As if the narratives and infographics of Occupy weren’t loud enough by now, Catherine Rampell, an economics reporter for The New York Times, decided to bang the drum a little louder by writing “Want a Job? Go to College, and Don’t Major in Architecture”.
To date, 134 comments and counting. Seems she pissed a few architects off. Goodness. Mustn’t do that. Must have been the “don’t major in architecture” part.
It’s a good piece of reporting, properly grounded in statistics and economic data. In other words, she’s not just making this stuff up. She did her research, talked to people, read things. After all, she went to college, too. She doesn’t seem to have any bias against architects, per se. Why the harsh treatment?
Like most articles of this sort, it’s not bullet-proof. There are always ways to argue with the data. It takes this into account, but not that. Yes, but…. Despite this, the basic picture the information paints, especially when coupled with broader economic indicators and social data, remains stable and correct. Don’t try to adjust your monitor.
The result, to cite Paul Krugman’s “The Conscience of a Liberal”, his New York Times blog post of January 14, is something we’re supposed to be quiet about. I would add that the most obvious and loudest problems of the economic sort, those elephants in the room such as inequity, earnings, growth, and distribution, are usually the sort one is supposed to be quiet about. Shhh…. Don’t wake up the elephant. As he writes, “This is real stuff, not some trivial envy-driven concern.” (1)
Architecture is not unique in not wanting to wake up the elephant. As the past weeks have demonstrated, the liberal narrative of capitalism (mediated and adjusted by government policy) has elevated the lexicon of inequality and the flattening of family income in relation to GDP by citing data, not relying on emotion. It is now almost impossible to bring up inequality and envy in the same breath. (2) The economic arguments can no longer be dismissed as mere liberal whining. (3)
So, then, why, when the evidence is out there, were a number of architects so defensive about the “Don’t Major in Architecture” article? Why are they whining? My conclusion, so far, is that this touched a nerve precisely because this isn’t new information to architects (and those architectural workers not yet allowed to call themselves architects). The “Don’t Major in Architecture” narrative is already intrinsic to the profession.
How many times have you heard architects say something to the effect that they would never want their kids to become architects? They all seem to want their kids to major in fields that are viewed as more economically-profitable. Architects tell this to their young! Don’t major in architecture.
When insiders say it, it can be taken with a dose of irony and humor because we all understand that we are in this for many reasons, not merely for financial gain. When an outsider says it, however, it takes on a more sinister, depressing tone. It’s seemingly OK if architects all secretly know (wink, wink) that the profession has its downside. But we don’t like to hear it from the “general public”. We hear enough negative things about architecture from the general public as it is. Now we have to listen to them tell us we don’t get paid enough? Thanks, but we can do this on our own.
Along these lines, one of the more interesting argument threads that subsequently ensued after the article appeared (4) is that architecture is not about being economically profitable or about raising one’s own lot in relation to GDP. Architecture is a much higher calling that should not be debased by such concerns. This may, in fact, be another intrinsic element to the cult of architecture: the abhorrence of seemingly common concerns in the midst of important, if undervalued, artistic and cultural pursuits.
If there are architects who do not like the economic contingencies of the profession, they, of course, are free to leave. The other approach is to find ways to increase the value (in all senses) of architecture within the general culture. We all value it highly. But we have elevated it as a cultural practice and discourse to such a high realm of exclusivity and insider-ness that the general culture has become alienated and suspicious.
This is the divide that binds us. Architects need the general culture and the general culture actually needs architecture—they just don’t think they do. The status quo, that so far doesn’t show signs of letting up, demonstrates that the public thinks architecture is an unnecessary luxury. What we are left with are a lot of architects thinking highly of themselves as cultural elites in opposition to a public that simply doesn’t understand.
If one has to go through the rigors of architecture school in order to “understand” the importance of architecture, then we are faced with a significant problem. Notice how we go crazy giving awards…to ourselves. We present lectures…to ourselves. We publish countless articles and blog…for ourselves. (5)
This divide ultimately impacts the business side of architecture. It is a service industry. (6) But it is also an artistic practice and academic discipline of investigation. Perhaps one problem is that we put so much energy into the artistic and cultural aspects of architecture, mimicking what we learned in the academy, that we have simply lost the ability to communicate our worth effectively to the public.
When architecture turns toward the public, as business and cultural practice, it needs to recalibrate how it communicates meaning and professional values. It has to become an advocate and listener rather then the arbiter of provocative positions, the assumer of stances.
In order to bridge this divide, the public and architecture must be recombined in multiple and minor ways rather than as two monolithic absolutes pitted against one another. (7)
If architects don’t want to hear that they are underpaid they need to adjust the discourse and modify their positions within the culture. (8) By shifting position, the business can be elevated. This would also entail an adjustment within the academy. (9) The way architecture is presented to the public must not merely follow the foreign language of architecture learnt in the academy—architecture for architects.
Until architects address this issue, the public will continue to willingly pay premium rates for legal and financial services while asking architects (and non-architects who can supposedly do the same things architects do) to offer their services for the lowest possible rates. Culture is grand, but you can’t eat it, or buy a house with it, or send your kids to college on it—those kids, by the way, whom you say should not major in architecture.
Notes:
1 - Note the jab at GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney for his claim that the issue of inequality in our economy is driven by envy of those who are just more successful. Author, Jeff Sharlet spikes this kool-aid with a little irony when he Tweets, “As far as I’m concerned, Mitt’s got it right: I do envy wealth. It’d be nice to not be paying for an emergency appendectomy month by month.” He is also right to identify that Mitt Romney is not the first to discover the existence of class envy in our culture. There is certainly an anathema against it in part because of how our nation was founded in ideological opposition to the class society prevalent in England. This obviously has never meant that the issues of class were not reproduced here.
2 - Unless, of course you are Mitt Romney and genuinely believe that envy explains economic disparities and class divisions. This view explains why many GOP lawmakers favor mandatory drug-testing and volunteer work for the unemployed. They are, after all, just lazy and obviously do not work as hard as those who are successful.
3 - But they are and that is not going to change anytime soon. As the chart cited in Paul Krugman’s blog diverges more, the rhetoric of the whining, envious, and lazy lower classes increases.
4 - It was actually a Facebook thread on the Architecture for Humanity page. I obviously can’t reproduce it here. It was one of the longest comment threads I’ve seen on Facebook, and much of it was fierce opposition to the “Don’t Major in Architecture” article. Most of the comments against it were elaborated as a passionate defense of the superior cultural position architecture should occupy and that architects are, in fact, working with the truth, whatever that means. Journalism was attached as false and fabricated, essentially meaningless in culture compared to the significance of buildings. At some point, Cameron Sinclair, head of Architecture for Humanity, expressed amazement that this touched off such a firestorm of criticism. He also Tweeted to me that having a social impact through design is not about building more stuff, it is about the evolution of the industry. By now, perhaps we can agree that we have evolved significantly in terms of design and technique, but we are still in need of evolving in the realm of business and the social impact he speaks of.
5 - Notice all the architects who are more busy producing cultural products not related to the public than they are producing buildings. Not that there is anything wrong with this. This, in fact, is a strength. But it could be a stronger cultural position when more integrated with the public domain outside of the discipline itself. See the recent article in The New York Times on Pedro Gadanho, for example. Nothing new for those in the profession—especially all you adjuncters and bloggers. Such cobbling together of careers is the not-so-new normal that often comes out of economic necessity. Having come from the humanities, this is a condition that is all-too-familiar to me. The similarities are striking.
6 - The architecture license looks almost exactly the same as a cosmetology license. Of course everybody needs a haircut at some point. I wonder if there is more value placed on good hairdressers than on good architects. More people interact with hairdressers than with architects and architects seem to spend a good deal of time surrounded by other architects. I wonder if hairdressers get together and talk about how great they are or what current theories of cosmetology are important, or if they hold up certain hairdressers from the modernist era, say, as heroic, father-figures. Similar to architects, hairdressers also tend to exhibit good fashion sense. Though this is debatable. Hairdressers might have the jump on this. Hairdressers get tips, too. And they can charge insane fees for their services and clients won’t even blink. Architects, meanwhile, seemingly have to offer services at Filene’s basement prices or developing nation prices (global economy bargain basement). Have you ever heard architects complain about how they can’t afford to pay their employees or even themselves? Do hairdressers have these same issues?
7 - Deleuze has implications for economics when he postulates that culture is a system of endless recombinations and potentials that are minor as opposed to major. He uses the terms to signal a shift away from a tendency in western culture to valorize absolutes and universals as part of grand narratives of progress. He considered these terms to be traps.
8 - And what is all this talk about architecture being diluted by other professions that invade it and claim mastery of what was once exclusive to architecture? Architecture is constantly being defined in terms of lack and as an object of attack. Is it really this easy to attack and cause architecture to disintegrate? This is why Deleuze deserves a second and third look in relation to architecture. Not for aesthetics or as mere theoretical motivation, but as an instigator of political and economic strategies. How can architecture combine and recombine to incorporate the broader culture and then communicate this back to that culture in powerful and compelling ways that command and draw investment? Architecture needs to be in charge rather than lamenting the loss of power.
9 - No, this does not mean just incorporate a few shallow business courses. You don’t think financially- successful industries learned everything by taking a few business classes, do you? It’s an issue of what architecture values and whether or not the pursuit of economic success is mutually exclusive to cultural or aesthetic success. Where did this binary divide between monetary aspirations and cultural aspirations come from in the first place? I think it comes from the trope of Enlightenment divisions of disciplines and the historicization of architects, for example, as cultural leaders somehow outside of and above the common economy. Perhaps we need to bring Marx back into architecture.
I write THE CRIT, Archinect's new series on criticism. I also co-author CONTOURS, Archinect's featured column on the culture, politics, and business of architecture. I'm a frequent contributor to Metropolis Magazine, GOOD Magazine, Architectural Record, The Architect's Newspaper, and Architect ...
38 Comments
I generally agree with the idea of shifting our profession's position within general culture, however that might happen. People show a general discontent with the built environment at large, from old and badly designed buildings to disintegrating roads and crumbling bridges - at least in Montreal. Furthermore there's a certain feeling that the whole economic apparatus behind the construction industry is not exactly honest; for example the real-estate market operates hardly different than a ponzi scheme. Perhaps architects are caught in the middle.
What exactly are the indicators that "increas[ing] the value (in all senses) of architecture within the general culture" will indeed lead to architects being paid better?
It seems to me that you're presenting a solution to the problem of architect's low pay that is based on an assumption that lacks any real backing.
Right now I can't remember exactly what thread from like 4-5 years ago this same sort of assumed solution was presented... Did a google check and found something else from exactly 5 years ago yesterday: Why do architects make so little money?
Here's what I remember:
And the assumption that "an informed public makes the space for architecture more possible" is based on what exactly?
Is the desire for "public discourse" really just a euphemism for "expanded client base?"
2007.07.19 11:54
hey Guy when does the Crit series start?
It will be starting next week...I believe. Just finalizing some images from MoMA...if that is a hint at what the first CRIT is covering.
That is a valid point about being "caught in the middle" as it were. And also an interesting point about an informed public making more space for architecture.
I think, and maybe this is something that remains unproven, that there are threads of connection between the public discourse, the professional discourse, fees, and subsequently architect salaries. It would be interesting to see if the connections could be validated via experience. Architecture business models generally do not allow for extremely high salaries for staff -- thought they may for business owners. If we set aside adjusting the business model and assume it remains as is, one of the only ways to bump people up to higher pay scales is to infuse the business with more cash for profit and overhead.
If the public did value architecture more, the way they value law and other services, then architecture could command higher fees without causing protest. Can architects in a professional setting and in the academy enhance the public discourse and challenge it? Or is it a lost cause. This is the binary problem of casting the public as one pole and architects as another. The perceifved divide is difficult to bridge.
Will an altered discourse result in higher fees? Only time will tell. It seems to work for other professions.
I like the comments and they go right to the heart of the issue.
And...as for that discussion thread from 5 years ago....Here we are still talking about why architects make so little money. They will make more when they assert more control of the discussion in the public realm. Imagine if the same effort put into the academic discourse was put into the public discourse. Thanks for bringing this up.
Guy, the heart of the issue here is that you are still offering a solution that has no basis. How exactly can you substantiate "If the public did value architecture more, the way they value law and other services, then architecture could command higher fees without causing protest."?
The problem here is not about some imagined polarization between the public and architects, rather it is the (still) fictional notion that a-somehow-newly-engaged-public is going to raise architectural fees.
A new public that comes to value architecture more highly does not at the same time mean that this same new public then has more money in its pockets to spend on architecture or even that they then want to spend what money they have on architecture.
It looks to me that the real elephant in the room is that engaging general culture/the public is not a solution to putting more money into the architecture field.
Perhaps architecture needs an expanded sense of importance and integration into the daily lives of the average user. The range of experience or relevance to the public is expanding through contemporary technologies but needs to accelerate in a way that is also more relevant in assisting economies and local business or culture. Architecture works on an understanding of scale, maybe we as designers need to scale it down regardless of physical attributes to speak more directly to the public and be more concerned with interaction and adaptability.
EEW,
I'm interested in your perspective here. I agree that this is not a direct correlation. What are your thoughts on solutions? Or are you saying there really isn't a problem. Or is it that the public is not part of the solution. Is this something internal to architecture? An issue of business practice?
In my work for a wide range of firms I don't see black and white bad professional choices. Many of the architects I know do great work building the buildings that communities need from hospitals to affordable housing to retail centers. Many have successful practices that allow them to live a comfortable and, in fact , enjoy life in those same communities. They make a true difference in our shared quality of life. No denying that there are those, especially at entry level who are underpaid, but to write off the entire profession is to miss the point.
The argument is too simplistic. One would surely have to segregate off architects specialising in healthcare, education and other specialised typologies, architects without a specialisation and starchitects.
My feeling is that where the general public is unsure about the value of architecture this would normally apply to residential architecture, and to a lesser extent commercial and retail. After all, that is where the default thinking lies: architects = nice, expensive houses.
Given that the general building stock by and large does not reflect the kind of quality that architecture as a profession would like - but the perception of the public, it counts as architecture - it is no wonder that architecture is devalued.
But it is not only that - architecture has failed to take advantage of changing technology that could aid the profession. And it also fails to recognise the effects of publicly available technology such as sketchup will further erode the position of architects as chief deliverers of the built environment. Everything that can be programmed will be programmed and this will have a massive impact on how a building is delivered - particularly generic architecture.
Architecture used to be the gatekeeper to a vision of the built environment - no longer. Now we might be able to contribute to it.
There are two main models I can see being viable going forward - creating and controlling a vision for the built environment that is tested and validated by the market, and second, becoming so specialised that you are in a position to trade that for more risk and reward.
I have seen many practices specialise in "high-end residential" - I have yet to see any architecture practice publicly state a specialisation in "affordable architecture" - surely far more relevant and sustainable position to take.
Maybe we've gotten to the point where trying to make a living in architecture is like trying to make a living in the fine arts: it's a dream for all but a lucky few. Most will need to supplement their income (as any architect in NYC has had to do for years), or slog through a more lucrative career and do architecture upon retirement. Only problem with that is that very few jurisdictions will let hobbyist architects practice, unless they can do it on their own house.
But if our skills are so devalued, why is architecture still so romanticized that we are favorites in the dating scene (Oh- he's an architect- swoon!) and why does everybody and their brother want to be called a "blankety-blank architect." I actually saw "HR architect" the other day.
It is not our education that is at fault as long as it focuses on design thinking, abductive reasoning, form and model manipulation and problem solving. The issue is that we have insisted we are the masters of the universe while the construction industry has gone right around us and handed out all the really useful skills to everyone else. Now we are left making pretty pictures as noted above. Those who can pick up BIM quickly will get to use those skills to actually start making buildings again, virtually and then in reality as BIM gets integrated into the whole design/construction/management process. The rest of us have some catching up to do.
Check out this RSAnimate about motivation -- it pretty much nails the idea of value and why architects (though he's speaking more generally) choose a profession that enables them to find value not through profit (monetary compensation), but through purpose (finding meaning in what we do).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Though he's speaking generally, his argument definitely applies to architects in particular - many of us find meaning (and thus value/compensation) not purely through money, but also the effects that our designs have - some people value an artistic contribution and the creation of beauty, some value a healthier building environment, some value a more sustainable way of building to lessen ecological destruction, some value making environments that intrigue or excite people, and so on.
To some degree this should be obvious - essentially, when we design, it's not just money that we're rewarded with or that motivates us, it's something else, some larger purpose.
I wonder, has much thought been given to the way architecture will need to respond to the effects of digital disruption in the same manner as many professions have been forced/are still doing. Especially some artistic, creative or even pure manufacturing ones? Here i am thinking of industries and effects like in music (napster p2p) or post RepRap , 3d print, making? Or even look at development of certain service industries that were once white collar now outsourced (legal, medical other services).
Sure we have digital architects but what is a post-digital architecture going to look like? More precisely a digitally-disrupted architecture?
I ultimately don't think the current crisis real, (economic, unemployment numbers) or imagined (public prestige etc) facing architecture, is going to be addressed through nor should result in, a simple increase in market share. Put differently perhaps, is the question, will more market share/clients even necessarily equal higher fees?
Depending on the answer to, "If the public did value architecture more, the way they value law and other services, then architecture could command higher fees without causing protest.", then being able to decide that seeking to use public discourse to increase the valuation of architecture by the public, should not be a priority.
As dia notes if more architects went into affordable housing you might build more houses, projects and effect more of the public but will the fee scale change? Maybe your total earnings would?
As for the "new normal" of multiple jobs/etc and the rise of the temp/free-lancer, i think that is often out of necessity not necessarily desire but either way certainly not restricted to architecture/design.
for architect it maybe is annoying to make the same as working class stiff, but don't feel this indicates crisis. architecture was historically a job for the wealthy BY the wealthy. That the edges have opened up should not lead anyone to assume the big picture has changed overly much. we are still working on that.
That said i of course want my kids to be architects if they are into it. there are opportunities out there that are worth pursuing and only architecture allows (i am thinking BIG in particular). it is not an automatic thing though, and somehow i agree with mr. wound that education of the public is not exactly the solution. that approach assumes the problem, whatever it is, is with everyone else and not with us. maybe we need to rethink what we are offering that nobody wants to pay for it and work from there...perhaps a change in job description is in order.
Along the same lines as royc's comments ...
Why do we always assume that our work is undervalued, monetarily speaking? It would seem that the market rate has always hovered around 'too low' but that's when you ask architects and those who can't call themselves architects (myself).
But what about when you ask the people paying for our services? Do they agree that we make too little; that they would have and should have paid us more but we just never asked, or they couldn't afford to? If that's the case then sure, we should get paid more.
If not, then maybe we shouldn't complain about not getting, or not commanding, a high enough compensation. Instead we should be talking about expanding our services or claiming portions of the market for which people think our services aren't necessary.
Thoughts?
Brian completely agree. I think rather than trying to charge more per client might be more useful to look at expanding the range of services or clients that architecture offers/serves.
Guy, a lot has been written here by others since you specifically asked me some questions two days ago. I generally agree with what has been written as they realistically broaden the issue of “the public” and/or/versus architectural value. Thus I’d now like to (step back) and address what might just be your real intent, that being to elevate the value of architecture within general culture. My advise to you (specifically as a writer) is to fictionalize this world where you see architectural value elevated. It could be short stories, a novel, or even a series of novels. The point being to create somethng that “the public” can relate to, consume, and hopefully even be inspired by--essentially putting ideas into people’s mind via fiction. Also, forcing yourself to really imagine this world and how it manifests itself might just also deliver solutions to what you see as today’s real problems.
[What I write next may first come off as pure glibness, but take note, nonetheless, as to how fictionalization (or is it all really that?) can put ideas into people’s minds.]
For many years now I’ve been furtively writting an epic about architecture and branding. It’s working title is I Think People Will [Rita Novel] Like This. Here as some excerpts:
prologue: tailoring sense
2002.06.28 11:41
It's interesting how much of what Hollander says about suits is really actually about the advertising of suits. Hollander makes much mention of who are wearing suits, and what kind, on TV. There is no mention, however, that all these suit appearances are at base paid endorsements of suits. Even Charlie Rose lets us know he is wearing Ralph Lauren Purple Label. Funny how the guys (mostly paid actors) on TV basically get these 'great suits' more or less for free, simply for wearing a 'label', while the rest of the guys, who are not on TV, have to pay large amounts of money to again basically advertise the same label. This leads me to be very suspect of any analysis of suits that is based on what suits are being worn of TV--it's no different than analyzing suits by looking at what suits are being advertised (by the suit manufacturers/designers) in other media.
The real 'genius' of branding is that (regular) people will eagerly pay large amounts of money for the opportunity to be walking advertisements. Granted, most of the people that wear designer (label) clothes think they are advertising their own (so-called) good taste, but that's not really what's being advertised (at the same people's expense, no less).
The contemporary artists Gilbert and George make a fairly consistent mockery of the suit via themselves and their artwork--somewhat related to the mockery that the uber-wanna-be TV characters of Fraser and his brother make.
Jim Williams of Savannah always wore Dunhill suits. Jim always had the Dunhill buttons removed from the jackets, however, and had them replaced with buttons depicting the Williams family crest. Jim loved telling the story about the time his friend Lance asked if he (Lance) could have the Dunhill buttons to sew onto his non-Dunhill suits.
The first time Jim took me for a night ride in his green Jaguar (the same Jaguar you see Kevin Spacey and John Cusack driving in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil), Jim said he wanted to replace the Jaguar medallion in the center of the stirring wheel with a medallion of the Williams crest. Of course I immediately asked if I could have the Jaguar medallion for my car. (I loved making Jim laugh.)
The first time I took Jim for a ride in my car, a 1979 blue Toyota Corolla Liftback, after meeting him at Philadelphia International Airport in 1985, while on the road I asked Jim to get something out of the glove compartment. When Jim opened the compartment lots of crumpled dollar bills came spilling out onto his lap and down at his feet. I just wanted to make sure that Jim knew the car I drove was very classy and rare as well.
2005.05.19 12:24
Rem and Zaha already have their brand.
Why don't more architects have their own brand?
That's what I see as the real issue of this thread.
2005.05.19 13:16
e, your last comment may be more to the point then it first appears. Is it possible for architects to market themselves as a service that will essentially brand the client?
[Interior decorators maybe kinda sorta do this if they make their clients feel like the product is really a reflection of them, the clients, as opposed to a reflection of the designer.]
2005.05.19 15:36
Philadelphia even has an architecture high school (or at least I assume it's still in existence), but the topic here is "working the media" and marketing, not education, per say.
I wasn't kidding when I wrote that it would be awesome to see pixelwhore pimping HOT ROD ARCHITECTURE in a commercial. Would this commercial need something like the AIA promoting architecture as well? I don't think so. Would this commercial need something like walking tours and grade school presentations promoting architecture as well? I don't think so.
st. is right about specifically knowing what to market, and here the notion of having a brand, albeit not absolutely necessary, nonetheless helps.
Maybe some of the problem stems from the (educated?) notion that architecture is some sort of homogeneous product (like milk or beef), where, in reality, architecture is extremely diverse in its many manifestations. Maybe what the public really needs is to see how many architectures are really available to them
2005.09.14 16:11
So current-day stylization has a lot to do with covering-up or eliminating the common insecurities of most individuals?
"In case you haven't noticed, identity is a big commodity that many (if not most) US citizens buy into. I am what I wear. I am what I drive. I am the neighborhood I live in. I am the amount of times I visited DisneyWorld. I am my plastic surgeon. I am a branded cell (finally?!?)."
--excerpt from QBVS2
2005.12.02 11:35
Metamechanic, as far as I can see, there is really nothing stopping you from attempting an architecture on your own terms. Perhaps ultimately try to figure/find out what you are best at as an architect. Maybe you're uniquely good at/for something, or maybe you share a talent with others. Either way you'll be doing your personal best for architecture.
I agree that there is a kind of hegemony operating within architecture today (and definitely since the Modern Movement/International Style), but architecture wasn't always that way. Most of architectures' histories are like languages' histories in that they were all tied/related to specific places on the planet and reflected the culture of those places.
Reflecting on what presently constitutes architectural "history," perhaps architecture is now a world trade commodity more than anything else.
Is the next big thing to mix up the fashion brands? Wear your Foster pants with Woods belt over Eisenman panties? [And regardless of anything else, always pant when you say panty!]
2006.02.14 15:24
buzzwords:
skyrocketing, payoff, edginess, branding a city, nodding to nostalgia, cave-in, bilbao effect
2007.02.19 13:19
BRIDE FROM THE SIDE
Client: "How do you package your architecture?" Can you package an architecture just for me?"
Architect: "To stage or not to stage? That is the question."
2007.02.19 13:34
Client: "Can you design me an architecture that reenacts Duchamp's Large Glass? I want something in facets."
Architect: "Madam, that would be a crime. And besides, you don't look good in the nude."
Client: "Well then, can you design me an architecture that is regional and relates to fashion."
Architect" "Of course, Madam. It will look something like this...
[image]
2007.02.19 13:52
Client: "I would like you to design me a powerless architecture."
Architect: "Madam, I have to be honest with you. You're looking for Dime-a-Dozen Architects. They have offices everywhere."
2007.02.19 14:39
Client: "I would like you to design me an architecture that cracks me up like Duchamp's Large Glass."
Architect: "Madam, you are in luck. That architecture does indeed come in the acropolitan style."
Client: "Wonderful. Now, can you add to that an architecture that hurts like the truth?"
Architect: "Well, I already know what the back door looks like, but, are you sure you can handle it?"
2007.02.19 15:22
Client: "Can you design me a bothersome architecture?"
Architect: "Are you referring to pro bono work?"
2007.02.19 16:57
Client: "Can you design for me a confused architecture?"
Architect: "I can try."
=====
confused
1. to perplex or bewilder
2. to make unclear or indistinct
3. to fail to distinguish between; associate by mistake; confound: to confuse dates
4. to disconcert or abash
5. to combine without order; jumble; disorder
6. Archaic. to bring to ruin or naught.
2007.03.11 13:54
Oh, now I get it. A date with Kate Moss, no figure.
Might I suggest some Idi Amin Cuisine.
So there I was, sometime in the January summer of 1987, walking through the deserted Capitol Building. The new Capitol was almost ready, but they still have to straighten the giant slanting flagpole erected the day before. Went through both Houses, and even sat in the Monarch's chair. And then, while looking at all the Prime Minister portraits hanging in the Central Hall, I leaned again this vitrine back in the corner. So what's this big, old document? "Hey guys, get a load of this. It's the Magna Carta!"
Australia's a trip.
Is the Athenaeum an unacknowledged(?) precursor of Deconstructionist architecture? Walked through every inch of that place sometime the middle of July summer of 1978. It was a Friday, construction almost done, and the place was deserted. Very attractive building. Gorgeous blue sky day.
I had no idea then who Helene Gregoroffshy Fisher and Hannah Fisher Price were. Let alone I might one day live exactly where Hannah was born. They didn't find utopia, although Ottopia found them.
Guess who wrote "Bizarre experiments are now a commonplace of scientific research."
[And speaking of commonplace bizarre experiments:]
"Only if virtual evolution can be used to explore a space rich enough so that all the possibilities cannot be considered in advance by the designer, only if what results shocks or at least surprises, can genetic algorithms be considered useful visualization tools."
--de Landa
You know, if a client came to me an asked for a rich space that would shock or at least surprise them, I certainly wouldn't need a genetic algorithm to accomplish the task.
Do you think I should donate my genetic code to science? I mean, what if they find it's totally random and completely tangential?!?
2007.04.16 15:21
2000.04.16
exploiting Quondam
...tired of doing all the serious work at Quondam... tired of not having creative fun. ...it's time to begin OTHERWISE EYES. ...start "invading" the existing pages with new data that is there like product placement or is disinformation or is just infringement text/imagery.
...the notion of a museum present throughout, albeit a museum completely otherwise.
...feeling that even with the invasion/unethical approach, an architectural philosophy will come through...an iconoclastic approach engendering originality...changing the Ichnographia, adding "bold" topics to the Encyclopedia, P. as a hyper(?) museum of architecture, Synopsis of Architecture by Papidakis and L., "how to be the best architectural client," hyper building additions, religious conversions (Hurva goes Christian, etc.), Seroux and the Denkmal (plus more [like Durand]), the P. model with all the other site plans grafted on, the NOT THERE imagination.
=====
1812.04.16
Ury
After spending the morning writing a letter to his son Miers Jr. in St. Petersburg, Russia, Miers goes out to garden (where the mailbox is now) and is attacked by a bee, and is ill the rest of the day.
2007.04.25 10:24
metamechanic, a riff off the Finale might well be forthcoming, but this thread doesn't seem the place to pursue it. Was wondering if a 'Symphonatic' thread might be worthwhile, where all the various quotations and connections offer fodder for discussion and riffs. Who knows?
The territory/deterritory/reterritory discussion was/is also stimulating--vectors to perpetual motion to football with rednecks. The Vonnegut quotation in the Finale seems somehow germane. Plus, throw scripting and prescripting into the mix. Again, who knows?
Is "Repeat ad infinitum" the way to go?
=====
"a 'hard copy' tool that brings in more architectural clients" -- Was Le Corbusier subliminally advertising? Did the publication of SMLXL coinciding with an exhibit at MoMA bring Koolhaas/OMA more clients? I'll say probably and probably.
(I assume) clients look for someone they can trust, and they probably do that by seeing what architects are already trusted.
But your answer is viable, nonetheless. Just also be aware that the architectural field is repleat with (subliminal) copy-cats.
The client asks:
Are you an architectural brand or are you an architectural knockoff?
The architect responds:
That depends, are you a brand client or are you a knockoff client?
How many clients do you think I'd attract with "hardcopy" entitled Volume and Congestion?
2007.06.23 12:56
Quilian, thanks. I'll offer some comments and maybe add some fine tuning.
So, within the 'star system' as outline by Quilian above, who then are the "stars" and what form-buildings got the press? As large as the realm of architecture is, it's still a finite set, so we can actually be specific rather that general. Gehry, Koolhaas, Eisenman, Hadid--are these at least on the list of 'who is a starchitect'? [Was there already an archinect thread asking 'Who are the starchitects?'?]
How buildings get press is what should be much more studied. For example, having "Guggenheim" attached to any building design will get lots of press because the Guggenheim already has a whole staff department devoted to generating press, besides the fact that the major mission of the institution itself is to exhibit. Ironically, the "Virtual Guggenhiem" by Asymptote was pretty much literally just press.
If starchitects are really just pseudo celebrities, is that then already a sign of just how relative starchitect status is?
Is "a style" really such a bad thing? I actually see a lot of diversity from architect to architect, and even with a specific architect's oeuvre there is often diversity at least via nuance, if not actually just plain diversity. I thus question the full validity of "same bag of (increasingly superficial) formal tricks."
One could also argue that there is now-a-days a whole lot more critical architectural criticism going on, but it all right away falls into various camps--New Urbanism, Bilbao effect, anti-starchitect, etc.(?)
Most people I know know absolute nothing about architectural style. I'd go so far as to say that even most architects don't know all that is really going on design-wise now-a-days.
"Lesser known architects follow the public's new tastes."--that sounds very subjective to me.
""Architecture" loses yet another battle." --Is an imaginary battle really a battle? Can an imaginary battle really be lost?
I'll leave it at that, but I think the second set of points of regarding Archigram and backlash casts much too large a net, with big holes. Somewhat insular itself even.
parting shot:
Architects can well design buildings, put I don't think they'll ever be able to design clients. [2012.01.19: Or will they?!]
2007.07.30 22:20
a must for all clients:
Does Your Architect Wear Boxers or Blobs?
2007.08.21 11:27
Instinct is not the same thing as reason. To start with, instinct is much quicker.
"Should architectural education begin teaching students how to design buildings that generate publicity? Of course, that includes doing a building correctly in terms of structure and function, however, getting publicity appears to be a new and already prevalent user demand that requires compliance as well. And isn't it common sense for architects to supply what the client asks for?
Then again, it really isn't the architecture or architect that generate the publicity. Rather, it is the advertisement driven publicity/news 'machine'."
"My feeling has been all along, however, that architects and architecture are well capable of generating their own publicity, but professional 'decorum' has for the most part made that attitude an ethically and aesthetically wrong position for architects to take. This 'wrongness' is really just a fabrication, an artificial restraint, and, as always, it is precisely at these artificial points where 'institutions' are the weakest, where the decay happens, where things begin to fall apart. I wholeheartedly advocate architects to embrace publicity as a new, additional ingredient that makes good architecture, the same as firmness, commodity, and delight make good architecture. Furthermore, I hope it takes less than twenty years for architects to begin creating and directing web sites that are just the same as television channels."
What were you doing January 23rd 2001? Blinking?
2007.11.22 11:20
"It's easy to sit in at a desk and draw up your fantasy world (like di-arc?)...it's much harder to work with others to craft an environment of inclusivity and compromise."
Future School of Ironies, right?
otherwise
just face the fact that (architectural) education is now something bought, thus be smart and 'design' the best product. Personally, I'd buy low pulp plus calcium whatever brand is on sale.
2008.03.12 11:39
I like the only video game I've ever played in my life, and thus am well acquinted with the little icons BIG uses to brand each of their designs. In further curating at Quondam, I today happened to past through Morphosis Exhibit Redux again, and was immediately "shocked" by how the image shapes now remind me of BIG icons. A whole new set of building designs began flashing through my imagination.
Interestinglya grand total of 8,116 of the "1%" wealthiest Americans work in engineering, architectural and survey services. Did they start that way or earn it?
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percefnt-occupations/index.html
I'd like to answer the "Why would you believe you are undervalued." Which is simply to say that architects are the lowest paid licensed professionals. Does that mean we are undervalued? Perhaps not, but we are the lowest paid in a profession that requires a substantial academic investment as well as licensing and renewal. There are financial obligations that come with being an architect- similar (let's say) to being a lawyer, or a doctor. All of whom are licensed to be the safeguards of public health and safety, wellbeing, and rights. And we are paid substantially less. So to me, this is the crux of the argument. If society want to reduce my licensing requirements, the tests I had to take, and the degrees I needed to achieve- then I'd say fine. But society imposes these obligations, and then rewards those who pursue it with much less than those in comparable professions.
And for what it's worth, here's my take on it. The general public undervalues architects because they really don't understand what we do. I mean, anyone can do architecture- anyone can build a house. You don't need a fancy shmancy architect to build something. But you don't hear anyone saying that about heart surgery, or legal matters (well okay, some, but they're often laughed at). Society understands and by understands I mean values the contributions of those professions. I think, they don't get ours, so they don't value it. (And no, I'm not sure how to fix that, but I think it's a large part of the problem.)
It's hard for me to follow this much text when I have to take occasional short breaks to do actual work, but I would like propose an idea I did not see above. First though, allow me to preface by saying I agree architects should do a better job of engaging the public, and if we actually do add value to the process then letting our clients and various user groups know how we add value can only help.
However, that is probably not the real reason we are underpaid or undervalued. If we want our services to be worth more financially, I believe we simply have to ask for more. Instead of saying you'll do x project for $y, say you'll do x project for $y+z where z>0. From what I've seen there is money out there and people willing to spend money. They just aren't giving it to us because we're trying to undersell our services.
My theory is that there are a bunch of self absorbed baby boomers* who think it's fun to design buildings, and have developed a sub-culture of sorts where being lazy and stupid** has become a virtue. This has created an overly competitive environment where we as architects underbid each other to the point where we're spending 100 hours for free to design a project, and then if we actually get hired to do the project we end up working for about $12/hour. Of course this only applies to the fun stuff. We still charge regular fees for the monotonous or tedious sorts of work which is what tends to pay the bills...
*This does not apply to all baby boomers. However, if you're one of the baby boomers who is currently thinking that you add real value to a project because you know what shade of green you like, it probably does apply to you.
**The 'lazy and stupid' comment is not specific to architects. In fact it is waaay to prevalent in most aspects of life. Also, this is only my opinion based on limited circumstantial evidence.
...fictionalize this world where you see architectural value elevated. It could be short stories, a novel, or even a series of novels. The point being to create somethng that “the public” can relate to, consume, and hopefully even be inspired by--essentially putting ideas into people’s mind via fiction.
This is one of the best ideas ever posted on Archinect.
Thanks for that reading stroll through the vaults, emergency exit wound, I really enjoyed it. I think you're a genius.
Mr. Exit Wound, That has to be the longest comment in the history of Archinect. I like the idea of propagandizing via fiction, but, unfortunately, having studied way to much literary theory, fiction probably won't cut it. But thanks for the suggestion! Maybe a plot line similar to Reservoir Dogs. And could I use Exit Wound as a character name?
I will try to respond to some of the other comments later. Thank you everyone for chiming in. This is a great dicussion.
Is anyone else thinking of Howard Roarke?
We can't just stop at literature. We need the architectural equivalent to Dr. House played by Ryan Gosling. Rem needs his own reality series, not on HGTV. While we're at it, it wouldn't hurt to have some architects get involved in politics instead of politicians just saying they once wanted to be an architect.
In fact we should just get rid of HGTV all together.
I've never seen Reservoir Dogs, but a plot line based on what Brian Henry just posted might cut it.
So Cameron Sinclair of AFH read this and he tells me he's launching something on Feb 14 that is supposed to help shift what he calls the inward focus of architecture. This should be interesting and hopefully good. I'll probably end up writing about it. I wonder what he's thinking?
Will, That was an interesting pt about changing the job description. Architecture firms seem to be embracing the message part of the work and penning narratives about what they do on their websites. This would actually be interesting to look at. Which firms have the most compelling narratives about how great they are and all the cool stuff they do. It's not enough in our content-based society to just say architecture or design buildings. This also rsises the issue of social media. Does it really help. I'd like to ask @cannon for example. Or Perkins plus Will with thier free sustainability tools. While this demonstrates value does it increase profit? Get clients? Maybe in a few years well see if this whole social media thing pans out. Voodoo?
And then there is this. From Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/janitors-newt-gingrich-fire-replace-children_n_1217352.html. How many of you know someone making about as much as these janitors. One example: an acquaintance has an MArch and works for a "name". He gets paid less per hour than a part time nanny. At the jobsite. Drywaller drives a Benz. Licensed architect arrives in beater Honda. lots of anecdotes like this you may know. Janitors are great but architectural workers have far more education and training. Someone mentioned this above. Anyway, where are you in relation to the janitors?
I think I want to be a janitor instead. My main thing with architecture is I love buildings; taking care of one would make me happy (I think).
Well, Donna,
If Newt becomes president there will be lots of openings for this and you could work alongside all the janitorial children. Of course you would not earn the "obscene" salary janitors supposedly enjoy because those days would be over.
However, most extant buildings are built with unhealthy materials and are clearned with toxic chemicals. The less time spent in them, the better. What there is to love about such buildings requires that we keep quiet about these basic health problems--buildings causing cancer, etc. The janitors are left to clean up the mess, so to speak. Now, a healthy building would be a different story, I imagine.
The question, though, is do you know architectural workers earning less than the jannitors, or around the same level?
Be interested to learn what people think about this.
Slate is going to be looking at this thread for an article on architecture and the economy as part of their series on creative workers. Share your points of view here. Warning: you might be quoted.
whose writing it Guy you? Or did they just contact you?
No. I'm not writing the Slate article. A journalist named Scott Timberg. He has a series on the creative class. Should be good. Here's someone presenting the field to the outside world.
I've got a few musings regarding this subject, its not all thought out but perhaps the initial excursion can be picked up by others.
First, I want to address this notion:
"But we have elevated it (architecture) as a cultural practice and discourse to such a high realm of exclusivity and insider-ness that the general culture has become alienated and suspicious."
I've been rereading Heidegger's "The Questions Concerning Technology", and, with the help of a lot of secondary writing on the piece, I think I'm starting to understand it more subjectively.. and that 'danger' he speaks of.. well I find it terrifyingly present.
I see architecture, with a capital 'A', as having 'retreated' to a 'high realm' of 'exclusivity' due to the ice-nine-like total world domination of enframing the world as stuff to be commanded about, harvested and exploited, and done so with astounding efficiency.
BIM. Its already in our veins. Its so much a part of how we behold the world, its almost blasphemous to acknowledge there is another way of being.. another way of existing, that is not about branding, fast-tracking, or repurposing, or even recycling (still seeing everything as resource)..
I'm working on the construction side of the industry now, and I can see the awkward moments when the architect succumbs to the efficency paradigm and begins to mumble about the project losing its design integrity over the almighty sway of efficency, knowing his battle was lost before it began. The 'suspicous' client only sees the designer trying to make more money or pad his portfolio, as its the only vocabulary he knows. As Rem Koolhaus said in a recent interview, his role is as a missionary...
I was lucky to have a few teachers who still resonated with some sense of beholding the world as something that felt ineffable at the time, a way of being that we have lost vocabulary for..
and it seems that that way of being can hardly survive outside the academy, and the lucky and strong-willed few that manage to give voice to poetry in their work. And the effort of producing that poetry goes well beyond that of just efficiently designing and excuting a building, and precisely because of the 'danger' Heidegger speaks of, that poetry can hardly even be spoken of. And you can't really make a 'performance substitution' in your specs if you are going for poetry. It all matters at that point. I even use the word poetry because I can't think of anything better. Maybe the value of that is ineffable.. Its not calculable or almost unspeakable in our current paradigm.
As far as getting an income for that effort, this is just one anecdote but not very heartening:
from http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html
Davies, Glyn in his A History of money from ancient times to the present day, 3rd ed. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002, writing about the value of money in ancient Athens makes the following point (pages 76-77):
"Two obols were the day's pay of a labourer, while the architect of the Erechtheum temple on the Acropolis earned about three times as much, a drachma a day. As a rough but useful guide as to the value of such coins, the average day's pay for a manual worker in Great Britain in 1982 was over £27, while a first-rate consultant architect (not necessarily of the quality of those that built the Parthenon) would expect to earn at least £200 a day, worth in today's inflated currency some 25,000 drachmae."
Somehow though, I don't think the architect of the Erechtheum temple had 100K in student debt, car insurance, health insurance, but maybe he had a trust fund?
Perhaps our problem is that a baseline simple life has gotten too damn expensive to be an architect..
It did for me.
and its precisely the work of 'the danger'.. seeing the entire world as 'resource' to be 'commanded about' even ourselves.. that got us into this mess. fourth turning anyone? please?
Where's that damn saving grace thing when you need it Martin?
"Perhaps we need to bring Marx back into architecture."
Yes, I agree, Groucho and Chico have already proven their planning capabilities:
Why a duck?
Polymathic,
Thank you for that great comment. It's really a nice addendum. Heidegger is usually helpful when dealing with such things. I also find Kierkegaard might be more useful for dealing with the existential condition and confronting it in the present. It's amazing how architecture hasn't found a way to accomodate and incorporate his thinking. He's all about being in the moment and dealing with it. Maybe a little more complicated than that, but a big issue for the profession is alwasy how to deal with the present while not getting caught up in the imagination and the abstract. How do we identify what is right and what is wrong with the present and then what do we do?
Polymathic, on this idea of the entire world being a resource: I'll embarrass myself a bit by referring to a comment Matt Damon said when being interviewed by a libertarian TV reporter. He said the entire country is consumed by this "MBA mentality" that the only important thing is value, efficiency, scaleability, whatever the business-world trend word of the day may be. There is no room in that world-view for the ineffable or sublime or poetic. Even beauty, or delight in our realm, is reframed as a value-added branding device.
We have to speak our clients' language, but we need to find ways to teach them ours. I think architecture has lost our allegiance to the non-MBA version of the world.