in	
  
materials	
  and	
  design	
  thus	
  “calculating	
  tactile	
  surprises	
  and	
  imaginative	
  detailing.”30	
  	
  Each	
  
step	
  was	
  just-­‐	
  if	
  not	
  more-­‐	
  important,	
  than	
  the	
  completed	
  picture,	
  and	
  they	
  took	
  notice	
  of	
  
and	
  learned	
  from	
  every	
  move	
  along	
  the	
  way.31	
  
Bob	
  Engman:	
  Encouraging	
  Invention	
  
The	
  methods	
  undertaken	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  while	
  revolutionary	
  to	
  architectural	
  
practice,	
  did	
  in	
  fact	
  spring	
  from	
  a	
  well-­‐established	
  tradition.	
  Despite	
  their	
  desire	
  to	
  leave	
  the	
  
classroom,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  his	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  colleagues	
  were	
  greatly	
  influenced	
  by	
  their	
  Yale	
  
education,	
  from	
  within	
  and	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  architecture	
  department.	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  coincidence	
  
that	
  correlations	
  have	
  been	
  drawn	
  between	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  and	
  processes	
  in	
  
contemporary	
  art.	
  Robert	
  (Bob)	
  Engman	
  was	
  an	
  American	
  sculptor	
  and	
  professor	
  at	
  Yale	
  
University	
  from	
  1954	
  to	
  1964.	
  Engman	
  graduated	
  with	
  an	
  M.A.	
  in	
  sculpture	
  from	
  Yale	
  under	
  
the	
  direction	
  of	
  Josef	
  Albers,	
  his	
  mentor,	
  and	
  sculptor	
  Jose	
  de	
  Rivera.32	
  His	
  own	
  education	
  as	
  
a	
  sculptor	
  began	
  when	
  de	
  Rivera	
  challenged	
  him	
  with	
  a	
  simple	
  metal	
  problem.	
  First,	
  it	
  was	
  
to	
  mimic	
  a	
  sculpture,	
  which	
  Engman,	
  having	
  experience	
  with	
  welding,	
  did	
  rather	
  quickly.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  29	
  Smith,	
  “Architecture	
  Swings,”	
  153.	
  	
  30	
  Ibid.	
  	
  31	
  Though	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  was	
  not	
  physically	
  documented	
  in	
  photographs	
  or	
  drawings,	
  each	
  step	
  in	
  their	
  building	
  process	
  built	
  upon	
  the	
  next.	
  Because	
  everything	
  was	
  new	
  to	
  them,	
  every	
  move	
  was	
  a	
  discovery.	
  	
  	
  32	
  He	
  came	
  to	
  Yale	
  in	
  1957	
  after	
  learning	
  about	
  Albers’	
  teaching	
  at	
  Black	
  Mountain	
  College	
  and	
  the	
  Bauhaus.	
  Robert	
  Engman	
  interview	
  by	
  Daniel	
  Sagan,	
  September	
  24,	
  2004.	
  	
  
	
  	
   15	
  
The	
  more	
  difficult	
  challenge	
  came	
  however,	
  when	
  he	
  was	
  asked	
  to	
  make	
  something	
  unique.	
  
According	
  to	
  Engman,	
  Jose	
  de	
  Rivera	
  believed	
  that	
  the	
  individual	
  could	
  only	
  achieve	
  the	
  
creative	
  act	
  without	
  the	
  clear	
  inspiration	
  of	
  his	
  teachers.	
  At	
  first,	
  Engman	
  unconsciously	
  
crafted	
  sculptures	
  that	
  were	
  in	
  the	
  image	
  of	
  either	
  de	
  Rivera	
  or	
  other	
  artists	
  that	
  he	
  had	
  
studied.	
  It	
  took	
  Engman	
  weeks	
  before	
  Albers	
  approved	
  of	
  his	
  work.	
  	
  
Though	
  Albers	
  had	
  a	
  well-­‐established	
  artistic	
  career,	
  he	
  is	
  perhaps	
  best	
  known	
  as	
  an	
  
educator	
  and	
  had	
  a	
  significant	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  school	
  of	
  design.33	
  Before	
  coming	
  to	
  Yale,	
  
Albers	
  taught	
  alongside	
  Walter	
  Gropius	
  as	
  an	
  instructor	
  of	
  art	
  at	
  the	
  Bauhaus	
  through	
  its	
  
many	
  transformations.	
  After	
  leaving	
  this	
  school,	
  Albers	
  helped	
  to	
  establish	
  the	
  curriculum	
  
at	
  Black	
  Mountain	
  College.	
  It	
  is	
  no	
  coincidence	
  that	
  each	
  establishment	
  has	
  been	
  recognized	
  
for	
  their	
  innovations	
  and	
  unconventional	
  approaches	
  in	
  both	
  design	
  and	
  educational	
  
practices.	
  Throughout	
  his	
  career,	
  Albers	
  argued	
  that	
  schools	
  in	
  general	
  had	
  become	
  
stagnant,	
  passing	
  down	
  facts	
  instead	
  of	
  fostering	
  “a	
  creative,	
  intellectually	
  curious	
  
population”.34	
  To	
  combat	
  this,	
  Albers’	
  efforts	
  were	
  centered	
  on	
  teaching	
  students	
  to	
  be	
  
creative,	
  to	
  rely	
  on	
  one’s	
  own	
  abilities	
  and	
  to	
  be	
  independent.	
  35	
  As	
  Horowitz	
  and	
  Danilowitz	
  
explain,	
  Albers’	
  mission	
  was	
  “to	
  teach	
  students	
  to	
  bring	
  the	
  conscious	
  mind	
  to	
  bear	
  on	
  the	
  
task	
  at	
  hand;	
  to	
  regard	
  restrictions	
  as	
  challenges	
  and	
  to	
  question	
  assumptions;	
  to	
  recognize	
  
the	
  uniqueness	
  of	
  any	
  given	
  situation;	
  always	
  to	
  be	
  alert	
  and	
  receptive	
  to	
  serendipitous	
  
events”	
  and	
  most	
  importantly,	
  to	
  teach	
  students	
  to	
  actually	
  see	
  what	
  it	
  was	
  that	
  they	
  were	
  
looking	
  at.36	
  	
  Albers’	
  main	
  goal	
  as	
  an	
  educator	
  was	
  to	
  teach	
  his	
  student	
  to	
  “see”.	
  	
  He	
  would	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  33	
  Albers	
  created	
  the	
  school	
  of	
  design,	
  changing	
  it	
  from	
  the	
  School	
  of	
  Fine	
  Arts.	
  Frederick	
  A.	
  Horowitz,	
  Josef	
  Albers:	
  To	
  Open	
  Eyes:	
  The	
  Bauhaus,	
  Black	
  Mountain	
  College,	
  and	
  Yale,	
  (London;	
  New	
  York:	
  Phaidon,	
  2006).	
  	
  	
  34	
  Ibid.,	
  23.	
  	
  35	
  Ibid.,	
  7.	
  	
  36	
  Ibid.	
  	
  
	
  	
   16	
  
often	
  hold	
  up	
  two	
  fingers	
  and	
  explain	
  that	
  what	
  you	
  see	
  is	
  not	
  just	
  his	
  two	
  fingers,	
  but	
  also	
  a	
  
space	
  in	
  between.	
  In	
  Albers’	
  words,	
  “I	
  have	
  never	
  taught	
  painting.	
  Instead	
  I	
  have	
  taught	
  
seeing.”37	
  
Albers’	
  classes	
  have	
  been	
  described	
  as	
  “brilliant	
  models	
  of	
  risk	
  and	
  
experimentation.”38	
  He	
  worked	
  to	
  develop	
  students’	
  self-­‐confidence	
  through	
  what	
  he	
  called	
  
a	
  “a	
  systematical	
  studying	
  of	
  the	
  basic	
  problems	
  of	
  art.”	
  In	
  his	
  classes,	
  Albers	
  would	
  set	
  up	
  
very	
  specific	
  parameters	
  for	
  his	
  students	
  and	
  often	
  require	
  them	
  to	
  use	
  the	
  most	
  basic	
  
materials,	
  such	
  as	
  paper	
  and	
  wire.	
  He	
  wanted	
  his	
  students	
  to	
  see	
  the	
  expansive	
  possibilities	
  
of	
  even	
  the	
  simplest	
  materials	
  and	
  avoid	
  getting	
  caught	
  up	
  in	
  difficult	
  techniques	
  that	
  would	
  
come	
  with	
  more	
  complex	
  mediums.	
  He	
  was	
  a	
  proponent	
  of	
  simplification.	
  Despite	
  his	
  
guidelines	
  however,	
  he	
  did	
  not	
  expect	
  one	
  answer.	
  Fredrick	
  Horowitz,	
  who	
  was	
  once	
  a	
  
student	
  of	
  Albers,	
  explained,	
  “[Albers]	
  would	
  have	
  strict	
  restrictions	
  but	
  no	
  one	
  way	
  of	
  
carrying	
  out	
  an	
  exercise.	
  The	
  idea	
  was	
  that	
  it	
  would	
  clear	
  away	
  any	
  diversions	
  thus	
  making	
  
it	
  easier	
  for	
  students	
  to	
  really	
  see	
  and	
  examine	
  the	
  limited	
  elements	
  that	
  they	
  were	
  working	
  
with…There	
  was	
  never,	
  ever	
  only	
  one	
  right	
  way	
  to	
  solve	
  an	
  Albers	
  problem.”39	
  	
  
Albers	
  was	
  a	
  proponent	
  of	
  “learning”	
  rather	
  than	
  “teaching,”	
  and	
  he	
  strove	
  to	
  guide	
  
his	
  students	
  to	
  their	
  own	
  answers	
  rather	
  than	
  hand	
  it	
  to	
  them.40	
  In	
  order	
  to	
  learn,	
  Albers	
  felt	
  
that	
  the	
  student	
  needed	
  space	
  to	
  experiment	
  rather	
  than	
  following	
  the	
  lead	
  of	
  his	
  teacher.	
  
He	
  believed	
  in	
  tinkering,	
  and	
  entering	
  into	
  a	
  problem	
  without	
  pre-­‐conceived	
  ideas	
  of	
  where	
  
one’s	
  work	
  might	
  lead:	
  “Albers	
  believed	
  that	
  only	
  through	
  a	
  confrontation	
  with	
  lines,	
  colors,	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  37	
  Ibid.	
  	
  38	
  Ibid.	
  	
  39	
  Ibid.,	
  85.	
  	
  40	
  Ibid.	
  	
  
	
  	
   17	
  
and	
  materials	
  that	
  was	
  point	
  blank	
  and	
  ‘without	
  preconceptions’	
  could	
  students	
  truly	
  
confront	
  themselves,	
  and,	
  in	
  that	
  way,	
  develop	
  their	
  creative	
  powers.”41	
  	
  
For	
  Albers,	
  process	
  was	
  essential	
  to	
  learning	
  and	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  art,	
  as	
  reflected	
  in	
  
Engman’s	
  work.	
  	
  	
  
Engman’s	
  sculptures	
  are	
  smooth,	
  open,	
  twisting	
  metal	
  works.	
  They	
  often	
  appear	
  as	
  
if	
  they	
  are	
  molten,	
  flowing	
  metal	
  suspended	
  in	
  zero	
  gravity.	
  Engman’s	
  artistic	
  process	
  may	
  
be	
  described	
  as	
  an	
  arrival	
  at	
  form.	
  When	
  he	
  began	
  sculpting,	
  he	
  did	
  not	
  set	
  out	
  knowing	
  
what	
  it	
  is	
  that	
  he	
  wanted	
  to	
  create	
  (at	
  least	
  at	
  first),	
  but	
  rather	
  his	
  work	
  was	
  a	
  process	
  of	
  
discovery.	
  	
  Sellers	
  described	
  Engman’s	
  process:	
  	
  
He	
  would	
  take	
  a	
  piece	
  of	
  bronze…	
  and	
  he	
  would	
  then	
  cut	
  an	
  X	
  in	
  the	
  middle	
  of	
  it	
  and	
  then	
  he’d	
  take	
  his	
  hammer	
  and	
  start	
  pounding	
  the	
  edge	
  of	
  it	
  and	
  as	
  he	
  pounded	
  these	
  middle	
  things	
  would	
  curve	
  up	
  or	
  down,	
  and	
  what	
  he	
  found	
  was	
  because	
  metal	
  is	
  malleable	
  and	
  it	
  takes	
  shape	
  as	
  you	
  compress	
  it,	
  that	
  the	
  change	
  in	
  shape	
  had	
  to	
  go	
  somewhere,	
  so	
  it	
  went	
  into	
  warping	
  the	
  surface,	
  and	
  by	
  warping	
  the	
  surface	
  he	
  found	
  a	
  shape	
  that	
  didn’t	
  exist	
  in	
  planning,	
  it	
  only	
  existed	
  in	
  discovery.42	
  	
  	
  	
  Much	
  like	
  the	
  Wild	
  Beam	
  theory	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Engman	
  discovered	
  his	
  form	
  
through	
  experimentation.	
  He	
  did	
  not	
  attempt	
  to	
  force	
  the	
  material	
  into	
  a	
  shape,	
  but	
  rather	
  
let	
  it	
  emerge,	
  to	
  grow	
  and	
  transform.	
  An	
  example	
  of	
  this	
  is	
  seen	
  in	
  Construction	
  No.1	
  from	
  
1961-­‐62,	
  a	
  piece	
  that	
  Engman	
  created	
  while	
  studying	
  in	
  Florence,	
  Italy	
  (Fig.4).	
  The	
  center	
  of	
  
the	
  square	
  sheet	
  of	
  bronze	
  has	
  been	
  split	
  open.	
  It	
  appears	
  as	
  though	
  the	
  metal	
  is	
  pouring	
  
into	
  itself	
  from	
  the	
  top,	
  and	
  through	
  a	
  twist	
  that	
  divides	
  the	
  opening	
  into	
  a	
  horizontal	
  figure	
  
eight.	
  One	
  can	
  see	
  where	
  Engman	
  made	
  his	
  cuts,	
  and	
  imagine	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  the	
  metal	
  twisted	
  
as	
  he	
  hammered	
  at	
  the	
  center	
  and	
  smoothed	
  at	
  the	
  edges.	
  Engman	
  describes	
  that	
  this	
  
method	
  of	
  working	
  brought	
  him	
  to	
  a	
  new	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  discussion	
  of	
  art.	
  He	
  states	
  that	
  
through	
  creation,	
  “all	
  of	
  a	
  sudden	
  words	
  were	
  no	
  longer	
  words,	
  they	
  were	
  facts.	
  Things	
  that	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  41	
  Ibid.,	
  84.	
  	
  42	
  Sellers,	
  conversation	
  with	
  author.	
  	
  
	
  	
   18	
  
I	
  could	
  put	
  my	
  hands	
  on.”43	
  Sagan	
  explained	
  his	
  technique	
  as	
  simple	
  approaches	
  in	
  
processing	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  creation	
  of	
  a	
  strict	
  structure.	
  	
  
Engman	
  carried	
  these	
  ideas	
  over	
  into	
  his	
  teaching.	
  Sagan	
  summed	
  up	
  Engman’s	
  
methods	
  as	
  “encouraging	
  invention,”	
  in	
  that	
  he	
  asked	
  his	
  students	
  to	
  experiment	
  with	
  
materials	
  and	
  give	
  up	
  their	
  preconceived	
  ideas	
  of	
  what	
  it	
  means	
  to	
  practice	
  art.44	
  He	
  also	
  
asked	
  his	
  students	
  to	
  find	
  value	
  in	
  the	
  accidents	
  that	
  they	
  had	
  along	
  the	
  way	
  and	
  to	
  even	
  
watch	
  for	
  them	
  because	
  he	
  felt	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  through	
  accidents	
  that	
  an	
  artist	
  could	
  discover	
  a	
  
new,	
  promising	
  direction,	
  much	
  as	
  he	
  had	
  in	
  his	
  own	
  work.	
  Engman	
  believed	
  that	
  
encouraging	
  invention	
  was	
  simple	
  and	
  that	
  there	
  was	
  much	
  to	
  learn	
  in	
  the	
  properties	
  of	
  
material.	
  	
  He	
  explained	
  the	
  learning	
  process	
  this	
  way:	
  “Cut	
  the	
  piece	
  of	
  paper-­‐	
  this	
  has	
  a	
  
memory,	
  it	
  has	
  a	
  tendency	
  to	
  return.	
  In	
  crushing	
  the	
  paper	
  I	
  have	
  gone	
  past	
  the	
  elastic	
  limits	
  
of	
  the	
  material.	
  So	
  it	
  starts	
  to	
  absorb	
  that	
  action.	
  So	
  in	
  order	
  for	
  this	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  my	
  
thinking,	
  it	
  would	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  something	
  that	
  we	
  do	
  in	
  sequence.”45	
  It	
  was	
  a	
  process	
  of	
  trial	
  
and	
  error	
  as	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  find	
  one’s	
  own	
  artistic	
  voice.	
  Engman	
  states,	
  “I	
  think	
  becoming	
  free	
  
often	
  means	
  being	
  willing	
  to	
  give	
  up	
  what	
  you	
  know	
  a	
  great	
  deal	
  about	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  
experiment	
  with	
  activities	
  which	
  may	
  appear	
  useless	
  at	
  the	
  time.”46	
  Working	
  with	
  paper	
  
may	
  not	
  have	
  immediately	
  made	
  sense	
  to	
  someone	
  who	
  wants	
  to	
  construct	
  from	
  metal,	
  but	
  
it	
  taught	
  students	
  how	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  their	
  own	
  process	
  of	
  discovery.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  43	
  	
  “Writings”,	
  Robert	
  Engman.	
  Engman	
  was	
  not	
  the	
  only	
  artist	
  working	
  in	
  this	
  way	
  at	
  the	
  time.	
  Engman’s	
  approach	
  was	
  characteristic	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  art	
  movement	
  that	
  was	
  evolving	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  1960s	
  Well	
  known	
  sculptor	
  Richard	
  Serra	
  was	
  also	
  a	
  student	
  at	
  Yale	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  1960s	
  producing	
  work	
  that	
  is	
  reminiscent	
  of	
  this	
  process	
  approach.	
  	
  	
  44	
  Robert	
  Engman,	
  unpublished	
  interview	
  with	
  Daniel	
  Sagan,	
  September	
  24,	
  2004.	
  	
  45	
  Ibid.	
  	
  46	
  Schiffer,	
  Robert	
  Engman,	
  64.	
  	
  
	
  	
   19	
  
Engman	
  explained	
  that	
  the	
  department	
  had	
  a	
  philosophy	
  of	
  teaching	
  that	
  made	
  it	
  a	
  
point	
  to	
  never	
  tell	
  the	
  students	
  what	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  the	
  given	
  materials,	
  and	
  really	
  only	
  limited	
  
them	
  in	
  the	
  choice	
  of	
  the	
  materials	
  themselves.	
  He	
  states	
  that	
  “[the	
  students]	
  had	
  to	
  invent,	
  
whatever	
  they	
  made,	
  not	
  knowing	
  anything.”47	
  Following	
  in	
  the	
  tracks	
  of	
  Albers,	
  Engman	
  
also	
  assigned	
  simplistic	
  materials	
  such	
  as	
  copper	
  wire,	
  paper	
  and	
  found	
  objects.	
  	
  Engman	
  
saw	
  these	
  simple	
  forms	
  as	
  a	
  creation	
  of	
  situations,	
  one	
  that	
  forced	
  the	
  students	
  to	
  think	
  
through	
  a	
  solution.	
  These	
  “situations”	
  he	
  said,	
  changed	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  the	
  student’s	
  minds	
  
operated.	
  Engman	
  points	
  to	
  Sellers	
  as	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  this.48	
  	
  
At	
  one	
  point	
  during	
  class,	
  Engman	
  was	
  called	
  away.	
  He	
  assigned	
  Sellers	
  with	
  the	
  
task	
  of	
  ensuring	
  that	
  no	
  one	
  left.	
  During	
  this	
  time,	
  Sellers	
  collected	
  scraps	
  of	
  wood	
  from	
  
woodshop	
  and	
  started	
  a	
  tournament	
  where	
  the	
  students	
  had	
  to	
  build	
  something	
  from	
  the	
  
ragged	
  scraps.	
  Engman	
  clarified	
  that	
  the	
  idea	
  behind	
  this	
  game	
  was	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  an	
  exercise	
  
in	
  creative	
  improvisation,	
  and	
  very	
  real	
  in	
  the	
  sense	
  that	
  you	
  were	
  physically	
  making	
  
something	
  emerge	
  from	
  the	
  unpredictable.	
  	
  He	
  explained	
  that	
  “these	
  off,	
  unpredictable	
  
shapes	
  would	
  grow	
  in	
  clusters.”49	
  This	
  act	
  was	
  indicative	
  of	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  Sellers	
  would	
  
approach	
  his	
  own	
  self-­‐education	
  and	
  building	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  Engman	
  described	
  that	
  
he	
  “always	
  attributed	
  to	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  [Sellers]	
  had	
  a	
  special	
  mind	
  to	
  begin	
  with	
  and	
  when	
  he	
  
found	
  this	
  stuff	
  it	
  just	
  triggered	
  all	
  things	
  within	
  him.”50	
  Why	
  This	
  Matters	
  to	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  
Engman’s	
  courses	
  had	
  an	
  important	
  impact	
  on	
  Sellers.	
  	
  Sellers	
  explained:	
  “It	
  
changed	
  how	
  I	
  thought	
  when	
  I	
  was	
  designing	
  architecture.	
  Rather	
  than	
  try	
  to	
  sketch	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  47	
  Ibid.	
  	
  48	
  Engman	
  interview	
  with	
  Sagan.	
  	
  	
  49	
  Ibid.	
  This	
  activity	
  became	
  the	
  “final”	
  for	
  the	
  class.	
  	
  50	
  Ibid.	
  	
  
	
  	
   20	
  
something	
  up	
  and	
  try	
  to	
  fit	
  all	
  those	
  rooms	
  into	
  that	
  little	
  idea,	
  or	
  rather	
  than	
  try	
  and	
  
logically	
  fit	
  the	
  program	
  with	
  the	
  shape	
  around	
  it,	
  why	
  couldn’t	
  I	
  figure	
  out	
  how	
  you	
  make	
  it.	
  
And	
  as	
  I’m	
  making	
  it,	
  building	
  it,	
  through	
  designs	
  or	
  models	
  or	
  whatever,	
  why	
  don’t	
  I	
  watch	
  
to	
  see	
  what	
  it	
  looks	
  like?	
  It	
  was	
  like	
  discovering	
  a	
  new	
  planet.”51	
  At	
  the	
  time,	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
  
what	
  came	
  to	
  be	
  known	
  as	
  “process	
  art”	
  was	
  gaining	
  popularity	
  throughout	
  the	
  art	
  world.	
  
Artists	
  such	
  as	
  Richard	
  Serra	
  were	
  experimenting	
  with	
  ways	
  to	
  explore	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  art	
  
making,	
  drawing	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  process	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  product.52	
  To	
  Sellers,	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  
watching	
  a	
  building	
  unfold	
  was	
  exhilarating	
  and	
  foreign	
  in	
  the	
  world	
  of	
  architecture.	
  He	
  
states	
  that	
  he	
  went	
  back	
  to	
  architecture	
  with	
  a	
  new	
  way	
  of	
  seeing.	
  Sellers	
  was	
  used	
  to	
  a	
  
world	
  where	
  students	
  would	
  have	
  to	
  defend	
  each	
  every	
  line	
  and	
  shape.	
  Through	
  the	
  process	
  
method	
  that	
  was	
  introduced	
  to	
  him	
  by	
  Engman,	
  however,	
  architecture	
  and	
  design	
  suddenly	
  
became	
  more	
  exciting.	
  Sellers	
  explained	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  as	
  though	
  he	
  was	
  waiting	
  to	
  see	
  what	
  
new	
  forms	
  would	
  emerge	
  while	
  everyone	
  else	
  was	
  disappointed	
  because	
  they	
  were	
  not	
  
living	
  up	
  to	
  their	
  own	
  preconceived	
  expectations.	
  	
  	
  
This	
  was	
  undoubtedly	
  influential	
  on	
  the	
  design	
  approaches	
  taken	
  at	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain.	
  Working	
  with	
  Engman	
  at	
  Yale,	
  Sellers	
  recalled	
  that	
  there	
  were	
  no	
  mistakes	
  or	
  
limits.	
  Again,	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  distinct	
  contrast	
  to	
  the	
  critique	
  process	
  within	
  the	
  architecture	
  
school.	
  Sellers	
  recalled:	
  “I	
  would	
  go	
  back	
  to	
  architecture	
  classes	
  and	
  it	
  was	
  like	
  day	
  and	
  
night…so	
  completely	
  different.	
  Paul	
  Rudolph	
  established	
  a	
  concept	
  of	
  criticism	
  that	
  was	
  
demeaning,	
  direct,	
  dependence-­‐	
  creating,	
  but	
  very	
  smart,	
  very	
  clever.”53	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  51	
  Sellers	
  interview	
  with	
  Sagan.	
  	
  	
  52	
  Serra	
  was	
  also	
  a	
  student	
  at	
  Yale	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  1960s.	
  In	
  a	
  famous	
  work,	
  Serra	
  throws	
  molten	
  lead	
  against	
  a	
  wall.	
  He	
  follows	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  infinitives	
  such	
  as	
  roll,	
  throw,	
  etc.	
  In	
  this	
  case,	
  the	
  work	
  was	
  more	
  about	
  the	
  actions	
  than	
  the	
  outcome.	
  For	
  more	
  information	
  see	
  Richard	
  Serra,	
  Kynaston	
  McShine,	
  Lynne	
  Cooke,	
  and	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art	
  (New	
  York,	
  N.Y.),	
  Richard	
  Serra:	
  sculpture:	
  forty	
  years	
  (New	
  York:	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  2007),	
  29.	
  	
  53	
  Ibid.	
  
	
  	
   21	
  
Paul	
  Rudolph	
  became	
  the	
  head	
  of	
  the	
  architecture	
  school	
  in	
  1957.	
  Rudolph	
  believed	
  
that	
  there	
  needed	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  return	
  to	
  architectural	
  theory,	
  stating	
  that	
  “action”	
  had	
  
overthrown	
  theory.	
  As	
  a	
  “great	
  university”	
  he	
  felt	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  Yale’s	
  responsibility	
  to	
  uncover	
  
the	
  unknown	
  and	
  to	
  do	
  so,	
  theory	
  needed	
  to	
  usurp	
  action.	
  Rudolph	
  wrote	
  that	
  
“Architectural	
  education’s	
  first	
  concern	
  is	
  to	
  perpetuate	
  a	
  climate	
  where	
  the	
  student	
  is	
  
acutely	
  and	
  perceptively	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  creative	
  process…He	
  must	
  understand	
  that	
  in	
  the	
  
exhilarating	
  awesome	
  moment	
  when	
  he	
  takes	
  pencil	
  in	
  hand,	
  and	
  holds	
  it	
  poised	
  above	
  a	
  
white	
  sheet	
  of	
  paper,	
  that	
  he	
  has	
  suspended	
  there	
  all	
  that	
  will	
  ever	
  be.	
  The	
  creative	
  act	
  is	
  all	
  
that	
  matters.”54	
  While	
  he	
  speaks	
  of	
  the	
  creative	
  process,	
  Sellers	
  believed	
  that	
  Rudolph’s	
  way	
  
of	
  teaching	
  made	
  the	
  student	
  dependent	
  on	
  the	
  instructor.	
  Sellers	
  claimed	
  that	
  Rudolph	
  was	
  
intent	
  on	
  analyzing	
  the	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  design	
  and	
  thus	
  made	
  the	
  student	
  weary	
  of	
  taking	
  
chances.	
  Sellers	
  compares	
  this	
  approach	
  to	
  Engman’s:	
  	
  
Engman	
  was	
  never	
  talking	
  about	
  your	
  design.	
  He	
  never	
  talked	
  about	
  it	
  as	
  an	
  end	
  product,	
  he	
  would	
  talk	
  about	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  parts	
  and	
  how	
  that	
  evolution	
  either	
  logically	
  gets	
  to	
  that	
  place	
  or	
  doesn’t…where	
  your	
  structure	
  falls	
  apart	
  and	
  where	
  you	
  make	
  a	
  brilliant	
  move.	
  He	
  called	
  it	
  “mutational”…	
  he	
  used	
  the	
  word	
  ‘mutational’	
  a	
  lot,	
  where	
  there	
  would	
  be	
  an	
  opportunity	
  for	
  brilliance.55	
  	
  Sellers	
  believed	
  in	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  creativity,	
  but	
  unlike	
  Rudolph,	
  he	
  felt	
  that	
  action	
  was	
  
just	
  as	
  important,	
  if	
  not	
  more	
  so,	
  than	
  theory.	
  	
  Unlike	
  an	
  architectural	
  critique,	
  Engman	
  was	
  
not	
  concerned	
  with	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  beauty	
  but	
  rather	
  focused	
  his	
  student’s	
  attention	
  on	
  
process	
  and	
  the	
  choices	
  that	
  they	
  made	
  along	
  the	
  way.	
  Sellers	
  explained	
  that	
  Engman	
  would	
  
not	
  discuss	
  beauty	
  with	
  his	
  students,	
  but	
  would	
  rather	
  ask	
  them	
  about	
  their	
  decision-­‐
making	
  process	
  and	
  their	
  choices.	
  If	
  one	
  were	
  a	
  “dead-­‐end”	
  as	
  Sellers	
  called	
  it,	
  then	
  Engman	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  54	
  Robert	
  Stern,	
  “Yale	
  1950-­‐1965,”	
  Oppositions	
  4	
  (1974).	
  	
  55	
  Sellers	
  interview	
  with	
  Sagan.	
  	
  
	
  	
   22	
  
would	
  ask	
  the	
  student	
  to	
  go	
  back	
  and	
  try	
  making	
  another	
  choice.	
  	
  He	
  would	
  make	
  his	
  
students	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  there	
  was	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  way	
  to	
  go.	
  
	
  In	
  1974,	
  the	
  journal	
  Oppositions	
  published	
  an	
  article	
  by	
  Robert	
  Stern,	
  which	
  gave	
  an	
  
account	
  of	
  the	
  Yale	
  School	
  of	
  Architecture	
  from	
  1950-­‐	
  1965.	
  Stern	
  focused	
  on	
  what	
  he	
  
believed	
  to	
  be	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  transformative	
  years	
  of	
  the	
  school	
  under	
  the	
  leadership	
  of	
  
George	
  Howe	
  and	
  Paul	
  Rudolph.	
  56	
  These	
  years	
  are	
  important	
  to	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  in	
  that	
  
they	
  lay	
  the	
  foundation	
  for	
  how	
  David	
  Sellers	
  and	
  others	
  engaged	
  with	
  the	
  Yale	
  School	
  of	
  
Architecture	
  and	
  how	
  this	
  in	
  turn	
  influenced	
  their	
  approach	
  to	
  their	
  work	
  in	
  Vermont.	
  	
  
According	
  to	
  Stern,	
  before	
  the	
  arrival	
  of	
  George	
  Howe,	
  the	
  Yale	
  school-­‐	
  as	
  was	
  
typical	
  of	
  many	
  architecture	
  programs-­‐	
  was	
  based	
  around	
  the	
  Beaux-­‐Arts	
  method,	
  focusing	
  
on	
  the	
  Neoclassical	
  building	
  traditions.	
  However,	
  when	
  Howe	
  accepted	
  the	
  position	
  as	
  the	
  
Chair	
  of	
  the	
  Architecture	
  school,	
  he	
  was	
  already	
  a	
  well-­‐established	
  modern	
  architect	
  and	
  the	
  
first	
  to	
  become	
  full-­‐time	
  faculty	
  at	
  Yale.	
  With	
  his	
  professional	
  background,	
  Howe	
  blended	
  
the	
  Beaux-­‐Arts	
  with	
  the	
  formal	
  design	
  systems	
  and	
  theories	
  of	
  modernism.	
  He	
  believed	
  that	
  
the	
  technicality	
  of	
  modernism	
  needed	
  to	
  be	
  met	
  with	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
  architecture	
  as	
  an	
  art.	
  
His	
  philosophy	
  insisted	
  that	
  architecture	
  “was	
  an	
  artistic	
  discipline	
  involved	
  with	
  issues	
  of	
  
administration,	
  planning,	
  technological	
  competence	
  and	
  simple	
  problem-­‐solving.”	
  57	
  He	
  
argued	
  for	
  an	
  educational	
  approach	
  that	
  fed	
  the	
  creativity	
  of	
  the	
  students.	
  In	
  an	
  address	
  to	
  
the	
  school	
  he	
  stated,	
  “We	
  must	
  not	
  lose	
  sight	
  of	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  primary	
  purpose	
  of	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  56	
  The	
  editor	
  notes	
  that	
  Stern’s	
  analysis	
  is	
  based	
  in	
  large	
  part	
  off	
  of	
  the	
  opinions	
  and	
  experiences	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  attended	
  the	
  school	
  at	
  the	
  time,	
  taking	
  much	
  of	
  his	
  content	
  from	
  personal	
  letters	
  that	
  alumni	
  of	
  the	
  program	
  wrote	
  to	
  Stern	
  upon	
  his	
  request	
  to	
  gather	
  their	
  input.	
  This	
  includes	
  the	
  opinions	
  of	
  David	
  Sellers.	
  	
  	
  57	
  Stern,	
  “Yale”,	
  38.	
  	
  
	
  	
   23	
  
architectural	
  schools	
  is	
  to	
  create	
  architects,	
  not	
  draftsmen	
  for	
  office	
  work.”58	
  He	
  believed	
  in	
  
finding	
  a	
  balance	
  between	
  technical	
  skills	
  and	
  design.	
  	
  
There	
  was,	
  however,	
  no	
  existing	
  model	
  for	
  this	
  approach	
  to	
  education.	
  Howe	
  
believed	
  that	
  this	
  lack	
  of	
  a	
  model	
  provided	
  an	
  opportunity	
  for	
  Yale	
  to	
  forge	
  a	
  new	
  path	
  in	
  
education	
  and	
  architectural	
  style.	
  Stern	
  explained,	
  “Howe	
  spoke	
  of	
  his	
  intention	
  to	
  develop	
  a	
  
‘course	
  of	
  training’…	
  peculiarly	
  Yale’s,	
  based	
  on	
  no	
  doctrine	
  or	
  theory	
  but	
  worked	
  out	
  from	
  
day	
  to	
  day	
  by	
  experience.”59	
  Stern	
  summed	
  this	
  up	
  as	
  the	
  belief	
  that	
  style	
  was	
  the	
  product	
  of	
  
discovery	
  and	
  not	
  force.	
  60	
  In	
  Howe’s	
  approach,	
  Stern	
  argued,	
  education	
  was	
  not	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  
rules,	
  but	
  rather	
  a	
  process	
  of	
  day-­‐to-­‐day	
  discovery.	
  He	
  believed	
  that	
  Yale,	
  the	
  students	
  and	
  
faculty,	
  were	
  in	
  the	
  midst	
  of	
  a	
  time	
  where	
  a	
  new	
  architectural	
  style	
  could	
  emerge	
  and	
  he	
  put	
  
his	
  trust	
  into	
  the	
  creative	
  abilities	
  of	
  the	
  Yale	
  students	
  to	
  carry	
  out	
  the	
  task	
  of	
  developing	
  it.	
  
Diverging	
  from	
  the	
  Beaux-­‐Arts	
  tradition,	
  Howe	
  sought	
  to	
  build	
  a	
  department	
  that	
  
empowered	
  the	
  Yale	
  students	
  to	
  be	
  individual	
  thinkers	
  and	
  encouraged	
  the	
  students	
  not	
  to	
  
mimic	
  the	
  past	
  examples	
  of	
  architecture,	
  but	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  needs	
  and	
  environments	
  of	
  the	
  
present	
  moment.	
  In	
  an	
  address	
  to	
  the	
  school,	
  Howe	
  stated,	
  “The	
  mind	
  and	
  imagination	
  
prepared	
  to	
  seek	
  an	
  answer	
  always	
  in	
  the	
  underlying	
  conditions	
  of	
  a	
  particular	
  present	
  
situation,	
  instead	
  of	
  in	
  books	
  or	
  precedent,	
  will	
  be	
  flexible,	
  muscular	
  and	
  never	
  at	
  a	
  loss	
  for	
  
an	
  answer…I	
  prefer	
  the	
  organic	
  notion	
  that	
  the	
  task	
  of	
  the	
  University	
  is	
  to	
  fertilize	
  
imagination	
  with	
  experience	
  and	
  experience	
  with	
  imagination.	
  This	
  task	
  we	
  shall	
  share	
  
together.”	
  61	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  58	
  Ibid.	
  	
  59	
  Ibid.	
  	
  	
  60	
  Ibid.	
  	
  61	
  George	
  Howe,	
  “Training	
  for	
  the	
  Practice	
  of	
  Architecture:	
  A	
  Speech	
  Given	
  before	
  the	
  Department	
  in	
  September	
  1951,”	
  Perspecta	
  Vol.	
  1	
  (Summer	
  1952):	
  2.	
  	
  
	
  	
   24	
  
	
   To	
  support	
  his	
  vision	
  for	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  school,	
  Howe	
  built	
  a	
  faculty	
  that	
  
shared	
  a	
  similar	
  philosophical	
  approach.	
  This	
  included	
  Albers,	
  who	
  took	
  over	
  the	
  role	
  as	
  the	
  
head	
  of	
  Fine	
  Art.	
  As	
  discussed,	
  Albers’	
  teaching	
  techniques	
  and	
  philosophies	
  had	
  a	
  very	
  
direct	
  and	
  profound	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  school	
  and	
  inadvertently,	
  on	
  Sellers	
  and	
  his	
  colleagues	
  as	
  
well.	
  Though	
  Albers	
  had	
  retired	
  by	
  the	
  mid1950s,	
  his	
  principles	
  were	
  translated	
  to	
  the	
  
students	
  of	
  the	
  early	
  1960s	
  through	
  Professor	
  Engman.	
  	
  
Gleaning	
  from	
  his	
  experience	
  in	
  Engman’s	
  courses	
  and	
  taking	
  the	
  “mutational”	
  
concept	
  to	
  architecture,	
  Sellers	
  began	
  to	
  rethink	
  the	
  possibilities	
  of	
  design.	
  He	
  remembered	
  
thinking,	
  ”if	
  I	
  could	
  design	
  stuff	
  intentionally	
  so	
  that	
  it	
  would	
  change	
  its	
  shape	
  or	
  its	
  use	
  
overtime	
  without	
  reducing	
  its	
  utility,	
  it	
  would	
  become	
  better	
  and	
  better.”62	
  The	
  idea	
  was	
  to	
  
create	
  a	
  building	
  which	
  could	
  continue	
  to	
  change	
  and	
  grow	
  over	
  time	
  as	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  its	
  
inhabitants	
  changed.	
  The	
  Tack	
  House	
  once	
  again	
  serves	
  as	
  an	
  example.	
  Over	
  the	
  years,	
  the	
  
Tack	
  House	
  served	
  as	
  a	
  clubhouse	
  and	
  then	
  as	
  Seller’s	
  personal	
  residence.	
  With	
  each	
  new	
  
use,	
  equally	
  eccentric	
  additions	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  the	
  structure.	
  As	
  it	
  stands	
  today,	
  the	
  Tack	
  
House	
  has	
  tripled	
  in	
  size.	
  With	
  each	
  addition	
  came	
  a	
  new	
  avenue	
  for	
  exploration	
  (Fig.	
  5).	
  
Engman’s	
  approaches	
  to	
  teaching	
  and	
  design,	
  aside	
  from	
  Sagan’s	
  brief	
  mention,	
  get	
  
little	
  notice	
  in	
  the	
  discourse	
  around	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  or	
  in	
  the	
  history	
  of	
  design/build,	
  for	
  
that	
  matter.	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  understand,	
  however,	
  that	
  the	
  innovations	
  at	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain	
  came	
  as	
  the	
  architectural	
  manifestation	
  of	
  both	
  Engman’s	
  and	
  Albers’	
  innovative	
  
methods.	
  Jim	
  Sanford,	
  a	
  fellow	
  builder	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  whom	
  will	
  be	
  discussed	
  in	
  
greater	
  depth	
  in	
  Chapter	
  Four,	
  explained	
  that	
  he	
  gained	
  an	
  extensive	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  
properties	
  of	
  concrete	
  and	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  truly	
  knowing	
  how	
  to	
  handle	
  a	
  material	
  
through	
  experimentation	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  which	
  now	
  allows	
  him	
  to	
  be	
  fully	
  creative	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  62	
  Ibid.	
  	
  
	
  	
   25	
  
with	
  the	
  media,	
  making	
  for	
  a	
  design	
  that	
  is	
  unique	
  to	
  each	
  situation,	
  home	
  and	
  client.63	
  What	
  
seemed	
  like	
  a	
  wild	
  revolution	
  in	
  design	
  was	
  actually	
  an	
  exercise	
  in	
  artistic	
  process.	
  The	
  Wild	
  
Beam	
  Theory,	
  the	
  eccentric	
  forms	
  and	
  the	
  willingness	
  to	
  dive	
  into	
  building,	
  were	
  all	
  a	
  
product	
  of	
  experimentation	
  and	
  detachment	
  from	
  the	
  final	
  product.	
  What	
  this	
  shows	
  is	
  that	
  
the	
  designers	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  were	
  deeply	
  rooted	
  in	
  an	
  important	
  educational	
  and	
  
modernist	
  history.	
  However,	
  utilizing	
  the	
  tools	
  gained	
  in	
  their	
  education,	
  the	
  architects	
  
branched	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  walls	
  of	
  the	
  architecture	
  school	
  and	
  combined	
  the	
  science	
  of	
  
building	
  with	
  the	
  freedoms	
  allowed	
  in	
  art.	
  	
  Much	
  like	
  a	
  student	
  in	
  a	
  course	
  with	
  Engman	
  
and/or	
  Albers,	
  these	
  architects	
  were	
  working	
  to	
  understand	
  their	
  materials,	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  
process,	
  and	
  were	
  simultaneously	
  breaking	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  walls	
  of	
  the	
  school	
  while	
  also	
  
exploring	
  deeper	
  into	
  artistic	
  principles	
  and	
  trends	
  that	
  they	
  learned	
  in	
  the	
  classroom.	
  More	
  
importantly,	
  they	
  were	
  learning	
  how	
  to	
  see.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  63	
  Jim	
  Sanford,	
  conversation	
  with	
  author,	
  March	
  25,	
  2013.	
  
	
  	
   26	
  
CHAPTER	
  III	
  
CHRIS	
  ARGYRIS	
  
The	
  aim	
  of	
  this	
  chapter	
  is	
  to	
  add	
  another	
  dimension	
  to	
  Prickly	
  Mountain’s	
  
foundation	
  by	
  exploring	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Chris	
  Argyris.	
  As	
  a	
  professor	
  in	
  Industrial	
  Science	
  and	
  a	
  
well-­‐known	
  scholar	
  of	
  human	
  behavioral	
  studies,	
  Argyris’s	
  research	
  instilled	
  ideals	
  of	
  
human	
  behavior	
  and	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  we	
  learn	
  into	
  the	
  practices	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  The	
  
discussion	
  will	
  focus	
  on	
  three	
  books	
  written	
  by	
  Argyris,	
  spanning	
  from	
  1957	
  To	
  1974:	
  
Personality	
  and	
  Organization,	
  Interpersonal	
  Competence	
  and	
  Organizational	
  Effectiveness	
  
and	
  Theory	
  in	
  Practice,	
  Increasing	
  Professional	
  Effectiveness.	
  	
  It	
  will	
  also	
  look	
  into	
  the	
  
writings	
  of	
  Fred	
  Steele,	
  a	
  student	
  of	
  Argyris.	
  His	
  work	
  Physical	
  Settings	
  and	
  Organization	
  
Development	
  will	
  show	
  the	
  evolution	
  of	
  Argyris’	
  teachings	
  through	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  building	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain	
  and	
  how	
  this	
  in	
  turn	
  produced	
  theories	
  of	
  its	
  own.	
  	
  
In	
  a	
  conversation	
  with	
  Sellers,	
  the	
  architect	
  shared	
  the	
  story	
  of	
  the	
  construction	
  of	
  
the	
  Pinhead	
  House,	
  a	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  home	
  built	
  with	
  and	
  for	
  Steele,	
  who	
  was	
  Seller’s	
  
college	
  roommate	
  during	
  his	
  undergraduate	
  studies.64	
  This	
  home,	
  much	
  like	
  the	
  Tack	
  House,	
  
inspired	
  yet	
  another	
  unique	
  outlook	
  on	
  the	
  building	
  process	
  and	
  will	
  serve	
  as	
  the	
  entry	
  
point	
  into	
  the	
  discussion	
  of	
  Argyris.65	
  	
  
Sellers	
  explained	
  that	
  as	
  they	
  were	
  dreaming	
  up	
  the	
  possibilities	
  for	
  Steele’s	
  home,	
  
Sellers	
  was	
  having	
  difficulty	
  deciding	
  how	
  to	
  construct	
  the	
  interior	
  of	
  the	
  living	
  room.	
  Steele	
  
studied	
  Organizational	
  Development	
  at	
  Yale	
  in	
  the	
  late	
  1950s	
  and	
  early	
  1960s.	
  Drawing	
  
from	
  his	
  interest	
  in	
  human	
  behavior,	
  he	
  addressed	
  Seller’s	
  concerns	
  by	
  proposing	
  that	
  they	
  
wait,	
  building	
  the	
  exterior	
  of	
  the	
  home,	
  the	
  frame,	
  siding	
  and	
  roof	
  without	
  completing	
  the	
  
foundation.	
  Steele’s	
  theory	
  was	
  that	
  the	
  longer	
  one	
  waits,	
  the	
  greater	
  the	
  possibility	
  for	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  64	
  Sellers	
  also	
  received	
  his	
  undergraduate	
  degree	
  from	
  Yale	
  in	
  	
  	
  65	
  Pinhead	
  was	
  Steele’s	
  college	
  nickname.	
  	
  
	
  	
   27	
  
creativity.	
  He	
  argued	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  important	
  to	
  learn	
  to	
  exist	
  in	
  the	
  unknown,	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  through	
  
this	
  uncomfortable	
  space	
  that	
  the	
  individual	
  is	
  most	
  likely	
  to	
  come	
  up	
  with	
  an	
  effective	
  
solution.	
  Sellers	
  clarified	
  Steele’s	
  theory:	
  “the	
  longer	
  you	
  stay	
  and	
  live	
  and	
  be	
  comfortable	
  
with	
  irresolution,	
  the	
  more	
  likely	
  what	
  you	
  do	
  will	
  be	
  more	
  inclusive	
  and	
  more	
  
successful.“66	
  Referencing	
  the	
  Wild	
  Beam	
  Theory,	
  Sellers	
  explained,	
  “a	
  lot	
  of	
  people	
  will	
  get	
  
nervous	
  and	
  cut	
  the	
  beam	
  off.”67	
  	
  
Heeding	
  this	
  advice,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Tom	
  Luckey,	
  whom	
  Sellers	
  hired	
  to	
  help	
  with	
  
construction,	
  worked	
  with	
  the	
  dirt	
  beneath	
  their	
  feet	
  as	
  they	
  built	
  the	
  walls	
  and	
  
surrounding	
  spaces.	
  It	
  was	
  only	
  after	
  the	
  home’s	
  shell	
  had	
  been	
  completed	
  and	
  the	
  builders	
  
were	
  able	
  to	
  see	
  and	
  be	
  within	
  the	
  space	
  that	
  they	
  came	
  up	
  with	
  their	
  solution:	
  the	
  living	
  
room	
  floor	
  became	
  the	
  furniture.	
  The	
  space	
  was	
  intended	
  to	
  serve,	
  in	
  part,	
  as	
  a	
  retreat	
  for	
  
Steele’s	
  work,	
  which	
  often	
  involved	
  group	
  gatherings.	
  To	
  suit	
  this	
  purpose	
  Sellers	
  and	
  
Luckey	
  created	
  padded,	
  carpeted	
  mounds,	
  or	
  as	
  Sellers	
  called	
  them	
  “sculptural	
  chunks”	
  that	
  
would	
  support	
  various	
  social	
  situations	
  (Fig.	
  6).68	
  	
  Sellers	
  explained	
  that	
  he	
  made	
  this	
  
permanent	
  furniture	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  would	
  support	
  the	
  natural	
  shapes	
  of	
  the	
  body.	
  He	
  stated	
  
“the	
  sizes	
  and	
  proportions	
  of	
  these	
  things	
  will	
  be	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  size	
  of	
  your	
  arm,	
  and	
  what	
  
sitting	
  posture	
  is	
  and	
  standing	
  and	
  walking	
  up	
  stairs…any	
  place	
  that	
  you	
  sat	
  or	
  lay	
  down,	
  it	
  
would	
  fit	
  your	
  body”.	
  69	
  From	
  the	
  photographs,	
  the	
  floor	
  of	
  the	
  living	
  room	
  appeared	
  as	
  
though	
  it	
  was	
  undulating	
  and	
  one	
  could	
  imagine	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  the	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  space	
  
might	
  transform	
  as	
  people	
  shifted	
  their	
  bodies	
  into	
  different	
  postures	
  based	
  on	
  their	
  moods	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  66	
  Sellers	
  conversation	
  with	
  author.	
  	
  67	
  Ibid.	
  Referring	
  once	
  again	
  to	
  the	
  Wild	
  Beam	
  Theory.	
  	
  	
  68	
  Cohen,	
  Architectural	
  Improvisations,	
  31.	
  	
  69	
  Ibid.	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   28	
  
or	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  the	
  discussion.70	
  As	
  a	
  proponent	
  of	
  the	
  behavioral	
  sciences,	
  Steele	
  was	
  
interested	
  in	
  how	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  building	
  reflected	
  and	
  promoted	
  certain	
  behaviors.	
  For	
  
Steele,	
  the	
  construction	
  of	
  the	
  Pinhead	
  house	
  served	
  as	
  both	
  a	
  vacation	
  home,	
  while	
  also	
  
providing	
  a	
  space	
  for	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  choice	
  and	
  engagement,	
  both	
  in	
  the	
  design	
  and	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  
the	
  structure.	
  Building	
  and	
  utilizing	
  the	
  space	
  became	
  a	
  tool	
  for	
  not	
  only	
  experimentation	
  
but	
  studying	
  the	
  creative	
  act.	
  
Personality	
  and	
  Organization	
  
Steele’s	
  theoretical	
  approaches	
  to	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  were	
  greatly	
  informed	
  by	
  his	
  
professor	
  and	
  mentor,	
  Chris	
  Argyris.	
  Argyris’	
  work	
  focused	
  on	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  human	
  behavior	
  
and	
  its	
  relation	
  to	
  organizational	
  development	
  and	
  function.71	
  Argyris’	
  definition	
  of	
  	
  an	
  
organization	
  was	
  broad,	
  and	
  he	
  deemed	
  it	
  to	
  mean	
  “	
  strategies	
  designed	
  to	
  achieve	
  certain	
  
objectives”.	
  He	
  stated	
  “It	
  includes	
  the	
  managerial	
  controls,	
  leadership,	
  technology,	
  indeed	
  
anything	
  in	
  the	
  organization	
  defined	
  in	
  consonance	
  with	
  the	
  strategy.”72	
  Despite	
  this	
  all-­‐
encompassing	
  view	
  of	
  an	
  organization,	
  Argyris’s	
  research	
  was	
  focused	
  mainly	
  on	
  the	
  
workplace	
  and	
  gave	
  much	
  attention	
  to	
  what	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  corporate	
  settings.	
  	
  
Argyris	
  believed	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  important	
  for	
  executives	
  in	
  organizations	
  to	
  understand	
  
how	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  organization	
  affected	
  the	
  individual	
  and	
  in	
  turn	
  how	
  the	
  collective	
  
of	
  individuals	
  shaped	
  the	
  organization.	
  He	
  sought	
  to	
  develop	
  an	
  understanding	
  that	
  
personalities	
  and	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  those	
  personalities	
  are	
  not	
  a	
  given,	
  but	
  rather	
  vary	
  greatly	
  
and	
  should	
  be	
  treated	
  with	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  scientific	
  inquiry	
  rather	
  than	
  blanket	
  assumptions.	
  
The	
  aim	
  of	
  his	
  research	
  was	
  to	
  help	
  organizations	
  understand	
  the	
  science	
  behind	
  working	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  70	
  Sellers	
  said	
  that	
  Steele	
  hosted	
  many	
  seminars	
  in	
  the	
  space.	
  	
  	
  71	
  Throughout	
  his	
  life,	
  Argyris	
  authored	
  and	
  co-­‐authored	
  countless	
  books	
  and	
  articles	
  on	
  the	
  subject.	
  	
  	
  72	
  Chris	
  Argyris,	
  Interpersonal	
  Competence	
  and	
  organizational	
  effectiveness	
  (Homewood,	
  Ill.:	
  Dorsey	
  Press,	
  1962),	
  28.	
  	
  
	
  	
   29	
  
with	
  different	
  personalities	
  and	
  to	
  develop	
  tools	
  to	
  help	
  organizations	
  promote	
  positive	
  
personal	
  growth	
  to	
  improve	
  the	
  working	
  relationships	
  of	
  the	
  individuals	
  within	
  the	
  
workplace.	
  
Argyris’	
  early	
  studies	
  served	
  as	
  documentation	
  for	
  the	
  current	
  state	
  of	
  individual	
  
behavior	
  in	
  the	
  workplace	
  and	
  explored	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  possibilities	
  for	
  the	
  source	
  of	
  that	
  
behavior,	
  both	
  amongst	
  the	
  employees	
  and	
  the	
  executives.	
  In	
  1957,	
  Argyris	
  published	
  
Personality	
  and	
  Organization:	
  The	
  Conflict	
  between	
  System	
  and	
  the	
  Individual,	
  a	
  book	
  that	
  
Sellers	
  recalls	
  as	
  being	
  influential	
  on	
  Steele’s	
  studies.	
  	
  At	
  the	
  time,	
  the	
  behavioral	
  sciences	
  
were	
  only	
  recently	
  gaining	
  recognition	
  as	
  a	
  mode	
  of	
  valid	
  scientific	
  inquiry.73	
  The	
  goal	
  of	
  
this	
  early	
  work	
  was	
  thus	
  to	
  bring	
  together	
  the	
  small	
  amount	
  of	
  research	
  that	
  had	
  been	
  
conducted	
  on	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  individual	
  and	
  the	
  organization	
  and	
  to	
  provide	
  
some	
  understanding	
  of	
  “why	
  people	
  behave	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  they	
  do	
  in	
  organizations,”	
  which	
  
Argyris	
  called	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  “organizational	
  behavior.”74	
  
In	
  this	
  book,	
  Argyris	
  pushes	
  the	
  reader	
  to	
  ask	
  what	
  lies	
  underneath	
  the	
  behavior	
  of	
  
the	
  individual.	
  He	
  argues	
  that	
  every	
  person	
  has	
  inherent	
  needs	
  and	
  that	
  energy	
  -­‐	
  productive,	
  
negative,	
  et	
  cetera-­‐	
  comes	
  from	
  these	
  needs.	
  Needs	
  are	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  individuals	
  personality	
  
that	
  has	
  been	
  formed	
  throughout	
  one’s	
  lifetime	
  and	
  thus	
  differ	
  from	
  person	
  to	
  person.	
  One	
  
need	
  he	
  believed	
  to	
  be	
  innate	
  in	
  many	
  individuals,	
  however,	
  is	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  grow.	
  People	
  
throughout	
  their	
  lifetimes	
  are	
  working	
  towards	
  a	
  more	
  developed	
  state	
  of	
  maturity,	
  
consciously	
  or	
  unconsciously.	
  Argyris	
  argued	
  that	
  often	
  individuals	
  in	
  the	
  workplace	
  are	
  
expected	
  to	
  work	
  hard	
  and	
  challenge	
  themselves,	
  but	
  that	
  often	
  the	
  organization’s	
  structure	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  73	
  At	
  the	
  time	
  that	
  he	
  published	
  this	
  book,	
  there	
  were	
  two	
  camps	
  of	
  thought.	
  The	
  first	
  was	
  more	
  concerned	
  with	
  the	
  logical	
  structuring	
  of	
  the	
  organization	
  and	
  the	
  second,	
  which	
  Argyris	
  was	
  most	
  inclined	
  towards,	
  was	
  more	
  concerned	
  with	
  the	
  behavior	
  of	
  the	
  individuals.	
  	
  For	
  more	
  on	
  this	
  see	
  Administrative	
  Organization	
  by	
  John	
  M.	
  Pfiffner	
  and	
  Frank	
  P.	
  Sherwood.	
  	
  	
  	
  74	
  Argyris,	
  Personality	
  and	
  Organization:	
  The	
  Conflict	
  Between	
  System	
  and	
  the	
  Individual	
  (New	
  York:	
  Harper&	
  Row,	
  1957),	
  2.	
  	
  
	
  	
   30	
  
does	
  not	
  support	
  these	
  goals.	
  Argyris	
  introduced	
  the	
  example	
  of	
  working	
  on	
  an	
  assembly	
  
line	
  in	
  which	
  a	
  person	
  is	
  assigned	
  to	
  one	
  very	
  specific,	
  repetitive	
  task.	
  He	
  found	
  that	
  ninety	
  
percent	
  of	
  individuals	
  in	
  this	
  setting	
  are	
  unhappy	
  with	
  their	
  working	
  situation	
  because	
  they	
  
have	
  little	
  to	
  no	
  freedom	
  in	
  how	
  they	
  approach	
  their	
  work,	
  and	
  after	
  mastering	
  their	
  task	
  
are	
  no	
  longer	
  challenged.75	
  He	
  argued	
  that	
  people	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  challenged	
  throughout	
  their	
  
life	
  so	
  as	
  to	
  be	
  working	
  towards	
  personal	
  growth	
  and	
  self-­‐fulfillment.	
  
In	
  order	
  for	
  the	
  individual	
  to	
  express	
  more	
  of	
  his	
  knowing	
  and	
  feeling	
  abilities,	
  he	
  requires	
  a	
  work	
  environment	
  over	
  which	
  he	
  has	
  greater	
  control,	
  where	
  he	
  can	
  make	
  decisions	
  concerning	
  goals,	
  policies,	
  and	
  practices.	
  The	
  employee	
  must	
  be	
  provided	
  more	
  “power”	
  over	
  his	
  own	
  work	
  environment	
  and	
  therefore	
  he	
  must	
  be	
  given	
  responsibility,	
  authority,	
  and	
  increased	
  control	
  over	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  that	
  affects	
  his	
  immediate	
  work	
  environment.	
  He	
  must	
  become	
  self-­‐responsible.76	
  	
  	
  Argyris	
  believed	
  that	
  without	
  freedom	
  in	
  one’s	
  work,	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  personal	
  achievement	
  and	
  
room	
  for	
  growth,	
  people	
  tend	
  to	
  fall	
  into	
  dependency	
  on	
  the	
  superiors	
  rather	
  than	
  striving	
  
to	
  better	
  themselves.	
  Though	
  he	
  does	
  not	
  give	
  solutions	
  to	
  these	
  findings,	
  he	
  argues	
  that	
  
this	
  situation	
  presents	
  room	
  for	
  change.	
  	
  
Having	
  witnessed	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  interactions	
  within	
  the	
  workplace,	
  Argyris	
  concluded	
  
that	
  conflict	
  is	
  inevitable,	
  whether	
  it	
  be	
  between	
  individuals	
  or	
  within	
  oneself.	
  However,	
  he	
  
claimed	
  that,	
  if	
  dealt	
  with	
  properly,	
  conflict	
  could	
  prove	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  important	
  tool	
  for	
  personal	
  
development.	
  He	
  argued,	
  “True,	
  conflict	
  can	
  be	
  uncomfortable,	
  but	
  it	
  is	
  even	
  more	
  true	
  that	
  
conflict	
  harms	
  a	
  person’s	
  personality	
  when	
  the	
  personality	
  uses	
  incorrect	
  ways	
  of	
  dealing	
  
with	
  the	
  conflict.	
  When	
  dealt	
  with	
  correctly,	
  conflict	
  is	
  an	
  experience	
  of	
  growth	
  for	
  the	
  
personality.”77	
  In	
  order	
  to	
  deal	
  with	
  conflict	
  properly,	
  Argyris	
  explained	
  that	
  one	
  must	
  
address	
  the	
  issue	
  at	
  the	
  source,	
  or	
  in	
  Argyris’s	
  words,	
  “If	
  headaches	
  are	
  to	
  be	
  cured,	
  the	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  75	
  Ibid.,	
  73.	
  	
  76	
  Ibid.,	
  181	
  	
  77	
  Ibid..,	
  39.	
  	
  
	
  	
   31	
  
cause	
  must	
  be	
  found.	
  Similarly,	
  human	
  relations	
  problems	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  understood	
  in	
  their	
  
full	
  complexity.”78	
  Like	
  Steele,	
  Argyris	
  believed	
  that	
  people	
  needed	
  to	
  learn	
  to	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  
positively	
  face	
  the	
  uncomfortable	
  nature	
  of	
  conflict,	
  and	
  argued	
  that	
  looking	
  at	
  behavior	
  
could	
  teach	
  us	
  how	
  to	
  better	
  understand	
  its	
  source	
  and	
  thus	
  how	
  to	
  better	
  respond	
  in	
  a	
  
positive,	
  productive	
  matter.	
  	
  This,	
  he	
  argued,	
  begins	
  with	
  looking	
  deeper	
  at	
  how	
  to	
  
understand	
  the	
  motivations	
  behind	
  the	
  individual’s	
  behavior.	
  	
  
Interpersonal	
  Competence	
  
In	
  the	
  early	
  1960s,	
  Argyris	
  switched	
  his	
  attention	
  to	
  developing	
  ways	
  of	
  addressing	
  
the	
  behavioral	
  tendencies	
  that	
  he	
  found	
  throughout	
  his	
  years	
  of	
  research.	
  In	
  1962,	
  just	
  a	
  few	
  
years	
  before	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  the	
  professor	
  published	
  Interpersonal	
  
Competence	
  and	
  Organizational	
  Effectiveness.	
  In	
  this	
  book,	
  Argyris	
  focused	
  on	
  assisting	
  top	
  
executives	
  in	
  becoming	
  more	
  competent	
  leaders.	
  He	
  found	
  that	
  this	
  was	
  often	
  where	
  the	
  
most	
  change	
  was	
  needed.	
  Generally,	
  he	
  found	
  problems	
  with	
  the	
  executive	
  top	
  down	
  model.	
  
He	
  believed	
  that	
  it	
  fostered	
  employee	
  dependence	
  and	
  conformity.	
  Argyris’s	
  aim	
  was	
  to	
  turn	
  
this	
  problem	
  around	
  by	
  empowering	
  the	
  individual.	
  Rather	
  than	
  having	
  the	
  decision	
  makers	
  
and	
  the	
  workers	
  separated,	
  he	
  called	
  for	
  the	
  building	
  of	
  competent	
  employees	
  at	
  every	
  level,	
  
not	
  simply	
  at	
  the	
  top.79	
  He	
  argued	
  that	
  “Mutual	
  understanding,	
  trust,	
  self-­‐esteem,	
  openness,	
  
internal	
  commitment,	
  fully	
  functioning	
  human	
  beings	
  who	
  aspire	
  to	
  excellence-­‐	
  all	
  these	
  we	
  
as	
  a	
  society	
  say	
  we	
  value”	
  yet,	
  he	
  added,	
  this	
  is	
  rarely	
  promoted	
  within	
  the	
  organization.80	
  
He	
  argued	
  that	
  organizations	
  had	
  the	
  potential	
  to	
  be	
  models	
  for	
  society	
  by	
  implementing	
  
ways	
  to	
  empower	
  the	
  individuals	
  at	
  every	
  level.	
  The	
  individuals	
  adhere	
  to	
  the	
  wishes	
  of	
  the	
  
executive,	
  but	
  there	
  is	
  often	
  poor	
  communication	
  between	
  the	
  two.	
  He	
  sought	
  to	
  change	
  this	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  78	
  Ibid.,	
  26.	
  	
  79	
  Argyris,	
  Interpersonal	
  Competence	
  and	
  organizational	
  effectiveness,131-­‐132.	
  	
  80	
  Ibid.,	
  5.	
  	
  
	
  	
   32	
  
by	
  starting	
  with	
  the	
  executives	
  of	
  the	
  organization,	
  believing	
  that	
  they	
  could	
  set	
  a	
  positive	
  
example	
  and	
  bring	
  change	
  to	
  the	
  foundation	
  of	
  the	
  organization.	
  	
  
He	
  began	
  to	
  address	
  these	
  issues	
  by	
  setting	
  up	
  what	
  he	
  called	
  a	
  “laboratory”	
  for	
  the	
  
top	
  executives	
  of	
  an	
  organization	
  with	
  whom	
  he	
  was	
  working	
  to	
  improve	
  their	
  performance.	
  
Within	
  this	
  setting	
  Argyris	
  presented	
  scenarios	
  to	
  the	
  executives	
  and	
  then	
  walked	
  them	
  
through	
  understanding	
  how	
  they	
  responded.	
  What	
  is	
  interesting	
  for	
  this	
  thesis	
  is	
  that	
  in	
  this	
  
process,	
  he	
  made	
  it	
  a	
  point	
  not	
  to	
  give	
  the	
  participants	
  an	
  answer	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  they	
  should	
  
respond	
  or	
  act.	
  Furthermore,	
  he	
  compelled	
  the	
  participants	
  to	
  direct	
  the	
  conversation	
  and	
  
progression	
  of	
  the	
  experience.	
  In	
  his	
  reflection	
  of	
  this	
  study,	
  he	
  states	
  that	
  typically	
  the	
  
teacher	
  is	
  in	
  charge	
  of	
  providing	
  the	
  material,	
  conditions	
  and	
  organization	
  of	
  the	
  course.	
  
Much	
  like	
  the	
  current	
  problems	
  he	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  organization,	
  he	
  believed	
  
that	
  this	
  way	
  of	
  teaching	
  led	
  to	
  a	
  heightened	
  external	
  commitment.	
  	
  “External	
  commitment,”	
  
Argyris	
  explained,	
  “exists	
  when	
  the	
  individual	
  is	
  induced	
  to	
  learn	
  through	
  someone	
  else’s	
  
influence.”	
  81	
  Instead	
  he	
  advocated	
  for	
  an	
  approach	
  where	
  the	
  individual	
  is	
  motivated	
  by	
  his	
  
or	
  her	
  own	
  personal	
  desire	
  to	
  achieve	
  or	
  improve.	
  Working	
  towards	
  the	
  internal	
  model,	
  he	
  
concluded	
  with	
  a	
  few	
  points	
  for	
  developing	
  what	
  he	
  believed	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  effective	
  training	
  
program	
  for	
  fostering	
  personal	
  drive.	
  	
  
First,	
  Argyris	
  believed	
  that	
  the	
  training	
  program	
  ought	
  to	
  emphasize	
  the	
  
participant’s	
  responsibility	
  for	
  his	
  own	
  self-­‐development.	
  Through	
  this	
  model,	
  he	
  hoped	
  to	
  
show	
  the	
  executives	
  that	
  their	
  behavior	
  with	
  each	
  other	
  and	
  their	
  employees	
  did	
  and	
  could	
  
have	
  a	
  significant	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  workplace	
  environment	
  and	
  on	
  the	
  growth	
  of	
  the	
  
individuals	
  within	
  their	
  workplace.	
  It	
  was	
  important	
  for	
  the	
  executives	
  to	
  come	
  to	
  their	
  own	
  
conclusion	
  about	
  their	
  ability	
  to	
  change	
  and	
  begin	
  to	
  recognize	
  potential	
  areas	
  of	
  
improvement.	
  It	
  could	
  only	
  be	
  done	
  if	
  they	
  wanted	
  to	
  make	
  those	
  changes.	
  Argyris	
  chose	
  the	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  81	
  Ibid.,	
  132.	
  
	
  	
   33	
  
laboratory	
  model	
  because	
  he	
  believed	
  that	
  learning	
  takes	
  place	
  in	
  interpersonal	
  small	
  
groups	
  as	
  it	
  creates	
  conditions	
  where	
  people	
  may	
  learn	
  from	
  one	
  another	
  and	
  practice	
  
better	
  communication	
  techniques.	
  Argyris	
  also	
  argued	
  that	
  self-­‐acceptance	
  is	
  key	
  to	
  change	
  
and	
  that	
  through	
  group	
  exercises,	
  one	
  may	
  learn	
  to	
  accept	
  oneself	
  as	
  they	
  are	
  and	
  in	
  turn	
  
better	
  understand	
  others	
  which	
  helps	
  to	
  decrease	
  defensive	
  reactions.	
  Argyris	
  believed	
  that	
  
he	
  was	
  “re-­‐educating”	
  these	
  executives	
  and	
  argued	
  that	
  like	
  conflict,	
  re-­‐education	
  needed	
  to	
  
change	
  the	
  root	
  of	
  the	
  problem.	
  This	
  meant	
  changing	
  the	
  behavior	
  of	
  the	
  executives	
  rather	
  
than	
  simply	
  changing	
  a	
  few	
  structural	
  systems	
  of	
  the	
  organization.	
  He	
  argued,	
  “Re-­‐
education	
  should	
  focus	
  more	
  on	
  change	
  of	
  basic	
  values	
  than	
  acquiring	
  skill.”	
  “Skills”,	
  he	
  says,	
  
“follow	
  values”.	
  	
  	
  
Argyris’	
  books	
  are	
  intended	
  for	
  developing	
  professionals	
  and	
  researchers	
  in	
  the	
  
behavioral	
  sciences.	
  He	
  focused	
  not	
  on	
  what	
  they	
  learned	
  but	
  how	
  they	
  learned.	
  This	
  
approach	
  responds	
  to	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  same	
  issue	
  that	
  Sellers	
  found	
  with	
  the	
  architecture	
  
school	
  and	
  is	
  in	
  line	
  with	
  much	
  of	
  what	
  Albers	
  and	
  Engman	
  were	
  teaching	
  in	
  their	
  courses.	
  
Sellers	
  argued	
  that	
  students	
  became	
  dependent	
  on	
  Rudolph	
  and	
  were	
  afraid	
  to	
  take	
  chances	
  
because	
  of	
  it.	
  Argyris	
  finds	
  similar	
  problems	
  within	
  the	
  world	
  of	
  business,	
  which	
  he	
  believed,	
  
leads	
  to	
  improper	
  function	
  within	
  an	
  organization.	
  	
  He	
  approached	
  the	
  problem	
  by	
  
challenging	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  people	
  are	
  educated.	
  Rather	
  than	
  prescribing	
  the	
  answers,	
  he	
  
challenged	
  participants	
  to	
  develop	
  their	
  own	
  understanding	
  and	
  goals	
  in	
  the	
  laboratory	
  
process.	
  This	
  open-­‐ended	
  approach,	
  spanned	
  across	
  disciplines,	
  appearing	
  in	
  Engman’s	
  art	
  
courses	
  and	
  here	
  again	
  in	
  organizational	
  psychology.	
  Education,	
  change	
  and	
  growth	
  were	
  
viewed	
  as	
  a	
  process	
  of	
  discovery.	
   Theory	
  in	
  Practice	
  
In	
  1972,	
  over	
  a	
  decade	
  later,	
  Argyris	
  and	
  Donald	
  A.	
  Schön	
  published	
  Theory	
  in	
  
Practice,	
  Increasing	
  Professional	
  Effectiveness.	
  	
  In	
  this	
  book,	
  the	
  authors	
  discussed	
  what	
  they	
  
	
  	
   34	
  
called	
  “theory	
  in	
  action”	
  versus	
  “theory	
  in	
  use”.	
  Building	
  upon	
  years	
  of	
  previous	
  research	
  
and	
  experience	
  working	
  with	
  organizations,	
  the	
  two	
  researchers	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  way	
  an	
  
individual	
  thinks	
  that	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  will	
  respond	
  to	
  a	
  given	
  situation	
  is	
  often	
  different	
  from	
  how	
  
that	
  person	
  will	
  actually	
  act	
  in	
  the	
  moment.	
  The	
  first	
  is	
  considered	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  theory	
  of	
  action	
  
and	
  the	
  latter,	
  the	
  theory	
  in	
  use.	
  Argyris	
  and	
  Schön	
  provided	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  learning	
  to	
  ride	
  a	
  
bike	
  as	
  an	
  analogy	
  to	
  this	
  discrepancy,	
  stating	
  that	
  one	
  can	
  learn	
  the	
  program	
  of	
  riding	
  a	
  
bike,	
  how	
  it	
  should	
  be	
  done,	
  but	
  it	
  does	
  not	
  give	
  “a	
  complete	
  description	
  of	
  the	
  concrete	
  
performance,”	
  or	
  how	
  riding	
  the	
  bike	
  is	
  actually	
  performed	
  by	
  the	
  individual.	
  82	
  
Turning	
  perhaps	
  even	
  more	
  to	
  educational	
  practices	
  in	
  this	
  work,	
  Argyris	
  and	
  Schön	
  
found	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  often	
  an	
  inconsistency	
  between	
  how	
  one	
  learns	
  in	
  the	
  classroom	
  and	
  
how	
  tasks	
  are	
  actually	
  performed	
  in	
  the	
  professional	
  environment.	
  They	
  pointed	
  directly	
  to	
  
the	
  practice	
  of	
  architecture	
  in	
  their	
  discussion,	
  stating	
  “Critics	
  of	
  education	
  in	
  both	
  
architecture	
  and	
  law	
  agree	
  that	
  the	
  student	
  becomes	
  a	
  competent	
  professional	
  in	
  the	
  office	
  
after	
  graduation	
  rather	
  than	
  in	
  school.	
  Depending	
  on	
  the	
  critic,	
  this	
  is	
  taken	
  as	
  a	
  cause	
  for	
  
alarm	
  or	
  the	
  natural	
  order	
  of	
  events.”83	
  The	
  authors	
  quote	
  various	
  deans	
  of	
  architecture	
  
(names	
  undisclosed)	
  in	
  their	
  concern	
  for	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  architectural	
  education.	
  The	
  first	
  
stated	
  that	
  the	
  traditional	
  studio	
  is	
  inadequate	
  because	
  “Teachers	
  practice	
  architecture	
  
rather	
  than	
  educating	
  students	
  in	
  architectural	
  practice.	
  They	
  leave	
  intact	
  the	
  hidden	
  magic	
  
of	
  the	
  professional	
  design	
  process.”84	
  They	
  add,	
  “The	
  traditional	
  studio	
  doesn’t	
  address	
  the	
  
problem	
  of	
  simulating	
  the	
  client/architect	
  relationship	
  at	
  all.	
  It	
  keeps	
  it	
  under	
  the	
  rug.”85	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  82	
  Chris	
  Argyris	
  and	
  Donald	
  A.	
  Schön,	
  Theory	
  in	
  Practice:	
  Increasing	
  professional	
  effectiveness	
  (San	
  Francisco:	
  Jossey-­‐Bass	
  Publishers,	
  1974),	
  13.	
  	
  83	
  Ibid.,	
  143.	
  	
  84	
  Ibid.,	
  142.	
  	
  85	
  Ibid.	
  	
  
	
  	
   35	
  
Fitting	
  into	
  the	
  model	
  of	
  action,	
  Argyris	
  and	
  Schön	
  claimed	
  that	
  the	
  theory	
  in	
  action	
  of	
  the	
  
architecture	
  studio,	
  what	
  a	
  student	
  thinks	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  might	
  do	
  in	
  a	
  working	
  environment,	
  is	
  
different	
  from	
  the	
  theory	
  in	
  use	
  once	
  students	
  enter	
  into	
  the	
  workforce.	
  
	
  It	
  is	
  plausible	
  that	
  Sellers	
  and	
  many	
  of	
  his	
  fellow	
  builders	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  
would	
  agree	
  with	
  Schön	
  and	
  Argyris’	
  findings.86	
  	
  Relating	
  theory	
  in	
  action	
  to	
  the	
  
architecture	
  studio,	
  the	
  theory	
  in	
  use	
  could	
  be	
  equated	
  with	
  the	
  work	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  
The	
  students	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  were	
  exploring	
  what	
  one	
  would	
  actually	
  do	
  in	
  a	
  building	
  
situation	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  theorizing	
  about	
  how	
  it	
  might	
  unfold	
  on	
  paper.	
  Rather	
  than	
  drawing	
  
up	
  their	
  conceived	
  plans,	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  designers	
  reacted	
  to	
  the	
  moment	
  and	
  the	
  
space,	
  learning	
  and	
  observing	
  how	
  something	
  would	
  actually	
  be	
  constructed	
  and	
  used.	
  	
  
They	
  began	
  to	
  rely	
  on	
  experience	
  rather	
  than	
  their	
  architecture	
  professors	
  and	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  
address	
  the	
  problems	
  that	
  Argyris	
  mentioned	
  regarding	
  architecture	
  school.	
  Sellers	
  and	
  his	
  
colleagues	
  were	
  taking	
  it	
  upon	
  themselves	
  to	
  demystify	
  the	
  architectural	
  practice,	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  
eyes	
  of	
  Argyris,	
  were	
  practicing	
  theory	
  in	
  use.	
  	
  
	
  In	
  November	
  1971,	
  Steele	
  and	
  his	
  colleague	
  David	
  Hall	
  published	
  an	
  article	
  on	
  the	
  
outcomes	
  of	
  a	
  course	
  on	
  organizational	
  psychology	
  that	
  they	
  taught	
  together	
  at	
  Yale	
  called	
  
“Self-­‐Directed,	
  Self-­‐Relevant	
  Learning”	
  in	
  The	
  School	
  Review.	
  The	
  course	
  objectives	
  were	
  set	
  
to	
  fill	
  what	
  they	
  believed	
  was	
  a	
  need	
  within	
  general	
  learning	
  and	
  teaching	
  practices,	
  arguing	
  
that	
  courses	
  typically	
  focused	
  more	
  on	
  cognitive	
  development	
  than	
  personal	
  growth,	
  or	
  in	
  
their	
  words,	
  to	
  “promote	
  the	
  personal	
  growth	
  and	
  self-­‐understanding	
  of	
  the	
  student.”87	
  To	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  86	
  It	
  is	
  also	
  interesting	
  that	
  Argyris	
  turns	
  his	
  attention	
  to	
  architecture	
  here.	
  This	
  book	
  was	
  published	
  after	
  the	
  work	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  had	
  been	
  happening	
  for	
  many	
  years,	
  after	
  Steel	
  returned	
  to	
  Yale	
  to	
  teach	
  in	
  the	
  Industrial	
  Sciences	
  department.	
  Nowhere	
  have	
  I	
  found	
  such	
  a	
  direct	
  reference	
  to	
  architecture	
  in	
  Argyris’	
  work	
  prior	
  to	
  this	
  book.	
  It	
  is	
  possible	
  that	
  Argyris	
  was	
  indirectly	
  referencing	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  builders	
  and	
  their	
  desire	
  to	
  leave	
  the	
  classroom.	
  	
  	
  	
  87	
  Douglas	
  T.	
  Hall	
  and	
  Fred	
  I.	
  Steele,	
  “Self-­‐Directed,	
  Self-­‐Relevant	
  Learning,”	
  The	
  School	
  Review	
  80	
  (1971):	
  94.	
  	
  
	
  	
   36	
  
combat	
  this,	
  Steele	
  and	
  Hall	
  designed	
  the	
  course	
  to	
  give	
  more	
  responsibility	
  to	
  the	
  students,	
  
believing	
  that	
  through	
  this	
  autonomy,	
  students	
  would	
  experience	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  personal	
  
competence	
  and	
  thus	
  would	
  be	
  more	
  motivated	
  to	
  learn.88	
  	
  
In	
  addition	
  to	
  a	
  weekly	
  lecture,	
  students	
  met	
  in	
  smaller	
  discussion	
  groups	
  to	
  dive	
  
deeper	
  into	
  topics	
  of	
  their	
  choice.	
  It	
  was	
  up	
  to	
  the	
  groups	
  to	
  decide	
  what	
  they	
  would	
  discuss	
  
and	
  how	
  they	
  would	
  go	
  about	
  it.	
  “The	
  common	
  element	
  in	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  exercises	
  was	
  
encouragement	
  for	
  each	
  student	
  to	
  exercise	
  autonomy,	
  to	
  examine	
  his	
  own	
  behavior	
  and	
  
interests,	
  and	
  to	
  do	
  some	
  thinking	
  and	
  writing	
  about	
  those	
  things	
  that	
  seemed	
  most	
  
relevant	
  and	
  important	
  to	
  his	
  own	
  life.”89	
  In	
  effect,	
  the	
  students	
  were	
  prompted	
  to	
  take	
  
charge	
  of	
  their	
  education.	
  Steele	
  and	
  Hall	
  championed	
  what	
  they	
  called	
  “exploratory	
  
behavior”	
  and	
  unlike	
  the	
  traditional	
  classroom,	
  students	
  were	
  rewarded	
  for	
  finding	
  
alternative	
  solutions	
  to	
  problems	
  presented	
  in	
  class.	
  Much	
  like	
  Josef	
  Albers	
  in	
  the	
  Art	
  
Department,	
  Hall	
  and	
  Steele	
  believed	
  that	
  the	
  student	
  must	
  learn	
  to	
  be	
  independent	
  from	
  
the	
  instructor.	
  	
  
In	
  the	
  article	
  Steele	
  also	
  addressed	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  failure.	
  In	
  many	
  courses,	
  the	
  
authors	
  argued,	
  the	
  student	
  is	
  steered	
  away	
  from	
  failing.	
  This	
  makes	
  students	
  afraid	
  to	
  
experiment.	
  However,	
  in	
  this	
  course,	
  students	
  were	
  encouraged	
  to	
  take	
  charge,	
  experiment	
  
within	
  their	
  groups,	
  and	
  if	
  they	
  failed,	
  to	
  simply	
  understand	
  why.	
  Steele	
  and	
  Hall	
  explained	
  
that	
  the	
  question	
  they	
  encouraged	
  was	
  "How	
  can	
  I	
  learn	
  why	
  that	
  experiment	
  failed	
  so	
  that	
  I	
  
can	
  behave	
  more	
  competently	
  the	
  next	
  time?"90	
  In	
  a	
  sense,	
  failure	
  was	
  expected	
  and	
  turned	
  
from	
  a	
  negative	
  experience	
  into	
  a	
  tool.	
  Again,	
  drawing	
  similarities	
  with	
  Engman,	
  Steele	
  and	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  88	
  “The	
  element	
  of	
  our	
  theory	
  of	
  learning	
  on	
  which	
  this	
  course	
  was	
  based	
  is	
  that	
  students,	
  like	
  other	
  human	
  beings,	
  have	
  a	
  need	
  to	
  experience	
  personal	
  competence.	
  The	
  more	
  opportunities	
  they	
  have	
  to	
  experience	
  the	
  intrinsic	
  reward	
  of	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  personal	
  competence	
  in	
  a	
  course,	
  the	
  higher	
  will	
  be	
  their	
  future	
  involvement	
  in	
  and	
  motivation	
  toward	
  learning	
  as	
  a	
  process.”	
  Ibid.,	
  97.	
  	
  89	
  Ibid.,	
  95.	
  	
  90	
  Ibid.,	
  105.	
  
	
  	
   37	
  
Hall	
  saw	
  failure	
  and	
  success	
  as	
  equal	
  tools	
  for	
  learning,	
  each	
  providing	
  an	
  entry	
  point	
  into	
  
personal	
  discovery.	
  Rather	
  than	
  hypothesizing	
  the	
  potential	
  outcomes,	
  this	
  class	
  challenged	
  
the	
  students	
  to	
  try	
  out	
  their	
  ideas	
  and	
  bear	
  witness	
  to	
  the	
  outcome	
  of	
  their	
  experiments.	
  	
  
This,	
  the	
  authors	
  believed,	
  was	
  the	
  first	
  “process-­‐oriented”	
  course	
  offered	
  at	
  Yale.	
  
According	
  to	
  the	
  article,	
  the	
  course	
  was	
  originally	
  taught	
  by	
  Argyris,	
  then	
  later	
  by	
  both	
  
Argyris	
  and	
  Steele	
  before	
  Hall	
  replaced	
  Argyris	
  and	
  he	
  and	
  Steel	
  taught	
  the	
  course.	
  There	
  is	
  
no	
  discussion	
  as	
  to	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  Argyris	
  ran	
  the	
  course	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  manner,	
  but	
  the	
  basic	
  
principles	
  certainly	
  reflect	
  the	
  theories	
  that	
  Argyris	
  presented	
  in	
  his	
  writing.	
  	
  
Argyris’	
  research	
  may	
  have	
  indeed	
  also	
  influenced	
  Sellers’	
  sentiments	
  about	
  the	
  
school	
  and	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  thinking	
  behind	
  his	
  journey	
  into	
  building.	
  Steele	
  was	
  exposed	
  to	
  
Argyris’	
  work	
  before	
  Sellers	
  returned	
  to	
  Yale	
  to	
  get	
  his	
  Master’s	
  in	
  Architecture.	
  It	
  is	
  thus	
  
possible	
  that	
  Steele	
  shared	
  Argyris’s	
  work	
  with	
  Sellers	
  as	
  undergraduates	
  and	
  thus	
  
influenced	
  how	
  Sellers	
  viewed	
  his	
  time	
  in	
  architecture	
  school.	
  	
  	
  Steele’s	
  Work	
  
Building	
  from	
  his	
  studies	
  with	
  Argyris,	
  Steele	
  used	
  his	
  experience	
  at	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain	
  to	
  develop	
  his	
  own	
  theories	
  relating	
  to	
  the	
  world	
  of	
  organizational	
  effectiveness.	
  
In	
  1973,	
  he	
  published	
  Physical	
  Settings	
  and	
  Organization	
  Development.	
  This	
  book	
  posited	
  
that	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  change	
  within	
  a	
  workplace	
  was	
  based	
  on	
  principles	
  of	
  
understanding	
  one’s	
  environment.	
  Steele	
  proposed	
  that	
  behavior	
  is	
  greatly	
  affected	
  by	
  one’s	
  
physical	
  setting	
  and	
  argued	
  that	
  having	
  control	
  over	
  the	
  workplace	
  environment	
  creates	
  the	
  
potential	
  for	
  better	
  connections	
  amongst	
  people	
  and	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  heightened	
  personal	
  
responsibility.	
  Often	
  times,	
  he	
  stated,	
  the	
  space	
  does	
  not	
  suit	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  those	
  using	
  it:	
  
“The	
  crisis	
  here	
  is	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  fit	
  between	
  needs	
  and	
  settings”.91	
  He	
  continued,	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  91	
  Fred	
  Steele,	
  Physical	
  Settings,	
  4.	
  	
  
	
  	
   38	
  
All	
  human	
  activities	
  take	
  place	
  in	
  some	
  kind	
  of	
  setting-­‐	
  everybody	
  must	
  be	
  someplace.	
  Some	
  settings	
  are	
  good	
  for	
  what	
  people	
  are	
  trying	
  to	
  do,	
  some	
  are	
  irrelevant,	
  and	
  many	
  are	
  literally	
  unusable	
  for	
  the	
  purposes	
  for	
  which	
  they	
  were	
  intended.	
  I	
  therefore	
  look	
  upon	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  behavior	
  and	
  environment	
  as	
  valuable	
  for	
  consultants,	
  organization	
  members,	
  designers,	
  and	
  people	
  in	
  general-­‐	
  especially	
  in	
  this	
  period	
  of	
  accelerating	
  change	
  in	
  the	
  world.92	
  	
  	
  Steele’s	
  first	
  goal	
  of	
  the	
  book	
  was	
  to	
  bring	
  environmental	
  awareness	
  into	
  the	
  workplace.	
  
Second,	
  he	
  sought	
  to	
  use	
  or	
  change	
  it	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  better	
  fit	
  between	
  the	
  person	
  and	
  
the	
  setting.	
  He	
  defines	
  space	
  as	
  a	
  convenient	
  term	
  for	
  “the	
  places	
  that	
  are	
  potentially	
  
available	
  to	
  people”.93	
  The	
  term	
  includes	
  the	
  voids	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  desks	
  and	
  chalkboards,	
  
equating	
  objects	
  walkways.	
  	
  Steele	
  exclaimed,	
  “I	
  wish	
  to	
  stress	
  here	
  that	
  any	
  universal	
  
solution	
  applied	
  to	
  all	
  settings	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  inappropriate	
  at	
  least	
  as	
  often	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  appropriate.	
  
Settings	
  must	
  vary	
  with	
  the	
  particular	
  people	
  and	
  activities	
  for	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  used.”94	
  
This	
  theory	
  came	
  directly	
  from	
  processes	
  developed	
  while	
  building	
  his	
  home	
  on	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  Steele	
  used	
  the	
  construction	
  of	
  the	
  Pinhead	
  House	
  as	
  a	
  laboratory,	
  
watching	
  how	
  he	
  and	
  his	
  fellow	
  builders	
  responded	
  to	
  the	
  space	
  and	
  crafted	
  it	
  to	
  suit	
  their	
  
own	
  needs	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  preconceived	
  idea	
  of	
  what	
  a	
  home	
  should	
  look	
  like.	
  They	
  were	
  
developing	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  their	
  environment,	
  and	
  in	
  a	
  sense,	
  themselves	
  as	
  they	
  
followed	
  the	
  wild	
  beams.	
  Steele	
  translated	
  this	
  process	
  into	
  his	
  own	
  tool	
  for	
  organizational	
  
development:	
  “A	
  recent	
  example	
  of	
  this	
  structural	
  flexibility	
  is	
  a	
  living	
  room	
  designed	
  for	
  
my	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Vermont,	
  house	
  by	
  Thomas	
  Luckey.	
  The	
  room	
  has	
  no	
  furniture	
  but	
  is	
  
all	
  furniture…People	
  can	
  arrange	
  themselves	
  in	
  many	
  different	
  patterns.	
  My	
  use	
  of	
  this	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  92	
  Ibid.,	
  5.	
  	
  93	
  Ibid.	
  	
  	
  94	
  Ibid.,	
  15.	
  	
  
	
  	
   39	
  
space	
  for	
  different	
  social	
  activities	
  has	
  confirmed	
  that	
  interaction	
  is	
  facilitated	
  by	
  wide	
  
choice	
  about	
  how	
  to	
  arrange	
  oneself.”95	
  
The	
  ability	
  to	
  shape	
  and	
  choose	
  your	
  own	
  environment	
  was	
  further	
  exhibited	
  in	
  the	
  
rotating	
  guest	
  room	
  of	
  the	
  Pinhead	
  House.	
  As	
  Sellers	
  explained	
  in	
  an	
  interview	
  with	
  Daniel	
  
Sagan,	
  he	
  took	
  it	
  upon	
  himself	
  to	
  create	
  the	
  smallest	
  possible,	
  yet	
  comfortable	
  guestroom.	
  
He	
  and	
  Luckey	
  designed	
  a	
  7	
  x	
  7	
  foot	
  cylinder	
  shaped	
  room	
  for	
  the	
  Pinhead	
  house	
  that	
  could	
  
rotate	
  to	
  accommodate	
  different	
  uses	
  (Fig.	
  7).“You’d	
  walk	
  in	
  and	
  you	
  could	
  dial	
  it	
  to	
  what	
  
you	
  want.”96	
  A	
  picture	
  of	
  the	
  space	
  shows	
  a	
  young	
  woman	
  lounging	
  on	
  what	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  
sofa.	
  The	
  walls	
  wrap	
  around	
  her	
  like	
  a	
  tube,	
  and	
  again,	
  look	
  as	
  though	
  she	
  could	
  be	
  
modeling	
  the	
  latest	
  in	
  spaceship	
  accommodations.	
  Though	
  it	
  is	
  difficult	
  to	
  discern	
  from	
  the	
  
photo,	
  Sellers	
  explained	
  the	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  closet	
  fixed	
  on	
  one	
  end,	
  and	
  a	
  small	
  desk	
  at	
  the	
  
other.	
  The	
  walls	
  were	
  made	
  from	
  sheets	
  of	
  layered	
  plywood	
  and	
  “hoops”.	
  The	
  ends	
  were	
  
fixed	
  with	
  a	
  closet	
  on	
  one	
  end	
  and	
  a	
  desk	
  on	
  the	
  other,	
  and	
  like	
  a	
  rolling	
  pin,	
  the	
  center	
  of	
  
the	
  room	
  would	
  spin,	
  moving	
  the	
  bed	
  to	
  the	
  ceiling,	
  bringing	
  the	
  couch	
  into	
  a	
  position	
  for	
  
use	
  and	
  vice	
  versa.	
  Openings	
  were	
  cut	
  into	
  the	
  cylinder	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  window	
  and	
  entry,	
  which	
  
could	
  be	
  opened	
  to	
  the	
  interior	
  of	
  the	
  house	
  depending	
  on	
  how	
  you	
  positioned	
  the	
  room.	
  	
  
The	
  construction	
  of	
  this	
  space	
  was	
  similar	
  to	
  many	
  that	
  had	
  been	
  created	
  at	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain	
  thus	
  far.	
  The	
  builders	
  went	
  in	
  with	
  an	
  idea	
  but	
  allowed	
  the	
  feeling	
  of	
  the	
  space	
  to	
  
guide	
  the	
  next	
  move.	
  Sellers	
  shared,	
  
It	
  was	
  the	
  same	
  thing	
  as	
  the	
  living	
  room	
  floor,	
  once	
  you	
  are	
  in	
  there,	
  it	
  started	
  to	
  happen.	
  The	
  cues	
  came	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  walls,	
  the	
  space,	
  what	
  was	
  happening	
  up	
  there,	
  what	
  was	
  happening	
  down	
  there,	
  how	
  the	
  texture	
  of	
  the	
  materials	
  and	
  the	
  materials	
  you	
  knew	
  about.	
  	
  And	
  there	
  would	
  be	
  this	
  discussion	
  and	
  it	
  would	
  go	
  on	
  and	
  on	
  and	
  on,	
  and	
  all	
  of	
  a	
  sudden,	
  Boom!	
  An	
  idea	
  would	
  come	
  out,	
  and	
  we’d	
  make	
  it.97	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  95	
  Ibid.,	
  64.	
  	
  96	
  Sellers	
  interview	
  with	
  Sagan.	
  	
  97	
  Cohen,	
  Architectural	
  Improvisations,	
  31-­‐32.	
  	
  
	
  	
   40	
  
	
  This	
  unique	
  and	
  transformative	
  guestroom	
  evolved	
  from	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  the	
  designers	
  to	
  be	
  
physically	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  space	
  and	
  though	
  not	
  from	
  a	
  wild	
  beam,	
  it	
  stemmed	
  from	
  the	
  ideas	
  
of	
  waiting,	
  of	
  learning	
  from	
  and	
  working	
  with	
  one	
  another,	
  and	
  understanding	
  the	
  potential	
  
wants	
  and	
  needs	
  of	
  the	
  occupants	
  to	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  also	
  direct	
  the	
  space.	
  Rather	
  than	
  creating	
  a	
  
stationary	
  setting,	
  Steele,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Luckey	
  invited	
  the	
  guest	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  the	
  furniture	
  
and	
  transform	
  the	
  room	
  to	
  suit	
  their	
  personal	
  needs.	
  Sellers	
  told	
  Sagan	
  that	
  this	
  was	
  the	
  
most	
  popular	
  room	
  in	
  the	
  house,	
  particularly	
  with	
  children.	
  The	
  room	
  playfully	
  coaxed	
  
people	
  into	
  thinking	
  about	
  their	
  environment	
  and	
  their	
  needs	
  at	
  any	
  given	
  time.	
  	
  	
  
Steele	
  takes	
  this	
  experience	
  as	
  a	
  basic	
  principal	
  for	
  how	
  organizations	
  can	
  promote	
  
a	
  healthy	
  environment.	
  	
  He	
  proposes	
  that	
  spaces	
  need	
  to	
  remain	
  “flexible,”	
  arguing	
  that	
  “[…]	
  
the	
  task	
  of	
  organizational	
  design	
  is	
  to	
  create	
  settings	
  that	
  are	
  neither	
  so	
  amorphous	
  that	
  
nothing	
  can	
  be	
  done	
  well	
  there,	
  nor	
  so	
  inflexibly	
  specific	
  that	
  the	
  setting	
  cannot	
  be	
  used	
  for	
  
changing	
  tasks	
  and	
  needs.”98	
  He	
  continues	
  that	
  “most	
  of	
  us	
  tend	
  to	
  take	
  our	
  spatial	
  
arrangements	
  as	
  we	
  find	
  them,”	
  and	
  this,	
  he	
  argues	
  creates	
  a	
  blockage	
  to	
  personal	
  growth.	
  99	
  	
  
To	
  unblock,	
  he	
  suggests	
  that	
  one	
  learns	
  to	
  recognize	
  and	
  become	
  comfortable	
  with	
  making	
  
necessary	
  changes	
  to	
  our	
  spatial	
  arrangements:	
  	
  “Spatial	
  problem	
  solving	
  promotes	
  
individual	
  growth;	
  one	
  learns	
  how	
  to	
  consider	
  alternatives,	
  how	
  to	
  look	
  at	
  things,	
  what	
  he	
  
wants	
  in	
  physical	
  spaces,	
  and	
  what	
  the	
  outcomes	
  were	
  of	
  his	
  activities…asking	
  what	
  do	
  I	
  
want	
  to	
  do	
  here?”	
  	
  
He	
  argues	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  a	
  fear	
  of	
  failure	
  explaining	
  that	
  “We	
  want	
  something	
  to	
  be	
  
perfect	
  the	
  first	
  time	
  and	
  then	
  left	
  as	
  is.	
  We	
  are	
  unfamiliar	
  with	
  the	
  notion	
  of	
  settings	
  as	
  
ever-­‐changing,	
  evolving,	
  and	
  experimental.”	
  	
  So	
  often,	
  he	
  argues,	
  people	
  walk	
  into	
  a	
  space	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  98	
  Steele,	
  Physical	
  Settings,	
  64.	
  	
  99	
  Ibid.,	
  34.	
  	
  
	
  	
   41	
  
and	
  shape	
  themselves	
  to	
  fit	
  the	
  environment	
  rather	
  than	
  the	
  other	
  way	
  around.	
  Generally	
  
people	
  do	
  not	
  take	
  the	
  time	
  to	
  consider	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  always	
  potential	
  for	
  change.	
  “This	
  lack	
  
of	
  understanding	
  makes	
  us	
  wary	
  of	
  actually	
  starting	
  to	
  change	
  something,	
  because	
  we	
  might	
  
somehow	
  reduce	
  its	
  value	
  or	
  have	
  to	
  make	
  replacements.”	
  100	
  This	
  finding	
  I	
  believe	
  came	
  
from	
  what	
  Steele	
  witnessed	
  and	
  participated	
  in	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  The	
  Wild	
  Beam	
  theory	
  
left	
  things	
  open,	
  undone,	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  making	
  it	
  impossible	
  to	
  feel	
  that	
  the	
  space	
  was	
  perfect	
  
and	
  untouchable.	
  The	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  light	
  and	
  often-­‐inexpensive	
  materials	
  used	
  at	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain	
  had	
  a	
  similar	
  effect.	
  Because	
  these	
  houses	
  were	
  constructed	
  largely	
  out	
  of	
  
plywood,	
  changes	
  could	
  be	
  easily	
  made,	
  and	
  this	
  was	
  also	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  leaving	
  things	
  open	
  and	
  
unfinished.	
  The	
  needs	
  and	
  functions	
  of	
  the	
  house	
  were	
  determined	
  as	
  the	
  inhabitants	
  built	
  
and	
  lived	
  within	
  the	
  space,	
  and	
  nothing	
  was	
  ever	
  truly	
  set	
  in	
  stone.	
  It	
  gave	
  people	
  the	
  
freedom	
  to	
  choose	
  and	
  to	
  see	
  the	
  possibilities	
  for	
  change.	
  The	
  homes	
  invited	
  imagination	
  
and	
  interaction	
  with	
  the	
  space.	
  	
  
Steele	
  concludes,	
  “My	
  Purpose	
  has	
  been	
  to	
  provide	
  some	
  dimensions	
  that	
  will	
  help	
  
individuals	
  and	
  organizations	
  take	
  a	
  more	
  realistic	
  and	
  complex	
  view	
  of	
  what	
  they	
  gain…	
  In	
  
this	
  book	
  I	
  have	
  not	
  tried	
  to	
  provide	
  hard	
  and	
  fast	
  rules	
  for	
  the	
  “best”	
  way	
  to	
  lay	
  out	
  a	
  plant	
  
or	
  office,	
  but	
  rather	
  to	
  stimulate	
  a	
  process	
  whereby	
  consultants,	
  users,	
  and	
  designers	
  engage	
  
in	
  a	
  collaborative	
  problem-­‐solving	
  process	
  that	
  is	
  relevant	
  to	
  both	
  the	
  goals	
  of	
  the	
  system	
  
and	
  the	
  human	
  qualities	
  of	
  the	
  people	
  who	
  will	
  have	
  to	
  use	
  the	
  place.”101	
  A	
  solution	
  to	
  the	
  
problem	
  is	
  ever-­‐changing,	
  as	
  new	
  personalities	
  will	
  come	
  and	
  go,	
  and	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  the	
  
organization	
  change.	
  Steele	
  sums	
  up	
  by	
  saying	
  that	
  in	
  organizational	
  development,	
  there	
  is	
  
no	
  substitute	
  for	
  being	
  in	
  and	
  around	
  the	
  client	
  environment.	
  102	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  100	
  Ibid.,	
  120.	
  	
  101	
  Ibid.,	
  143	
  	
  102	
  Ibid.,	
  110.	
  
	
  	
   42	
  
It	
  is	
  easy	
  to	
  see	
  (and	
  of	
  course	
  it	
  is	
  referenced)	
  that	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  played	
  a	
  
significant	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  Steele’s	
  theories	
  on	
  environmental	
  development.	
  He	
  
physically	
  employed	
  techniques	
  within	
  a	
  built	
  setting	
  to	
  experiment	
  and	
  actualize	
  his	
  
theories	
  related	
  to	
  environment.	
  It	
  was	
  through	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  building	
  his	
  house	
  that	
  he	
  
was	
  able	
  to	
  pay	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  details	
  of	
  what	
  he	
  found	
  necessary	
  to	
  the	
  function	
  of	
  his	
  
space.	
  He	
  took	
  the	
  time	
  to	
  feel	
  the	
  space,	
  to	
  react	
  to	
  it	
  and	
  make	
  choices.	
  And	
  these	
  choices,	
  
as	
  we	
  have	
  seen,	
  can	
  and	
  did	
  change	
  with	
  the	
  change	
  of	
  needs,	
  much	
  like	
  the	
  Pinhead	
  House	
  
and	
  the	
  many	
  other	
  homes	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  that	
  have	
  seen	
  a	
  change	
  of	
  ownership	
  over	
  
the	
  years.	
  It	
  was	
  an	
  environment	
  that	
  was	
  changeable,	
  interactive,	
  and	
  open	
  for	
  learning.	
  
Argyris’	
  sentiments	
  about	
  education	
  and	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  learning	
  reflect	
  the	
  discontents	
  that	
  
Sellers	
  felt	
  with	
  the	
  architecture	
  program.	
  	
  
As	
  for	
  personal	
  interaction,	
  Argyris	
  believed	
  in	
  taking	
  the	
  time	
  to	
  simply	
  be	
  with	
  
conflict	
  and	
  with	
  one’s	
  responses.	
  He	
  asked	
  his	
  clients	
  to	
  pause	
  and	
  consider	
  the	
  underlying	
  
sources	
  of	
  one’s	
  behavior.	
  This	
  was	
  translated	
  into	
  the	
  building	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  as	
  well.	
  
As	
  they	
  worked,	
  they	
  took	
  the	
  time	
  to	
  stop	
  and	
  feel	
  the	
  space,	
  to	
  understand	
  how	
  one	
  might	
  
move	
  and	
  behave	
  within	
  their	
  environment.	
  I	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  work	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  
influenced	
  Argyris	
  as	
  well.	
  Steele	
  worked	
  with	
  Argyris	
  after	
  completing	
  his	
  home	
  on	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain,	
  so	
  it	
  is	
  most	
  likely	
  not	
  a	
  coincidence	
  that	
  Argyris	
  uses	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
  architecture	
  
to	
  discuss	
  issues	
  with	
  education.	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Steele	
  translated	
  human	
  behavior	
  studies	
  into	
  
their	
  work	
  and	
  in	
  a	
  sense,	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  building	
  helped	
  them	
  to	
  understand	
  human	
  
behavior.	
  The	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  phenomenon	
  was	
  more	
  than	
  learning	
  how	
  to	
  build,	
  it	
  was	
  
learning	
  about	
  why	
  one	
  builds	
  the	
  way	
  they	
  do,	
  about	
  understanding	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  creation,	
  
and	
  about	
  providing	
  the	
  personal	
  challenge	
  that	
  the	
  architects	
  needed	
  for	
  their	
  personal	
  
growth.	
  
	
  
	
  	
   43	
  
CHAPTER	
  IV	
  
BEING	
  
I	
  dream	
  an	
  image	
  and	
  stuff	
  it	
  with	
  its	
  requirements.	
  The	
  trouble	
  is,	
  I’m	
  clever	
  enough	
  to	
  make	
  it	
  seem	
  to	
  work.	
  But,	
  even	
  if	
  I	
  could,	
  it	
  still	
  would	
  be	
  a	
  horror	
  of	
  a	
  life,	
  one	
  that	
  always	
  facing	
  the	
  problem	
  of	
  commitment	
  to	
  an	
  image,	
  and	
  that	
  is	
  depriving	
  itself	
  of	
  the	
  incredible	
  wealth	
  of	
  discovery,	
  the	
  joy	
  of	
  the	
  effort	
  of	
  discovery,	
  allow	
  myself	
  to	
  grow	
  with	
  the	
  growth	
  on	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  my	
  pencil.	
  To	
  let	
  things	
  live	
  life.	
  	
  -­‐	
  David	
  Sellers103	
  	
  
Dimetrodon	
  
Perhaps	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  striking	
  buildings	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  is	
  a	
  multi-­‐unit	
  
housing	
  project	
  known	
  as	
  Dimetrodon	
  (Fig.	
  8).	
  This	
  five-­‐unit	
  structure	
  appears	
  to	
  rise	
  from	
  
the	
  earth	
  like	
  a	
  large	
  ship	
  in	
  a	
  sea	
  of	
  trees.	
  More	
  than	
  the	
  other	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  homes,	
  this	
  
building	
  showcases	
  a	
  multitude	
  of	
  differing	
  architectural	
  approaches,	
  as	
  if	
  various	
  houses	
  
had	
  been	
  broken	
  into	
  pieces	
  and	
  reassembled	
  at	
  random.	
  Looking	
  at	
  the	
  east	
  side	
  of	
  the	
  
building,	
  “the	
  tower”	
  gives	
  way	
  into	
  a	
  low	
  slanted	
  roof,	
  which	
  on	
  a	
  snowy	
  day,	
  might	
  invite	
  
an	
  attempt	
  at	
  sledding	
  down	
  the	
  corrugated	
  iron	
  sheeting.	
  Midway	
  through	
  this	
  slant,	
  there	
  
is	
  a	
  large,	
  solid	
  cement	
  deck	
  that	
  connects	
  the	
  unit	
  entrances	
  and	
  provides	
  an	
  outdoor	
  
leisure	
  space.	
  	
  Walking	
  through	
  here	
  is	
  indeed	
  much	
  like	
  walking	
  through	
  the	
  corridors	
  of	
  a	
  
ship,	
  with	
  numbered	
  wooden	
  doors	
  signifying	
  each	
  individual	
  apartment.	
  From	
  the	
  
opposite	
  side	
  of	
  the	
  building,	
  all	
  of	
  this	
  is	
  forgotten	
  and	
  it	
  appears	
  more	
  like	
  an	
  odd	
  
patchwork	
  of	
  a	
  cabin	
  and	
  a	
  craftsman	
  home,	
  with	
  a	
  stark	
  white	
  siding	
  alluding	
  to	
  modernist	
  
architecture.	
  With	
  a	
  mix	
  of	
  conventional,	
  ribbon	
  and	
  bulbous	
  plexiglas	
  windows	
  that	
  also	
  
appear	
  in	
  the	
  Tack	
  House,	
  the	
  West	
  side	
  looks	
  more	
  like	
  a	
  home	
  than	
  a	
  spaceship,	
  though	
  
wonderfully	
  confused.	
  	
  	
  
This	
  arresting	
  structure	
  was	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  three	
  architectural	
  students	
  from	
  the	
  
University	
  of	
  Pennsylvania:	
  William	
  Maclay,	
  Robert	
  Travers	
  and	
  Jim	
  Sanford.	
  In	
  1971,	
  the	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  103	
  David	
  Sellers,	
  sketchbook,	
  1965,	
  accessed	
  at	
  the	
  Arts	
  Riot	
  Gallery,	
  March	
  23,	
  2013.	
  
	
  	
   44	
  
three	
  young	
  men	
  ventured	
  to	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  from	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Pennsylvania	
  with	
  
the	
  idea	
  of	
  making	
  a	
  quick	
  buck	
  by	
  building	
  and	
  selling	
  a	
  vacation	
  home	
  in	
  what	
  they	
  
thought	
  would	
  be	
  one	
  summer’s	
  worth	
  of	
  work	
  (the	
  three	
  ended	
  up	
  living	
  there	
  for	
  the	
  next	
  
twenty	
  years).	
  They	
  started	
  construction	
  in	
  the	
  summer,	
  camping	
  on	
  the	
  property.	
  As	
  did	
  
many	
  others,	
  the	
  house	
  began	
  with	
  only	
  a	
  plan	
  for	
  the	
  foundation	
  and	
  frame.	
  In	
  Sanford’s	
  
words,	
  “The	
  concept	
  was	
  you	
  build	
  the	
  trusses	
  and	
  people	
  can	
  mess	
  with	
  them	
  as	
  they	
  see	
  
fit.	
  They	
  can	
  build	
  in	
  and	
  out	
  of	
  them	
  but	
  you	
  can	
  still	
  read	
  the	
  trusses.”	
  104	
  	
  	
  
Dimetrodon	
  began	
  to	
  evolve	
  into	
  the	
  large	
  structure	
  it	
  is	
  today	
  when	
  the	
  builders	
  
realized	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  going	
  to	
  take	
  much	
  longer	
  than	
  they	
  had	
  planned.	
  As	
  time	
  went	
  on	
  and	
  
Vermont	
  became	
  colder,	
  they	
  moved	
  into	
  the	
  house,	
  sleeping	
  on	
  the	
  expansive	
  open	
  floor.	
  
Eventually,	
  as	
  the	
  three	
  developed	
  romantic	
  relationships	
  and	
  girlfriends	
  joined	
  in	
  on	
  the	
  
project,	
  the	
  architects	
  in	
  residence	
  required	
  a	
  more	
  private	
  living	
  situation.	
  Eventually,	
  
Dimetrodon	
  was	
  divided	
  into	
  five	
  units,	
  with	
  each	
  architect	
  in	
  charge	
  of	
  the	
  design	
  and	
  
construction	
  of	
  their	
  own	
  living	
  space.	
  As	
  the	
  years	
  progressed,	
  each	
  unit	
  was	
  adapted	
  to	
  
accommodate	
  children	
  and	
  pets,	
  and	
  Dimetrodon	
  eventually	
  became	
  a	
  semi-­‐communal	
  
housing	
  project.	
  105	
  
In	
  a	
  conversation	
  with	
  the	
  author,	
  Sanford	
  recalled	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  building	
  at	
  
Dimetrodon	
  with	
  enthusiasm.	
  “All	
  of	
  a	
  sudden,”	
  he	
  described,	
  	
  
Everything	
  is	
  a	
  major	
  decision.	
  What	
  we	
  learned	
  from	
  working	
  on	
  the	
  whole	
  place	
  is	
  a	
  knee	
  jerk	
  reaction	
  to	
  something,	
  you	
  know,	
  what	
  do	
  we	
  do,	
  becomes	
  way	
  less	
  of	
  a	
  force,	
  and	
  the	
  reaction	
  to	
  make	
  something	
  that	
  you	
  love,	
  something	
  that	
  is	
  yours	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  104	
  Sanford	
  conversation	
  with	
  author,	
  March	
  25,	
  2013.	
  	
  105	
  Sanford	
  explained	
  that	
  the	
  building	
  was	
  named	
  after	
  a	
  dinosaur	
  that	
  used	
  its	
  skin	
  flaps	
  as	
  panels	
  to	
  heat	
  and	
  cool	
  its	
  body.	
  Dimetrodon	
  was	
  an	
  early	
  experiment	
  with	
  “living	
  sustainably”.	
  They	
  constructed	
  a	
  windmill	
  on	
  the	
  property	
  to	
  help	
  provide	
  power	
  to	
  the	
  structure.	
  They	
  also	
  installed	
  solar	
  panels	
  on	
  the	
  roof,	
  had	
  a	
  community	
  garden	
  and	
  a	
  large	
  wood	
  burning	
  boiler	
  room	
  that	
  provided	
  heat	
  for	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  units.	
  The	
  occupants	
  would	
  take	
  turns	
  watching	
  and	
  stoking	
  the	
  fire	
  throughout	
  the	
  winter	
  months.	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   45	
  
becomes	
  much	
  more	
  powerful.”106	
  	
  He	
  added,	
  “doing	
  things,	
  making	
  stuff,	
  oh	
  I	
  get	
  this,	
  I	
  get	
  how	
  this	
  works.	
  You	
  try	
  and	
  figure	
  all	
  that	
  stuff	
  out	
  on	
  paper,	
  it	
  is	
  never	
  going	
  to	
  work,	
  or	
  it	
  can	
  work	
  but	
  with	
  not	
  as	
  much	
  information.	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  better	
  information	
  than	
  standing	
  right	
  there.107	
  	
  Following	
  the	
  path	
  carved	
  by	
  Sellers,	
  the	
  architects	
  improvised	
  their	
  design.	
  Sanford	
  also	
  
described	
  the	
  building	
  process	
  as	
  a	
  lesson	
  in	
  ownership	
  and	
  independence.	
  He	
  related:	
  
Here	
  you	
  are,	
  you	
  are	
  the	
  guy	
  that	
  is	
  building	
  the	
  whole	
  building	
  and	
  then	
  you	
  are	
  the	
  guy	
  who	
  is	
  building	
  his	
  own	
  house	
  and	
  then	
  the	
  question	
  comes	
  up,	
  what	
  am	
  I	
  going	
  to	
  do	
  here?	
  And	
  there	
  isn’t	
  somebody	
  to	
  guide	
  you	
  on	
  that	
  and	
  there	
  isn’t	
  somebody	
  to	
  make	
  it	
  for	
  you.	
  You	
  are	
  the	
  guide,	
  the	
  maker	
  and	
  you	
  are	
  also	
  the	
  guy	
  reaching	
  into	
  his	
  very	
  shallow	
  pocket	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  it.	
  So	
  those	
  three	
  things	
  inform	
  what	
  you’re	
  doing?108	
  	
  Like	
  Sellers	
  and	
  the	
  others	
  building	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Sanford	
  understood	
  this	
  method	
  of	
  
building	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  discover	
  the	
  possibilities	
  that	
  are	
  unearthed	
  when	
  one	
  is	
  physically	
  
present	
  within	
  the	
  space	
  and	
  working	
  closely	
  with	
  the	
  materials.	
  Unlike	
  in	
  the	
  classroom,	
  at	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Sanford	
  had	
  the	
  freedom	
  to	
  follow	
  an	
  idea	
  and	
  bear	
  witness	
  to	
  the	
  
outcome.	
  He	
  demonstrated	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  building	
  as	
  he	
  explained	
  the	
  process:	
  “The	
  architect	
  
stands	
  in	
  a	
  place	
  like	
  this,	
  doing	
  this	
  (holding	
  up	
  his	
  arms	
  and	
  looking	
  around	
  inquisitively),	
  
with	
  a	
  hammer,	
  saying	
  wait	
  a	
  minute	
  now,	
  should	
  I	
  do	
  this,	
  or	
  would	
  that	
  be	
  better,	
  and	
  
saying	
  oh	
  yea,	
  that	
  looks	
  good	
  and	
  then	
  nailing	
  it	
  in.”109	
  	
  Like	
  so	
  many	
  others,	
  Sanford	
  
learned	
  to	
  make	
  decisions	
  on	
  the	
  spot,	
  reacting	
  to	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  building	
  rather	
  than	
  
planning	
  it.	
  	
  
Sanford	
  characterized	
  his	
  experience	
  as	
  a	
  practice	
  of	
  making	
  art.	
  	
  He	
  believed	
  that	
  
every	
  element	
  -­‐	
  the	
  sink	
  piping,	
  the	
  shape	
  of	
  the	
  door	
  -­‐	
  was	
  an	
  expression	
  of	
  one’s	
  creative	
  
intuitions.	
  He	
  explained,	
  “So	
  you	
  got	
  a	
  panel	
  box	
  here,	
  and	
  you	
  want	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  rechargeable	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  106	
  Sanford	
  conversation	
  with	
  author.	
  	
  	
  107	
  Ibid.	
  	
  108	
  Ibid.	
  	
  109	
  Ibid.	
  	
  
	
  	
   46	
  
flash	
  light	
  and	
  you	
  want	
  a	
  switch	
  for	
  outside.	
  In	
  the	
  end,	
  this	
  is	
  where	
  you	
  get	
  the	
  decoration	
  
for	
  the	
  house.	
  It’s	
  not	
  something	
  that’s	
  applied;	
  it’s	
  actually	
  the	
  stuff	
  that	
  the	
  house	
  is	
  made	
  
of.	
  	
  The	
  trusses	
  become	
  a	
  real	
  element.	
  All	
  these	
  things	
  are	
  getting	
  their	
  decorative	
  nature	
  
from	
  the	
  way	
  they	
  are	
  made.”110	
  These	
  design	
  considerations,	
  he	
  argued,	
  could	
  not	
  have	
  
been	
  realized	
  had	
  they	
  been	
  preplanned	
  on	
  paper.	
  The	
  challenge	
  at	
  Dimetrodon	
  was	
  to	
  
address	
  functionality	
  and	
  personal	
  needs	
  without	
  discounting	
  artistic	
  freedom.	
  
Though	
  Sanford	
  was	
  not	
  directly	
  influenced	
  by	
  either	
  Engman	
  or	
  Argyris,	
  it	
  is	
  
reasonable	
  to	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  creative	
  processes	
  that	
  had	
  been	
  cultivated	
  though	
  the	
  
experience	
  of	
  building	
  the	
  Tack	
  House,	
  the	
  Pinhead	
  House	
  and	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  earlier	
  
structures	
  had	
  by	
  this	
  time	
  become	
  the	
  way	
  of	
  building	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.111	
  Dimetrodon	
  
stands	
  as	
  a	
  culmination	
  of	
  these	
  developed	
  theories.	
  When	
  asked	
  what	
  initially	
  drew	
  him	
  
and	
  his	
  Dimetrodon	
  partners	
  to	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  place,	
  Sanford	
  half-­‐jokingly	
  
replied,	
  “we	
  didn’t	
  know	
  any	
  better.”	
  He	
  described,	
  “We	
  never	
  made	
  any	
  money	
  on	
  the	
  deal,	
  
we	
  never	
  sold	
  anything,	
  all	
  the	
  things	
  we	
  set	
  out	
  to	
  do	
  we	
  didn’t	
  do,	
  but	
  we	
  learned	
  a	
  
phenomenal	
  amount.”	
  112	
  	
  This	
  was	
  true	
  for	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  homes	
  constructed.	
  
Those	
  who	
  live	
  in	
  the	
  Dimetrodon	
  units	
  today	
  continue	
  the	
  tradition	
  of	
  learning	
  by	
  
doing.	
  The	
  eccentric	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  design	
  and	
  construction	
  of	
  Dimetrodon	
  attracts	
  the	
  “do	
  it	
  
yourself”	
  homebuyer.	
  In	
  speaking	
  with	
  a	
  current	
  resident,	
  she	
  explained	
  that	
  the	
  home	
  
continues	
  to	
  evolve.	
  Over	
  the	
  past	
  several	
  years,	
  she	
  and	
  her	
  husband	
  and	
  children	
  have	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  110	
  Ibid.	
  	
  111	
  When	
  Sanford	
  returned	
  to	
  Penn	
  to	
  complete	
  his	
  architecture	
  degree,	
  he	
  was	
  able	
  to	
  convince	
  the	
  school	
  to	
  allow	
  him	
  to	
  leave	
  out	
  the	
  structural	
  courses	
  since	
  he	
  had	
  already	
  been	
  doing	
  structural	
  calculations	
  for	
  a	
  real	
  building.	
  Also,	
  knowing	
  the	
  inspirations	
  of	
  Sellers	
  and	
  what	
  had	
  been	
  completed	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  thus	
  far,	
  Sanford	
  enrolled	
  in	
  an	
  independent	
  study	
  with	
  Engman,	
  who,	
  as	
  noted	
  in	
  chapter	
  one,	
  began	
  teaching	
  at	
  Penn	
  in	
  the	
  mid	
  1960s.	
  	
  	
  112	
  Ibid.	
  Sanford	
  is	
  currently	
  a	
  practicing	
  architect	
  in	
  Warren,	
  Vermont.	
  “I	
  do	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  concrete	
  work	
  now,	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  easy	
  for	
  me	
  to	
  do	
  whatever	
  the	
  heck	
  I	
  want	
  because	
  I	
  have	
  done	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  concrete	
  work.”	
  	
  
	
  	
   47	
  
learned	
  to	
  adapt	
  the	
  space	
  to	
  their	
  growing	
  needs	
  as	
  a	
  family.	
  They	
  enclosed	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  
tower	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  new	
  bedroom,	
  walls	
  have	
  been	
  torn	
  down	
  and	
  others	
  crafted	
  in	
  new	
  and	
  
interesting	
  ways.	
  None	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  residents	
  are	
  trained	
  architects	
  or	
  experienced	
  
builders,	
  but	
  the	
  intriguing	
  and	
  perhaps	
  frustrating	
  features	
  of	
  the	
  home	
  have	
  inspired	
  a	
  
sense	
  of	
  experimentation,	
  adaptation	
  and	
  an	
  opportunity	
  for	
  self-­‐guided	
  building	
  education.	
  	
  
Unlike	
  the	
  traditional	
  home	
  that	
  may	
  undergo	
  a	
  few	
  remodels	
  throughout	
  its	
  lifetime,	
  
Dimetrodon	
  is	
  a	
  continual	
  work	
  in	
  progress	
  and	
  perhaps	
  will	
  be	
  an	
  ever-­‐evolving	
  
building.113	
  	
  
The	
  Wadsworth	
  House	
  
While	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  has	
  attracted	
  architects	
  and	
  aspiring	
  homebuilders,	
  it	
  has	
  also	
  
turned	
  the	
  tables,	
  inspiring	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  untrained	
  participants	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  to	
  try	
  
their	
  hand	
  at	
  architectural	
  practice.	
  Libby	
  Wadsworth	
  spent	
  her	
  childhood	
  summers	
  at	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  Her	
  father	
  was	
  Reineke’s	
  roommate	
  at	
  Williams	
  College	
  during	
  their	
  
undergraduate	
  schooling.	
  Working	
  in	
  investments	
  and	
  banking,	
  he	
  was	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  first	
  non-­‐
architecture	
  students	
  to	
  build	
  a	
  house	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  (Fig.	
  9).	
  114	
  	
  
The	
  Wadsworth	
  House	
  served	
  as	
  a	
  vacation	
  home	
  for	
  the	
  family.	
  Shaped	
  like	
  a	
  pyramid,	
  
the	
  front	
  of	
  the	
  home	
  is	
  dotted	
  with	
  windows	
  that	
  hint	
  as	
  to	
  the	
  location	
  of	
  the	
  layered	
  
sleeping	
  quarters.	
  	
  At	
  the	
  top,	
  a	
  round	
  plexiglass	
  window	
  serves	
  at	
  the	
  tallest	
  point	
  of	
  the	
  
structure	
  and	
  allows	
  light	
  to	
  flow	
  through	
  the	
  center	
  of	
  the	
  building.	
  Much	
  like	
  the	
  Pinhead	
  
House,	
  the	
  furniture	
  was	
  built	
  in.	
  Permanent	
  bunks	
  climb	
  the	
  inside	
  front	
  wall,	
  creating	
  
sleeping	
  space	
  for	
  roughly	
  thirty	
  people.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  113	
  Sagan	
  recognizes	
  this	
  in	
  the	
  caption	
  of	
  an	
  image	
  of	
  Dimetrodon	
  in	
  the	
  Architectural	
  Improvisations	
  catalogue.	
  It	
  reads,	
  “started	
  by	
  William	
  Maclay,	
  Jim	
  Sanford	
  and	
  Robert	
  Travers;	
  finished	
  by	
  whom?”.	
  	
  114	
  Their	
  house	
  took	
  one	
  year	
  to	
  build	
  and	
  due	
  to	
  her	
  mother’s	
  insistence,	
  was	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  few	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  completed	
  home	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  the	
  others	
  which	
  she	
  remembered	
  as	
  continually	
  evolving	
  overtime.	
  Though	
  Wadsworth	
  is	
  unsure	
  as	
  to	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  there	
  was	
  ever	
  a	
  physical,	
  drafted	
  plan,	
  she	
  recalls	
  that	
  there	
  was	
  enough	
  of	
  one	
  to	
  pour	
  a	
  concrete	
  foundation.	
  
	
  	
   48	
  
	
  Wadsworth	
  remembers	
  that	
  there	
  was	
  always	
  an	
  element	
  of	
  playfulness	
  at	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain.	
  Games	
  and	
  group	
  gatherings	
  were	
  frequent	
  amongst	
  those	
  who	
  lived	
  and	
  worked	
  
in	
  this	
  growing	
  community,	
  and	
  this	
  was	
  reflected	
  in	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  their	
  home.	
  
Wadsworth	
  remembers	
  that	
  upon	
  the	
  initial	
  construction,	
  there	
  were	
  steep	
  stairs	
  that	
  led	
  to	
  
a	
  sort	
  of	
  catwalk	
  around	
  the	
  ceiling.	
  In	
  the	
  early	
  phases	
  of	
  completion,	
  there	
  was	
  no	
  railing	
  
on	
  either	
  the	
  stairs	
  or	
  the	
  walkway.	
  Her	
  mother,	
  concerned	
  with	
  the	
  safety	
  of	
  her	
  children,	
  
advocated	
  for	
  a	
  safety	
  support.	
  In	
  the	
  spirit	
  of	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  rather	
  than	
  simply	
  
installing	
  a	
  standard	
  rail,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Wadsworth’s	
  father	
  created	
  a	
  piping	
  system	
  which	
  
wound	
  around	
  the	
  interior	
  of	
  the	
  house.	
  Wadsworth	
  called	
  it	
  a	
  “kind	
  of	
  sculptural	
  thing”	
  
and	
  remembers	
  having	
  climbing	
  contests	
  on	
  the	
  pipes.	
  The	
  piping	
  evolved	
  in	
  a	
  similar	
  way	
  
to	
  Engman’s	
  sculptures,	
  unfolding	
  within	
  the	
  space.	
  
Inspired	
  by	
  her	
  experience	
  of	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Wadsworth	
  went	
  to	
  college	
  to	
  become	
  
an	
  architect.	
  She	
  was	
  motivated	
  by	
  the	
  organic	
  hands-­‐on	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  approach	
  taken	
  at	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain	
  and	
  believed	
  this	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  general	
  way	
  of	
  architectural	
  practices.	
  	
  After	
  
college	
  she	
  worked	
  for	
  architectural	
  firms,	
  but	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  experience	
  did	
  not	
  at	
  all	
  
reflect	
  what	
  she	
  knew	
  architecture	
  to	
  be.	
  Spending	
  much	
  of	
  her	
  time	
  checking	
  CAD	
  
drawings,	
  she	
  felt	
  like	
  “a	
  peon”	
  to	
  the	
  program	
  of	
  the	
  office.115	
  She	
  described	
  “Prickly”	
  as	
  a	
  
creative	
  space	
  and	
  found	
  inspiration	
  in	
  the	
  freedoms	
  that	
  were	
  allowed	
  by	
  the	
  plan-­‐free	
  
environment.	
  Her	
  office	
  work,	
  she	
  realized,	
  was	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  what	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  
builders	
  were	
  working	
  against.	
  Her	
  experience	
  was	
  another	
  example	
  of	
  being	
  trapped	
  
within	
  the	
  drawing.	
  Wadsworth	
  fondly	
  recalled	
  that	
  everyone	
  who	
  touched	
  Prickly	
  
Mountain	
  added	
  to	
  it,	
  and	
  she	
  wished	
  to	
  see	
  the	
  same	
  sort	
  of	
  creative	
  freedom	
  and	
  play	
  in	
  
her	
  own	
  architectural	
  practice.	
  The	
  designers	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  experienced	
  architecture	
  
hands	
  on,	
  exploring	
  possibilities	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  she	
  could	
  not	
  fulfill	
  sitting	
  in	
  the	
  office.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  115	
  Libby	
  Wadsworth,	
  conversation	
  with	
  author,	
  October	
  7,	
  2013.	
  
	
  	
   49	
  
Dissatisfied,	
  she	
  later	
  left	
  the	
  New	
  York	
  architecture	
  world	
  and	
  is	
  now	
  a	
  practicing	
  artist	
  in	
  
Eugene,	
  Oregon.	
  
Where	
  Did	
  It	
  Go	
  from	
  There?	
  
Though	
  Wadsworth	
  did	
  not	
  continue	
  her	
  own	
  architectural	
  practice,	
  the	
  work	
  at	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain	
  did	
  indeed	
  spark	
  a	
  revolution	
  in	
  architectural	
  education.	
  After	
  several	
  
years	
  of	
  building,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  architect	
  John	
  Mallery	
  were	
  asked	
  to	
  start	
  a	
  design	
  program	
  at	
  
Goddard	
  College,	
  a	
  small	
  liberal	
  arts	
  school	
  in	
  Plainfield	
  Vermont.	
  Sellers’	
  approach	
  to	
  
design	
  fit	
  the	
  school’s	
  mission	
  to	
  foster	
  experiential	
  and	
  experimental	
  learning.	
  	
  
In	
  1971,	
  an	
  article	
  about	
  Goddard’s	
  new	
  architecture	
  program	
  appeared	
  in	
  
Progressive	
  Architecture	
  under	
  a	
  section	
  specific	
  to	
  architectural	
  education.	
  Reminiscent	
  of	
  
Burns’	
  1966	
  article	
  on	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  The	
  author	
  David	
  Morton,	
  exudes	
  a	
  similar	
  tone	
  of	
  
astonishment	
  for	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
  building	
  without	
  plans.	
  He	
  writes,	
  “Students	
  at	
  a	
  small	
  
college	
  in	
  Vermont	
  are	
  learning	
  to	
  design	
  and	
  build	
  in	
  a	
  radically	
  new	
  way:	
  from	
  the	
  ground	
  
up,	
  with	
  hammer	
  and	
  saw	
  in	
  hand,	
  but	
  no	
  drawings.	
  “116	
  Sellers	
  explained	
  to	
  the	
  author	
  that	
  
the	
  first	
  class	
  had	
  the	
  task	
  of	
  constructing	
  the	
  Design	
  Center,	
  the	
  building	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  
program	
  would	
  be	
  held.	
  Morton	
  was	
  impressed	
  by	
  this	
  approach,	
  stating	
  that	
  “with	
  an	
  
enlightened	
  faculty	
  who	
  do	
  not	
  teach,	
  in	
  the	
  normal	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  word,	
  but	
  act	
  more	
  as	
  
guides	
  to	
  the	
  students,	
  the	
  result	
  is	
  an	
  atmosphere	
  of	
  involvement	
  in	
  learning	
  that	
  few	
  
schools	
  seem	
  able	
  to	
  equal.”117	
  
Sellers	
  stressed	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  teaching	
  his	
  students	
  to	
  make	
  decisions.	
  This	
  was	
  
something	
  that	
  he	
  himself	
  struggled	
  with	
  throughout	
  his	
  education	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  practice	
  that	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  116	
  David	
  Morton,	
  “Organic	
  architecture	
  at	
  Goddard	
  College,”	
  Progressive	
  Architecture	
  52.2	
  (1971):	
  88.	
  	
  117	
  Ibid.	
  	
  
	
  	
   50	
  
he	
  learned	
  to	
  value	
  in	
  Engman’s	
  courses.118	
  Morton	
  explained	
  that	
  both	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Mallery	
  
felt	
  “that	
  decision	
  making	
  capabilities	
  are	
  inherent	
  in	
  everyone,	
  but	
  that	
  one	
  problem	
  with	
  
many	
  students	
  is	
  their	
  inability	
  to	
  make	
  decisions,	
  simply	
  because	
  they	
  are	
  rarely	
  given	
  
choices.”	
  At	
  Goddard,	
  the	
  students	
  were	
  given	
  the	
  freedom,	
  much	
  like	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  
to	
  have	
  full	
  direction	
  of	
  the	
  design,	
  and	
  the	
  school	
  had	
  no	
  standardized	
  courses	
  in	
  design	
  or	
  
history.	
  The	
  group	
  decided	
  where	
  they	
  would	
  build	
  the	
  structure	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  how	
  it	
  would	
  
look	
  and	
  what	
  materials	
  they	
  would	
  use.	
  Echoing	
  the	
  teachings	
  of	
  Albers	
  and	
  Engman,	
  the	
  
students	
  were	
  encouraged	
  to	
  let	
  go	
  of	
  mimicking	
  what	
  they	
  knew	
  and	
  to	
  enter	
  into	
  building	
  
with	
  an	
  open	
  mind.	
  Much	
  like	
  Steele	
  and	
  Argyris,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Mallery	
  left	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  
course	
  program	
  open,	
  believing	
  that	
  if	
  the	
  students	
  found	
  that	
  they	
  wanted	
  more	
  formalized	
  
courses	
  then	
  the	
  faculty	
  would	
  consider	
  offering	
  them.119	
  
The	
  article	
  also	
  explained	
  that	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Mallery	
  believed	
  that	
  “The	
  only	
  excuse	
  for	
  
not	
  making	
  a	
  decision	
  is	
  lack	
  of	
  information.	
  The	
  basic	
  plan	
  is	
  to	
  teach	
  students	
  to	
  make	
  
rational,	
  coherent	
  decisions	
  based	
  upon	
  all	
  available	
  information-­‐	
  not	
  only	
  facts	
  and	
  ideas,	
  
but	
  also	
  material	
  realities	
  such	
  as	
  columns	
  or	
  beams.”120	
  Responding	
  to	
  their	
  own	
  
experiences	
  at	
  architecture	
  school,	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Mallery	
  sought	
  to	
  show	
  the	
  reality	
  of	
  what	
  it	
  
was	
  to	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  architecture,	
  or	
  in	
  Morton’s	
  words,	
  “to	
  explode	
  the	
  mysteries	
  of	
  
how	
  a	
  building	
  goes	
  together,	
  so	
  [the	
  student]	
  will	
  ultimately	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  produce	
  [the	
  
student’s]	
  own,	
  real	
  dreams	
  ”121	
  Taking	
  from	
  what	
  they	
  found	
  to	
  be	
  lacking	
  in	
  their	
  
education,	
  Seller’s	
  and	
  Mallery	
  trained	
  students	
  to	
  conceptualize	
  a	
  problem	
  with	
  real	
  
materials,	
  and	
  then	
  to	
  go	
  out,	
  pick	
  up	
  a	
  hammer	
  and	
  do	
  it.	
  Students	
  had	
  to	
  learn	
  to	
  work	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  118	
  Sellers,	
  sketchbook.	
  	
  	
  119	
  Morton,	
  Organic	
  architecture,	
  90.	
  	
  120	
  Ibid.,	
  88.	
  	
  121	
  Ibid.	
  	
  
	
  	
   51	
  
within	
  a	
  budget,	
  order	
  their	
  materials	
  and	
  schedule	
  their	
  work	
  hours.	
  This,	
  Morton	
  stated,	
  
was	
  never	
  possible	
  in	
  the	
  “paper	
  world”:	
  	
  
The	
  student	
  suffers	
  a	
  double	
  disadvantage	
  in	
  that	
  he	
  is	
  required	
  to	
  spend	
  years	
  working	
  out	
  imaginary	
  solutions	
  to	
  artificial	
  problems	
  that	
  have	
  little,	
  if	
  anything,	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  reality	
  […]	
  The	
  enormous	
  virtue	
  of	
  having	
  students	
  build	
  their	
  own	
  designs	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  provided	
  the	
  rare	
  opportunity	
  of	
  instant	
  feedback	
  (information);	
  if	
  the	
  student	
  makes	
  a	
  mistake	
  he	
  knows	
  it	
  immediately	
  and	
  can	
  quickly	
  change	
  it	
  on	
  the	
  spot,	
  resulting	
  in	
  a	
  positive	
  learning	
  experience	
  rather	
  than	
  in	
  emotional	
  turmoil	
  for	
  having	
  failed	
  to	
  do	
  better.122	
  	
  The	
  result	
  of	
  this	
  approach,	
  Morton	
  found,	
  was	
  positive.	
  He	
  described	
  the	
  Design	
  
Center	
  as	
  uplifting:	
  	
  “There	
  is	
  an	
  undeniable	
  quality	
  of	
  joy,	
  exuberance	
  and	
  spontaneity	
  to	
  
the	
  Design	
  Center.”123	
  Morton’s	
  description	
  suits	
  the	
  Center	
  well,	
  as	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  playfulness	
  
seems	
  to	
  come	
  through	
  the	
  building’s	
  facade	
  (Fig.10).	
  A	
  staircase	
  that	
  wraps	
  around	
  the	
  
exterior	
  seems	
  to	
  call	
  to	
  the	
  visitor,	
  inviting	
  them	
  to	
  climb	
  into	
  the	
  building	
  much	
  like	
  a	
  
child	
  would	
  ascend	
  to	
  the	
  platform	
  of	
  a	
  tree	
  house.	
  The	
  many	
  windows	
  give	
  the	
  building	
  a	
  
bit	
  of	
  a	
  cartoon-­‐like	
  appearance,	
  and	
  one	
  has	
  to	
  look	
  closely	
  to	
  find	
  a	
  door,	
  making	
  entering	
  
the	
  building	
  into	
  a	
  sort	
  of	
  game	
  of	
  hide	
  and	
  seek.	
  	
  
	
  After	
  completing	
  the	
  first	
  year	
  Design	
  Center	
  project,	
  the	
  current	
  second	
  year	
  
students	
  were	
  given	
  the	
  task	
  of	
  designing	
  and	
  constructing	
  Goddard	
  College’s	
  Sculpture	
  
Center.	
  Morton	
  observed	
  that	
  the	
  Sculpture	
  Center	
  showed	
  what	
  he	
  believed	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  
maturation	
  of	
  the	
  student’s	
  sensitivity	
  to	
  design	
  and	
  construction.	
  The	
  students	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  
take	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  and	
  lessons	
  from	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  building	
  the	
  Design	
  Center	
  and	
  apply	
  
them	
  to	
  the	
  new	
  structure,	
  and	
  the	
  result	
  was	
  a	
  more	
  informed	
  building	
  (Fig.	
  11).	
  	
  Through	
  
this	
  process	
  the	
  students	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  watch	
  their	
  progress	
  and	
  abilities	
  grow.124	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  122	
  Ibid.,	
  90.	
  	
  123	
  Ibid.,	
  92.	
  	
  124	
  According	
  to	
  Sellers,	
  the	
  architecture	
  program	
  at	
  Goddard	
  was	
  discontinued	
  after	
  the	
  first	
  several	
  years	
  due	
  in	
  part	
  to	
  disagreements	
  between	
  Sellers,	
  Mallery	
  and	
  the	
  new	
  head	
  of	
  the	
  school	
  around	
  how	
  the	
  program	
  should	
  be	
  run.	
  Though	
  the	
  buildings	
  have	
  been	
  unoccupied	
  since,	
  Goddard	
  is	
  
	
  	
   52	
  
Yale	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain’s	
  success	
  provoked	
  a	
  response	
  from	
  the	
  Yale	
  Architecture	
  School.	
  
In	
  April	
  1968,	
  the	
  Yale	
  architecture	
  professor	
  Murray	
  Milne	
  delivered	
  a	
  talk	
  for	
  a	
  workshop	
  
on	
  building	
  and	
  technology	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  New	
  Mexico.	
  In	
  a	
  discussion	
  concerning	
  
classroom	
  education,	
  he	
  related	
  a	
  curious	
  circumstance	
  that	
  was	
  unraveling	
  within	
  
architectural	
  education	
  at	
  Yale.	
  Students	
  were	
  trading	
  their	
  time	
  in	
  the	
  classroom	
  for	
  an	
  
experience	
  in	
  the	
  rural	
  Mad	
  River	
  Valley	
  of	
  Vermont,	
  choosing	
  to	
  leave	
  their	
  studios	
  in	
  order	
  
to	
  work	
  on	
  an	
  expanding	
  experimental	
  housing	
  project	
  called	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  Milne	
  called	
  
this	
  “The	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  Phenomenon”.	
  125	
  
Relating	
  to	
  Milne’s	
  concerns,	
  Charles	
  Moore,	
  Paul	
  Rudolph’s	
  successor,	
  felt	
  
compelled	
  do	
  something	
  about	
  the	
  student’s	
  growing	
  interest	
  in	
  getting	
  hands-­‐on	
  
experience.	
  In	
  1971,	
  Moore	
  and	
  Yale	
  professor	
  Kent	
  Bloomer	
  created	
  the	
  Yale	
  Building	
  
Project	
  (formerly	
  known	
  as	
  the	
  First	
  Year	
  Building	
  Project).	
  This	
  program,	
  still	
  running,	
  is	
  a	
  
requirement	
  for	
  all	
  first	
  year	
  graduate	
  students.	
  Like	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  the	
  goal	
  of	
  the	
  
program	
  was	
  to	
  provide	
  students	
  with	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  gain	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  
process	
  of	
  building:	
  	
  “Moore	
  and	
  Bloomer	
  encouraged	
  students	
  to	
  get	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  studio	
  in	
  
order	
  to	
  develop	
  talents	
  other	
  than	
  drafting	
  ability.	
  According	
  to	
  Bloomer,	
  Moore	
  was	
  
opposed	
  to	
  students	
  spending	
  too	
  much	
  time	
  in	
  the	
  drafting	
  room	
  if	
  it	
  led	
  to	
  sealing	
  
themselves	
  off	
  from	
  actual	
  experience.”126	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  currently	
  running	
  a	
  campaign	
  to	
  raise	
  money	
  to	
  restore	
  the	
  buildings	
  to	
  working	
  order.	
  For	
  more	
  information	
  see	
  “	
  The	
  Design	
  Buildings	
  Renovation	
  Project,”	
  http://goddard.edu/community-­‐arts/design-­‐build.	
  	
  	
  125	
  Milne	
  A.	
  Murray,	
  “Environmental	
  Control	
  Curriculum	
  at	
  Yale”	
  (presentation	
  at	
  the	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  New	
  Mexico,	
  Albuquerque,	
  April	
  1967).	
  	
  	
  126	
  Experiments	
  with	
  the	
  studio	
  would	
  soon	
  become	
  a	
  trend	
  in	
  architectural	
  education	
  at	
  Yale.	
  In	
  1968,	
  Robert	
  Venturi	
  and	
  Denise	
  Scott	
  Brown	
  initiated	
  a	
  radical	
  Vegas-­‐based	
  studio	
  and	
  subsequent	
  publication	
  called	
  “Learning	
  from	
  Las	
  Vegas,”	
  which	
  introduced	
  a	
  new	
  way	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  built	
  environment	
  in	
  America.	
  Like	
  the	
  Yale	
  project,	
  Venturi	
  and	
  Brown	
  challenged	
  students	
  to	
  get	
  out	
  of	
  
	
  	
   53	
  
The	
  author	
  of	
  “40	
  Years	
  of	
  the	
  Yale	
  Building	
  Project”	
  recognizes	
  that	
  inspiration	
  for	
  
the	
  project	
  came	
  in	
  part	
  from	
  David	
  Sellers	
  and	
  the	
  projects	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  Unlike	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  however,	
  the	
  Yale	
  program	
  focused	
  on	
  addressing	
  social	
  needs,	
  because	
  
in	
  the	
  1970s,	
  students	
  became	
  increasingly	
  concerned	
  with	
  economic	
  and	
  social	
  problems	
  
and	
  wanted	
  to	
  use	
  their	
  education	
  to	
  address	
  these	
  issues.	
  	
  “Moore	
  seized	
  on	
  these	
  
initiatives	
  and	
  directed	
  them	
  in	
  a	
  socially	
  responsive	
  direction.”127	
  The	
  students,	
  Moore	
  
found,	
  were	
  eager	
  to	
  make	
  something	
  which	
  responded	
  to	
  their	
  surroundings.	
  	
  	
  
The	
  Yale	
  Building	
  Project	
  also	
  differed	
  conceptually	
  from	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  in	
  that	
  
the	
  buildings	
  were	
  carefully	
  planned.	
  In	
  the	
  first	
  ever	
  Yale	
  Building	
  Project	
  year,	
  the	
  
students	
  worked	
  with	
  community	
  members	
  from	
  New	
  Zion,	
  a	
  small	
  town	
  in	
  Eastern	
  
Kentucky	
  (Fig.	
  12).	
  Addressing	
  the	
  concerns	
  and	
  wants	
  of	
  the	
  people	
  who	
  would	
  be	
  using	
  
the	
  building,	
  the	
  students	
  created	
  a	
  clean,	
  square	
  shaped	
  structure.	
  The	
  plans	
  were	
  drafted	
  
in	
  the	
  first	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  year,	
  and	
  over	
  spring	
  break,	
  students	
  went	
  out	
  in	
  teams	
  to	
  undergo	
  
construction.	
  The	
  Yale	
  project	
  focused	
  less	
  on	
  the	
  process	
  itself	
  and	
  more	
  on	
  the	
  larger	
  goal	
  
of	
  community	
  service	
  and	
  group	
  development.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
Countless	
  other	
  programs	
  have	
  since	
  followed,	
  including	
  the	
  Rural	
  Studio	
  and	
  what	
  are	
  
now	
  known	
  as	
  design/build	
  programs	
  at	
  universities	
  across	
  the	
  United	
  States.128	
  Steve	
  
Badanes	
  went	
  on	
  to	
  start	
  a	
  design/build	
  firm	
  called	
  Jersey	
  Devil	
  in	
  1972	
  and	
  currently	
  
teaches	
  courses	
  in	
  this	
  vein	
  at	
  Washington	
  University.	
  In	
  Warren,	
  Vermont,	
  John	
  Connell	
  
started	
  Yestermorrow	
  in	
  1980,	
  a	
  school	
  designed	
  to	
  educate	
  students	
  on	
  the	
  fundamentals	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  the	
  studio	
  and	
  gain	
  first-­‐hand	
  experience,	
  not	
  in	
  building,	
  but	
  by	
  engaging	
  critically	
  with	
  what	
  was	
  already	
  there.	
  	
  	
  127	
  Richard	
  W.	
  Hayes,	
  The	
  Yale	
  Building	
  Project:	
  The	
  First	
  40	
  Years,	
  (New	
  Haven,	
  Connecticut:	
  Yale	
  School	
  of	
  Architecture,	
  2007),	
  15.	
  	
  128	
  Such	
  programs	
  include	
  Washington	
  University	
  and	
  Design	
  Bridge	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Oregon.	
  
	
  	
   54	
  
of	
  design	
  and	
  building,	
  which	
  has	
  since	
  evolved	
  into	
  a	
  school	
  for	
  learning	
  to	
  build	
  and	
  live	
  
sustainably.	
  	
  	
  
In	
  the	
  1970s,	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  process	
  again	
  became	
  a	
  trend	
  of	
  inquiry	
  in	
  architecture.	
  In	
  
1972,	
  Charles	
  Jencks	
  and	
  Nathan	
  Silver	
  published	
  Adhocism:	
  The	
  Case	
  for	
  Improvisation.	
  
Adchocism,	
  they	
  explain,	
  means	
  “for	
  this	
  specific	
  need	
  or	
  purpose,”	
  and	
  the	
  idea	
  behind	
  it	
  is	
  
to	
  immediately	
  fulfill	
  a	
  need.129	
  Much	
  like	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  process,	
  Jencks	
  and	
  Silver	
  
argue	
  for	
  responsive	
  rather	
  than	
  pre-­‐determined	
  design,	
  not	
  just	
  in	
  architecture	
  but	
  also	
  in	
  
the	
  realm	
  of	
  technology,	
  city	
  planning	
  and	
  many	
  other	
  fields.	
  	
  Though	
  not	
  directly	
  inspired	
  
by	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  it	
  is	
  clear	
  that	
  the	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  builders	
  were	
  on	
  the	
  forefront	
  of	
  a	
  
budding	
  discourse	
  in	
  process-­‐oriented	
  design.	
  Jencks	
  and	
  Silver	
  have	
  recently	
  updated	
  this	
  
publication,	
  arguing	
  for	
  the	
  relevance	
  of	
  ad	
  hoc	
  approaches	
  to	
  design	
  in	
  today’s	
  
technologically	
  advanced	
  society.	
  130	
  
Dear	
  Joe	
  
Sellers,	
  much	
  like	
  the	
  ad	
  hoc	
  authors,	
  also	
  continued	
  to	
  believe	
  in	
  the	
  lasting	
  
relevance	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  approach	
  to	
  building	
  and	
  design	
  that	
  he	
  developed	
  as	
  a	
  young	
  
architect.	
  In	
  1981,	
  after	
  years	
  of	
  practicing	
  and	
  teaching	
  architecture,	
  Sellers	
  published	
  his	
  
educational	
  manifesto.	
  Keeping	
  Sellers’	
  experiences	
  and	
  educational	
  influences	
  in	
  mind,	
  one	
  
can	
  see	
  that	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  played	
  a	
  significant	
  role	
  in	
  solidifying	
  his	
  beliefs	
  about	
  the	
  
process	
  of	
  education	
  in	
  architecture.	
  It	
  is	
  also	
  not	
  surprising	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  echo	
  of	
  Engman	
  
and	
  Argyris	
  throughout.	
  In	
  the	
  essay	
  entitled	
  “Dear	
  Joe,”	
  Sellers	
  summarized	
  his	
  
philosophies	
  on	
  the	
  world	
  of	
  architectural	
  education.	
  	
  
The	
   purpose	
   and	
   skill	
   I’m	
   proposing	
   is	
   to	
   learn	
   to	
   see	
   the	
   seeds	
   of	
   fresh	
  relationships	
   and	
   concepts	
   as	
   they	
   emerge	
   from	
   the	
   collage	
   of	
   the	
   attempts	
   of	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  129	
  Charles	
  Jencks	
  and	
  Nathan	
  Silver,	
  Adhocism;	
  the	
  case	
  for	
  improvisation	
  (New	
  York:	
  Doubleday,	
  1972),	
  15.	
  	
  130	
  Charles	
  Jencks	
  and	
  Nathan	
  Silver,	
  Adhocism:	
  the	
  case	
  for	
  improvisation,	
  (New	
  York:	
  Doubleday,	
  2012).	
  
	
  	
   55	
  
collecting	
  and	
  piling	
  up	
  ideas	
  into	
  form.	
  It’s	
  similar	
  to	
  nurturing	
  a	
  garden	
  or	
  making	
  soup.	
   You	
   test,	
   explore,	
   test,	
   experiment,	
   test,	
   etc.,	
   etc.…The	
   state	
   of	
   mind	
   in	
   the	
  output	
   stage	
   is	
   different	
   from	
   that	
   of	
   the	
   input	
   stage.	
   In	
   one	
   you	
   are	
   assembling	
  information	
   into	
   form	
   and	
   in	
   the	
   other	
   you	
   are	
   reading	
   the	
   meaning,	
   values,	
  implications	
   and	
   potentials	
   of	
   the	
   forms	
   you	
   just	
  made	
   to	
   give	
   you	
   the	
   tools	
   and	
  directions	
   for	
   the	
   next	
   output	
   stage…After	
   a	
   length	
   of	
   time	
   the	
   designed	
   element	
  begins	
  to	
  speak	
  as	
  if	
  it	
  had	
  a	
  life	
  of	
  its	
  own.	
  And	
  your	
  job	
  is	
  to	
  allow	
  it	
  to	
  stretch	
  its	
  muscles	
  and	
  expand	
  and	
  become.	
  John	
  Lennon	
  said	
  it	
  is	
  “let	
  it	
  be”	
  and	
  Luis	
  Kahn	
  said	
  it	
  in	
  “what	
  does	
  it	
  want	
  to	
  be?”	
  the	
  joy	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  and	
  of	
  your	
  spirit…At	
  each	
   assembly	
   point	
   you	
   stop	
   and	
   release	
   your	
   mind	
   from	
   problem	
   solving	
   and	
  change	
  to	
  “reading	
  and	
  seeing”.	
  	
  One	
  of	
  the	
  factors	
  of	
  assumptions	
  necessary	
  for	
  creative	
  work	
  is	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  failure,	
   of	
   the	
   value	
   of	
   failure,	
   of	
   the	
   relation	
   between	
   failure	
   and	
   evolution	
   of	
  ideas…It	
   is	
  well-­‐documented	
   fact	
   that	
   learning	
   is	
   proportional	
   to	
   risk-­‐taking,	
   Also	
  that	
  the	
  longer	
  one	
  can	
  remain	
  comfortable	
  with	
  irresolution	
  the	
  more	
  likely	
  there	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  correct,	
  creative	
  or	
  appropriate	
  solution.	
  	
   Values	
  and	
  information	
  offered	
  as	
  truths	
  by	
  experts	
  without	
  confirmation	
  by	
  some	
  experience	
  only	
  create	
  dependence	
  on	
  the	
  faculty	
  by	
  the	
  students…Experimentation	
  should	
  be	
  encouraged	
  as	
  necessary	
  to	
  open	
  experience	
  options.	
  	
   My	
   approach,	
   therefore,	
   to	
   architectural	
   education	
   is	
   one	
  where	
   the	
   prime	
   goal	
   is	
  that	
   of	
   creating	
   experiences	
   where	
   the	
   student	
   is	
   able	
   to	
   develop	
   a	
   strong	
  foundation	
   of	
   personal	
   knowledge	
   and	
   direction	
   independent	
   of	
   current	
   styles	
   of	
  faculty	
  preference.131	
  	
  	
  
Sellers’	
  educational	
  manifesto	
  illustrates	
  the	
  amalgamation	
  of	
  both	
  his	
  Yale	
  education	
  and	
  
experience	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain.	
  He	
  speaks	
  to	
  the	
  challenges	
  of	
  teaching	
  and	
  being	
  wary	
  of	
  
creating	
  a	
  setting	
  whereby	
  the	
  student	
  becomes	
  dependent	
  on	
  the	
  teacher.	
  He	
  explained	
  
that	
  his	
  approach	
  to	
  education,	
  like	
  Argyris’,	
  is	
  to	
  allow	
  the	
  student	
  to	
  develop	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  
own	
  knowledge	
  and	
  preferences.	
  Echoing	
  Engman,	
  he	
  speaks	
  of	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  failure	
  and	
  the	
  
importance	
  of	
  encouraging	
  students	
  to	
  take	
  risks.	
  
Sellers	
  continues	
  to	
  teach	
  this	
  philosophy	
  today.	
  As	
  a	
  frequent	
  instructor	
  at	
  
Yestermorrow,	
  he	
  brings	
  his	
  experience	
  to	
  students	
  who	
  seek,	
  much	
  as	
  he	
  once	
  did,	
  to	
  get	
  
their	
  hands	
  dirty	
  and	
  experiment	
  with	
  design	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  traditional	
  architecture	
  school.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  131	
  David	
  Sellers,	
  “Dear	
  Joe”,	
  JAE	
  34.3	
  (1981),	
  14-­‐15.	
  
	
  	
   56	
  
Currently,	
  Sellers	
  is	
  teaching	
  a	
  Fundamentals	
  of	
  Design	
  course.	
  The	
  description	
  for	
  the	
  class	
  
summarizes	
  Seller’s	
  foundations:	
  
Creativity	
  is	
  a	
  quality	
  but	
  also	
  a	
  process	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  developed,	
  expanded,	
  and	
  strengthened.	
  In	
  the	
  first	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  20th	
  century,	
  Josef	
  Albers	
  joined	
  the	
  Bauhaus	
  school,	
  as	
  an	
  artist	
  and	
  a	
  teacher,	
  to	
  instruct	
  design	
  students	
  from	
  an	
  array	
  of	
  disciplines	
  about	
  the	
  creative	
  design	
  process.	
  One	
  of	
  Albers’	
  students,	
  Robert	
  Engman	
  went	
  on	
  to	
  become	
  a	
  renowned	
  design	
  teacher	
  himself,	
  inspiring	
  the	
  creativity	
  behind	
  now-­‐groundbreaking	
  architect	
  Dave	
  Sellers’	
  work.	
  As	
  inspired	
  by	
  the	
  Bauhaus	
  methods	
  he	
  learned	
  from	
  Engman,	
  Sellers	
  leads	
  class	
  participants	
  through	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  exercises	
  to	
  challenge	
  the	
  mind	
  and	
  the	
  eye	
  as	
  they	
  investigate	
  the	
  limits	
  of	
  simple	
  materials	
  and	
  the	
  essence	
  of	
  form.	
  Drawings,	
  sketches,	
  and	
  models	
  utilizing	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  conventional	
  and	
  unconventional	
  materials	
  will	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  vehicles	
  for	
  exploration,	
  as	
  students	
  develop	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  think	
  intuitively	
  and	
  creatively	
  and,	
  ultimately,	
  open	
  the	
  avenues	
  of	
  invention	
  necessary	
  to	
  see	
  connections	
  and	
  relationships	
  that	
  lead	
  to	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  creative	
  design	
  solutions.132	
  	
  Seller’s	
  course	
  directly	
  references	
  his	
  own	
  education.	
  Throughout	
  his	
  experiences,	
  he	
  finds	
  
that	
  the	
  Engman,	
  Albers	
  and	
  Argyris	
  (though	
  not	
  mentioned	
  here)	
  are	
  still	
  relevant	
  to	
  
today’s	
  architectural	
  practices.	
  	
  
In	
  2012,	
  Joan	
  Ockman	
  published	
  Architecture	
  School:	
  Three	
  Centuries	
  of	
  Educating	
  
Architects	
  in	
  North	
  America.	
  In	
  this	
  book	
  she	
  asserts	
  that	
  “the	
  rise	
  and	
  fall	
  of	
  architecture	
  
schools	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  personalities	
  that	
  pass	
  through	
  them	
  requires	
  a	
  special	
  kind	
  of	
  
historical	
  mapping,	
  one	
  sensitive	
  to	
  the	
  network	
  of	
  personal	
  and	
  power	
  relationships	
  
among	
  protagonists	
  and	
  to	
  the	
  mobility	
  of	
  teachers	
  and	
  students”.133	
  By	
  investigating	
  the	
  
history	
  of	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  and	
  its	
  influences,	
  one	
  begins	
  to	
  see	
  the	
  buildings	
  and	
  the	
  work	
  
of	
  these	
  architects	
  as	
  an	
  important	
  and	
  innovative	
  part	
  of	
  educational	
  history.	
  They	
  
cultivated	
  a	
  method	
  of	
  process	
  through	
  hybridizing	
  lessons	
  that	
  were	
  pertinent	
  not	
  only	
  to	
  
architecture,	
  but	
  also	
  for	
  understanding	
  how	
  people	
  behave.	
  With	
  these	
  tools,	
  Sellers,	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  132	
  Yestermorrow,	
  Fundamentals	
  of	
  Design,	
  http://www.yestermorrow.org/workshops/detail/fundamentals-­‐of-­‐design.	
  	
  133	
  Joan	
  Ockman.	
  Architecture	
  School:	
  three	
  Centuries	
  of	
  Educating	
  Architects	
  in	
  North	
  America	
  (Cambridge:	
  MIT	
  Press,	
  2012),	
  27.	
  	
  
	
  	
   57	
  
Reineke,	
  Mackall,	
  Sanford,	
  and	
  countless	
  others	
  transformed	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  architecture	
  
could	
  be	
  approached	
  and	
  ultimately	
  ushered	
  a	
  new	
  method	
  of	
  education	
  into	
  the	
  field.	
  	
  
In	
  the	
  1970s,	
  after	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  was	
  well	
  underway,	
  there	
  seemed	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  split	
  in	
  
design	
  discourse.	
  One	
  line	
  followed	
  the	
  physicality	
  of	
  building	
  ushered	
  in	
  by	
  the	
  Yale	
  
Building	
  Project,	
  and	
  the	
  other	
  followed	
  the	
  line	
  of	
  process	
  itself,	
  exploring	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  the	
  
principles	
  of	
  leaving	
  things	
  undone,	
  deciding	
  as	
  you	
  go	
  and	
  doing	
  things	
  “ad	
  hoc”.	
  	
  
Design-­‐build	
  is	
  well	
  recognized	
  today	
  as	
  a	
  mode	
  of	
  architectural	
  practice,	
  and	
  
Prickly	
  Mountain	
  has	
  begun	
  to	
  find	
  its	
  place	
  in	
  this	
  discourse.	
  However,	
  the	
  process	
  that	
  
was	
  practiced	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  and	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  its	
  foundations	
  has	
  in	
  a	
  sense	
  
been	
  lost	
  in	
  today’s	
  design-­‐build	
  practices.	
  Sellers	
  stated	
  that	
  the	
  most	
  important	
  thing	
  that	
  
he	
  got	
  from	
  Yale	
  was	
  the	
  sense	
  of	
  how	
  to	
  see	
  and	
  experience	
  the	
  world:	
  “The	
  more	
  you	
  have	
  
a	
  basic	
  understanding	
  of	
  what	
  it	
  is	
  to	
  be	
  alive,	
  the	
  more	
  you	
  have	
  a	
  solid	
  foundation	
  on	
  
which	
  to	
  live	
  […]	
  The	
  real	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  Yale	
  experience	
  for	
  me	
  wasn’t	
  form	
  or	
  design	
  or	
  
structure,	
  but	
  being.	
  Cherymayeff,	
  Engman,	
  Millard,	
  Chris	
  Argyris,	
  Paul	
  Weiss,	
  Kahn,	
  Scully,	
  
Woody,	
  all	
  talked	
  about	
  this.”134	
  	
  
The	
  design	
  process	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  combined	
  the	
  theories	
  of	
  the	
  seemingly	
  
separate	
  areas	
  of	
  study	
  presented	
  by	
  Engman	
  and	
  Argyris,	
  Sculpture	
  and	
  Administrative	
  
Sciences,	
  into	
  a	
  method	
  of	
  designing-­‐	
  while	
  you	
  build.	
  Through	
  this	
  they	
  learned	
  how	
  to	
  
make	
  decisions,	
  how	
  to	
  be	
  perceptive	
  and	
  how	
  to	
  respond	
  to	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  things	
  can	
  and	
  
should	
  change.	
  The	
  Wild	
  Beams	
  were	
  lessons	
  for	
  living	
  and	
  interacting	
  with	
  the	
  
surrounding	
  environment,	
  built,	
  natural	
  and	
  social.	
  The	
  failures	
  were	
  the	
  places	
  for	
  growth	
  
and	
  the	
  approach	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain	
  allowed	
  the	
  space	
  to	
  make	
  mistakes.	
  	
  They	
  learned	
  
from	
  the	
  moment	
  and	
  made	
  changes	
  in	
  the	
  moment.	
  And	
  it	
  was	
  always	
  changing.	
  Sanford	
  
explained	
  that	
  living	
  in	
  a	
  “finished”	
  building	
  was	
  like	
  “living	
  in	
  an	
  old	
  idea”.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  134	
  Stern,	
  “Yale”,	
  55.	
  	
  
	
  	
   58	
  
Through	
  an	
  examination	
  of	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Engman	
  and	
  Argyris	
  on	
  Sellers	
  
and	
  his	
  fellow	
  architects	
  in	
  the	
  Mad	
  River	
  Valley,	
  one	
  may	
  begin	
  to	
  gain	
  a	
  better	
  
understanding	
  of	
  the	
  experiments	
  of	
  process	
  that	
  were	
  explored	
  at	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  and	
  
thus	
  uncover	
  a	
  lost	
  (and	
  wild)	
  beam	
  in	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  architectural	
  discourse.	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
   59	
  
APPENDIX	
  
FIGURES	
  
	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Fig.	
  1.	
  Tack	
  House,	
  David	
  Sellers,	
  William	
  Reineke	
  and	
  Ed	
  Owre,	
  1965,	
  Warren,	
  Vermont.	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   60	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Fig.	
  2.	
  Tack	
  House	
  Interior,	
  1965.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   61	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Fig.	
  3.	
  Mackall	
  House	
  Interior,	
  Louis	
  Mackall,	
  1967,	
  Warren	
  Vermont.	
  
	
  	
   62	
  
	
  Fig.	
  4.	
  Construction	
  No.	
  1,	
  Robert	
  Engman,	
  1961-­‐1962,	
  Muntz	
  metal.	
  Hirshhorn	
  Museum	
  and	
  Sculpture	
  Garden,	
  Smithsonian	
  Institute.	
  Photography	
  by	
  Lee	
  Stalsworth.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   63	
  
	
  	
  	
  Fig.	
  5.	
  Tack	
  House	
  Additions,	
  2013,	
  Warren,	
  Vermont,	
  photograph	
  by	
  author.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   64	
  
	
  	
  	
  Fig.	
  6.	
  Pinhead	
  House	
  Interior,	
  David	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Tom	
  Luckey,	
  1967,	
  Warren,	
  Vermont,	
  courtesy	
  of	
  Susan	
  Randall.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   65	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Fig.	
  7.	
  Cylinder	
  Room,	
  Pinhead	
  House,	
  David	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Tom	
  Luckey,	
  1967,	
  Warren,	
  Vermont.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   66	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  Fig.	
  8.	
  Dimetrodon,	
  East	
  and	
  West	
  Exterior,	
  began	
  in	
  1971	
  by	
  Jim	
  Sanford,	
  William	
  Maclay	
  and	
  Richard	
  Travers,	
  Warren,	
  Vermont,	
  photo	
  by	
  author.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   67	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Fig.	
  9.	
  Wadsworth	
  House,	
  constructed	
  by	
  David	
  Sellers,	
  Warren,	
  Vermont,	
  photo	
  by	
  author.	
  
	
  	
   68	
  
	
  Fig.	
  10.	
  Design	
  Center,	
  Goddard	
  College,	
  Goddard	
  Construction	
  Program	
  students	
  with	
  instructors	
  David	
  Sellers	
  and	
  John	
  Mallery,	
  1971-­‐1977,	
  Plainfield,	
  Vermont.	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   69	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  
	
  Fig.	
  11.	
  Top:	
  Goddard	
  College	
  Design	
  Center	
  Interior,	
  2008.	
  Bottom:	
  Goddard	
  College	
  Sculpture	
  Center	
  Interior,	
  2008.	
  
	
  	
   70	
  
	
  
Fig.	
  12.	
  New	
  Zion	
  Community	
  Center,	
  1st	
  Year	
  Yale	
  Building	
  Project	
  Students,	
  Jackson	
  County,	
  Kentucky,	
  1967.	
   	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   71	
  
REFERENCES	
  CITED	
  
Argyris,	
  Chris.	
  Interpersonal	
  Competence	
  and	
  organizational	
  effectiveness.	
  Homewood,	
  Ill.:	
  Dorsey	
  Press,	
  1962.	
  	
  Argyris,	
  Chris	
  and	
  Donald	
  A.	
  Schön.	
  Theory	
  in	
  Practice:	
  Increasing	
  professional	
  effectiveness.	
  San	
  Francisco:	
  Jossey-­‐Bass	
  Publishers,	
  1974.	
  	
  Argyris,	
  Chris.	
  Personality	
  and	
  Organization:	
  The	
  Conflict	
  Between	
  System	
  and	
  the	
  Individual.	
  New	
  York:	
  Harper	
  &	
  Row,	
  1957.	
  	
  Burns,	
  Jim.	
  “Adult	
  Tree	
  House	
  on	
  Potato	
  Road:	
  House	
  for	
  Louis	
  Mackall,	
  Prickly	
  Mountain,	
  Warren,	
  VT.”	
  Progressive	
  Architecture,	
  48	
  (1967)	
  119-­‐125.	
  	
  Cohen,	
  Janie,	
  Danny	
  Sagan,	
  and	
  Kevin	
  T.	
  Dann.	
  	
  Architectural	
  Improvisations:	
  A	
  History	
  of	
  Vermont’s	
  Design	
  Build	
  Movement	
  1964-­‐1977.	
  Burlington:	
  University	
  of	
  Vermont	
  Press	
  and	
  Robert	
  Hull	
  Fleming	
  Museum,	
  2008.	
  	
  Engman,	
  Robert.	
  “Writings,”	
  Robert	
  Engman.	
  accessed	
  December	
  15,	
  2012,	
  http://www.robertengman.com/?view=writings.	
  	
  Engman,	
  Robert.	
  Unpublished	
  interview	
  with	
  Daniel	
  Sagan,	
  September	
  24,	
  2004.	
  	
  Hall,	
  Douglas	
  T.	
  and	
  Fred	
  I.	
  Steele.	
  “Self-­‐Directed,	
  Self-­‐Relevant	
  Learning.”	
  The	
  School	
  Review	
  80	
  (1971)	
  94-­‐109.	
  	
  Hayes,	
  Richard	
  W.	
  The	
  Yale	
  Building	
  Project:	
  The	
  First	
  40	
  Years.	
  New	
  Haven,	
  Connecticut:	
  Yale	
  School	
  of	
  Architecture,	
  2007.	
  	
  Horowitz,	
  Frederick	
  A..	
  Josef	
  Albers:	
  To	
  Open	
  Eyes:	
  The	
  Bauhaus,	
  Black	
  Mountain	
  College,	
  and	
  Yale.	
  London;	
  New	
  York:	
  Phaidon,	
  2006.	
  	
  	
  Howe,	
  George.	
  “Training	
  for	
  the	
  Practice	
  of	
  Architecture:	
  A	
  Speech	
  Given	
  before	
  the	
  Department	
  in	
  September	
  1951.”	
  Perspecta	
  Vol.	
  1	
  (Summer	
  1952).	
  	
  Jencks,	
  Charles	
  and	
  Nathan	
  Silver.	
  Adhocism;	
  the	
  case	
  for	
  improvisation.	
  New	
  York:	
  Doubleday,	
  1972.	
  	
  Morton,	
  David.	
  “Organic	
  architecture	
  at	
  Goddard	
  College.”	
  Progressive	
  Architecture	
  52.2	
  (1971)	
  88-­‐95.	
  	
  Murray,	
  Milne	
  A..	
  “Environmental	
  Control	
  Curriculum	
  at	
  Yale.	
  ”Presentation	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  New	
  Mexico,	
  Albuquerque,	
  April	
  1967.	
  	
  Ockman,	
  Joan.	
  	
  Architecture	
  School:	
  three	
  Centuries	
  of	
  Educating	
  Architects	
  in	
  North	
  America.	
  Cambridge:	
  MIT	
  Press,	
  2012.	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
   72	
  
Pollak	
  ,	
  Sally.	
  “Architecture	
  101:	
  No	
  permits,	
  no	
  parents,	
  no	
  clients,	
  plenty	
  of	
  plywood	
  for	
  architect	
  Sellers	
  and	
  Friends,”	
  Burlington	
  Free	
  Press,	
  June	
  12,	
  2011.	
  http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110612/ARTS04/106120304/Architecture-­‐101-­‐No-­‐permits-­‐no-­‐parents-­‐no-­‐clients-­‐plenty-­‐plywood-­‐architect-­‐Sellers-­‐friends.	
  	
  Sellers,	
  David.	
  sketchbook,	
  1965,	
  accessed	
  at	
  the	
  Arts	
  Riot	
  Gallery,	
  March	
  23,	
  2013.	
  	
  Sellers,	
  David.	
  “Dear	
  Joe.”	
  JAE	
  34.3	
  (1981)	
  14-­‐15.	
  	
  Sellers,	
  David	
  and	
  Daniel	
  Sagan.	
  “An	
  Interview	
  with	
  David	
  Sellers.”	
  Chicago	
  Architectural	
  Journal	
  10	
  (2002).	
  	
  Schiffer	
  ,Nancy.	
  Robert	
  Engman:	
  Structural	
  Sculpture.	
  Atglen:	
  Schiffer	
  Publishing,	
  Ltd,	
  2012.	
  	
  Smith,	
  C.	
  Ray.	
  “Architecture	
  Swings	
  Like	
  a	
  Pendulum	
  Do.”	
  Progressive	
  Architecture,	
  47	
  (May	
  1966)	
  152-­‐157.	
  	
  Steele,	
  Fred.	
  Physical	
  Settings	
  and	
  Organization	
  Development.	
  Reading:	
  Addison-­‐Wesley	
  Publishing	
  Company,	
  Inc.,	
  1973.	
  	
  Stern,	
  Robert.	
  “Yale	
  1950-­‐1965.”	
  Oppositions	
  4	
  (1974)	
  35-­‐64.	
  	
  Yestermorrow,	
  Fundamentals	
  of	
  Design,	
  http://www.yestermorrow.org/workshops/detail/fundamentals-­‐of-­‐design