The role of Archinect’s series Cross-Talk is to bring forward the positive aspects of the polemic and allow for the resulting conflict to bring to life an otherwise still and comfortable climate of creativity—if there can be one. Cross-Talk attempts—if to only say that it did—to allow text the freedom that the image has accepted and embraced. Cross-Talk attempts to force the no, to contradict itself, to anger, to please and then anger again, if only to force a stance, to pull out the position of the self, of the discipline and of the hour as a means to begin and maintain conversations moving forward. 

In this series, we are looking at the role Practice and Academia in today's disciplinary framework and how we can begin to analyze and recalibrate their relationship. In today's installment we hear from Evan Bliss, a Los Angeles based designer and Board Member of the LA Forum. 

Architectural ‘academia’ is a euphemism.  It stands for the new, the fresh, and the innovative.  In common parlance, when folks cite the distinction between ‘academia’ and ‘practice,’ they’re actually referring to the distinction between what we characterize as liberating, creative ‘fun’ and humdrum, constrained ‘labor,’ transacted on salaried hours.  It is often a farse.  In the context of this model, the proto-political distinction is one predicated on a perceptual and ideological pretense, but not grounded in institutional reality.  “Institutional” is the operative word, as established and canonized systems, such as schools of architecture, often struggle to truly adapt to and subsume novel content as their own.  As much as one would like to fetishize academia as a risk-accepting escape hatch from ‘square’ practice, reality paints a different narrative.

Those who have completed an architectural education know - ‘academia’ vs. ‘practice’ does not constitute  a hardline difference in the strength of organizational authority – pupils are bound by the vagaries and conventions of their respective institutions and teaching staff, with these constraints often being at odds with fleeting notions of a laissez-faire architectural venue where experimentation, free-association and free-expression are championed.  One of the central mantras and mandates of contemporary tech culture is ‘fail fast, fail often;’ the architectural academy as traditionally-defined often fails to support an equally liberal approach.  Professors have their agendas, and the sheer backing of years of intellectual capital to back them up.  Recently, I spoke at length with a pair of graduates from a major school of architecture in Los Angeles, who shared with me the (primarily ideological) uphill struggle of pushing their thesis project along through the powers-that-be.  Though their project employed relevant and discourse-worthy concepts regarding technology, representation, and the city, their progress was held up regularly by critics crying out regarding medium-suspicion and architectural nativism.  It is worth noting that project went on to win top institutional honors, and by its creators’ measure, carved out a new, tenable niche around that subject at that institution.

Recently, I spoke at length with a pair of graduates from a major school of architecture in Los Angeles, who shared with me the (primarily ideological) uphill struggle of pushing their thesis project along through the powers-that-be.

Within the framework as-is, ‘academia’ as the liberated, R&D-focused force is, withstanding undue appealing and prodding, rendered bankrupt.  From there, where might one venture to find this architecturally ‘free’ context and what role does the contemporary academy play in the life of a thinker and practitioner, even as it is mired in its own institutional constraints?

The academy effectively maintains and deploys the weight of history and establishment behind its alumni and affiliates, and its memory and stubbornness are deep in equal measure.   What it lacks in nimbleness, it seeks to make up for through making available its lineup of legacy thinkers and practitioners.  Within this framework, ‘making it’ still looks like ascending as a competent design or technical middle-manager in a respected design office.  Peter Zellner, anointed as-of-late as a pedagogical revolutionary with his Free School of Architecture, laments a dim scenario wherein debt-laden graduates are systematically funneled into roles that, collectively, constitute an army of over-educated toilet detailers – “If you’re a young person and you’re carrying several hundred thousands of dollars’ worth of debt, you’re more likely to go into a large practice. Those practices tend to be very commercially oriented and they don’t tend to promote creativity or individualism. They’re really just looking for people who can draft and produce. I don’t believe that somebody should spend five years giving away money [for tuition] and giving away their lives to end up drafting mundane things like toilets and fire-stair details.”

...where might one venture to find this architecturally ‘free’ context and what role does the contemporary academy play in the life of a thinker and practitioner, even as it is mired in its own institutional constraints?

Zellner’s cynical picture isn’t the only narrative for those who opt to work within the sanctioned system, however – for the honors graduate and individual adept at navigating the contemporary office landscape, joining the existing ranks may prove fruitful, if still creatively half-baked.  It’s true – being Thom, Neil, or Frank’s right-hand woman/man ain’t a bad gig.  If Peter’s solution to schools was to, in turn, form another school, I posit that an alternative already exists and is being excavated en-masse, even if most often through other mediums.  This path leverages techniques and philosophical tenants that are almost uncomfortably zeitgeist – I’m speaking, of course, of the route du jour – the proverbial ‘influencer.’  If Taliesen professor Ryan Scavnicky taught us that memes are our most salient singular communication currency, than consider a meme of Scavnicky’s that pits the ‘academy’ against a perceived form of ‘practice’ (in this case, disseminating work on social platforms as an ‘influencer’).  The meme shows a vehicle on the highway labelled ‘Architecture Students’ making a sudden break from its roadway trajectory of ‘Graduating with Distinction’ to taking the exit off the highway labelled ‘Becoming an influencer.’  One might layer on top of this architectural reading a larger internet swing towards entrepreneurship as the de-facto aspirational pursuit, especially for those in the creative industries.

If architecture, in its contemporary capacity, is so natively fertile to individualism and hero-worship, than influencer-ism is the ‘hero we need, not the one we deserve.’  The era of omnipresent social media (more accurately, the latest iteration of the ‘internet’) was nearly tailor-made for architects.  What could be more illustrative of singularity of voice within the field than when one of the primary outputs of a well-regarded academic is curating an ‘Archive of Affinities,’ an open-book showcasing the post-ironic architectural images that define a single individual’s taste-making?  It is understood that the legacy of contemporary architecture can be conveyed through the rattling off of a short-list of iconic practitioners’ last names – as such, the cult-of-the-individual mantra of social media dovetails naturally with the architectural culture already established.

The meme shows a vehicle on the highway labelled ‘Architecture Students’ making a sudden break from its roadway trajectory of ‘Graduating with Distinction’ to taking the exit off the highway labelled ‘Becoming an influencer.’

There will, of course, be hold-outs to this ‘individualist’ model reinforced by social platforms.  A close friend of mine, currently in the early throes of graduate school application, feels much anxiety around full assertion of architectural self.  This person has built a substantive body of personal, non-academic work that is relevant within the discipline, but still feels uncertainty around showcasing it while seeking to capitulate to the normative conventions of an Ivy League M.Arch application.  However trite of an observation, we currently operate in a culture that over-indexes on the individual with well-illustrative productive and appealing differences, so presenting one’s unique differentiators is paramount regardless of audience, and can be done without unreasonable concern.

Relevant methods and mediums of presenting disciplinary architectural content on social platforms are rehearsed elsewhere, and do not bear my repeating.  That said, the end product most of us still traffic in, buildings, remain incredibly time and physical-resource intensive, having inherent friction with the ephemeral nature of online posting and positioning.  It follows that it is a touch trickier when it comes to ‘monetizing’ one’s digital enterprises – though one may be safe to rely on their YouTube instructional video prowess to shore up these demands.

In closing, consider the protagonist you chose to play against ‘practice’ in the age-old ‘practice’ vs. ‘academia’ context debate (read: ‘closed’ vs. ‘open,’ respectively) - the true analogue for both are oft equally-staid institutions.  In my student years I idolized and valorized my professors for their intellectual stature and seemingly unconstrained creative latitude, and perhaps even to this day I yearn to join their ranks in the traditional academic environment.  But, to pervert an old teaching adage, seek not to be the ‘sage on the stage’ but the ‘guide on the side’ – consider how flattened, less-formal and less-hierarchical online media and communications platforms might enable the voice of the individual creative practitioner and thinker in a broadly legitimized way.  Non-institutional contexts provide a viable vehicle for a width swath of disciplinary and practice ambitions.  This context is, quite obviously, the remaining ‘Wild West.’