Do "Rebel Architects" pose for elite audiences and their 20K a semester students?

2014-09-11T18:08:00-04:00

it seemed perverse to us that architecture has become all about the aesthetics of a few iconic buildings whose main function is the glorification of those with the money to build them. As one prize after another celebrates the work of a selected band of world famous "starchitects", it seemed like humanity's most pressing problems are how to fold metal into the most obscure shapes, and how implausibly high a building can go.

As curated by Daniel Davies on how architecture and design can be used to build a better world, Al Jazeera sheds a light on what really matters as architecture moves into domains of architects and geographies where the works is making difference in people's lives.

"They are architects not paid by international NGOs to parachute in solutions, but working in their own countries with issues they understand at a deep level. They are architects who work independently, rarely getting developer backing, but funding projects themselves. And they rarely get media coverage outside specialist architectural and academic circles."

Seems like real "rebels" don't pose for elite audiences and their 20K a semester students.

Also, curators view.

Archinect - News

Do "Rebel Architects" pose for elite audiences and their 20K a semester students?