Recently, I attended a Chicago Architecture Club event on the Implications of Media and Architecture in Chicago. I though it would be intriguing and beneficial to invite members of the Chicago Architecture Club to utilize Archinect and it's valuable community to continue the discussion on issues of architecture, media, and community education.
We all owe the panelists, Annette Ferrara, Lee Bey, and Lynn Becker, sincere gratitude for spending an evening with the CAC discussing media and architecture. The November event was provocative and inspiring as we discussed the state of art and architectural criticism, the necessary energy to publish a periodical and the media relationships between the general public, the government and design professionals. I can honestly state that all three panelists are gifted storytellers who deftly blended their perspective through each of our discussion topics.
This, our third event, was attended by sixty members and guests that contributed to a lively discussion. “Why is architectural criticism so nice? (this does not apply to lynn becker) Does it have to be so simplistic?†“is the public interested in art and architectural criticism?†“is it possible to gain revenue from advertising and still publish freely?†“what are the issues and problems, not getting attention from the press, for which the CAC can propose solutions?
Good to see that the CAC is trying to figure out its place: both its overall role in the chicago architecture community, as well as its agenda for media, whether newspaper articles or websites or whatever.
These last few meetings have been productive insofar as they've turned the lens inward onto Chicago's own architectural climate, rather than bitching about the usual suspects (Daley, developers, etc).
we in chicago, specifically in the CAC but in general as well, spend a lot of time discussing how important it is that we have an identity, etc., but have done very little to DEFINE this identity, specifically through exposition and discussion. noone really knows what the architects in chicago really think beyond what is reported somewhat feebly by the local papers. what is it that we talk about? what are contemporary discussion in our particular local culture? i do not believe that we are that far off from the rest of the planet in terms of issues, but i also feel that these issues are unique to our locale. we need to place ourselves within the global discussion...
to that end, the journal should, well, loosen up a little bit as far as formatting goes, and speed up in terms of it's production and release. we want a documentation of the years events, discussions, and the work that reflects the climate in chicago at that time. the journal should serve as a snapshot, for better or worse, of the moment; it should serve as a piece of a larger whole loosely defined as the social and historical context that makes up chicago as illustrated by the members of the club.
furthermore, the journal should not be separated from the discussions that occur on the website or during the meetings themselves. for lack of a better synonym, again, it's an issue of context. it's like viewing a piece of architecture constructed in a dense urban fabric as a singular object. (actually, that is a completely different conversation, but one best suited for next month's CAC meeting about capturing architecture through photography) what happens around the object is as important, in this case, as the object itself. it is current, and helps to define the object.
so you see the journal as a snapshot, yearbook, archive piece etc... as opposed to a themed journal pointed in a particular direction addressing specific issues?
we have debating this point for some time. as you know the new website is focused upon making such discussions more public. i wonder if the snapshot version of the journal presents a reader with enough clarity to be understood...
as with all discourse, there is a need for balance, indeed. i think the snapshot version content should be diverse enough to offer an explanation of the terrain of the conversations that have occurred, but offer moments of magnification, whether that be through specific member work, a conversation thread from the website replicated, or an article of critque. the real crucial element of the snapshot is to define a unit of time, in our case, a season. the 'exposure' time, to stay within the photographic analogy, defines the amount of information inscribed on the paper (alright, enough of that, but i think you get the point).
and to comment on the idea of a themed journal; i think there's no need to define a theme. i think i clever group, whether that be a committee of the CAC or an affiliate graphic designer, can take the presented content, and through juxtaposition of threads, commentary, and projects, a theme of the unit of time will emerge on it's own, either through repetition or opposition.
if a CAC editor or graphic designer creates juxtapositions that infer thematic relationships, is it just being too clever by half to pretend such judgements are not being made by supressing them from reference in the text? isn't it more honest to be upfront about this, and let people react and repond, in sympathy or rage?
The recent CAC event titled Implications of Media and Architecture was important and insightful, yet only marginally relevant to the declared goal of the Club this year: It is a year we must all decide the Club's new mission.
When will we discuss what the raison d'etre of the Chicago Architecture Club shall be?
My hope is that the CAC is a group of people who first and foremost, through their creative work, strive to inspire and improve the lives of all. Our documentation and discussions of the state of Chicago architecture as relayed to the larger community through the journal should primarily address whether planned and built projects do make a positive difference in people's lives. In order to build upon our credibility, we should focus our opinions on people related issues: a window that opens, a tree that provides shade etc. Great architecture is made up of little decisions like those.
This is how we are different from the architects who build the embarrassing, painted concrete monsters all over town. It is time for us to take sides.
marginally relevant? media is a large part of the identity of the club. the last two events have specifically been designed to direct the raison d'etre discussion. we are preparing a website, due out early next year, where members can continue discussions from events. we will be able to post images and text for discussion.
we are in contact with the city to offer the club's collective creativity to address civic problems. inspiring and improving the lives of the society is a fantastic goal. this goal is not limited to the members of the CAC. providing a place, forum, context for a community of architects to debate and hopefully cooperate is a large part of our mission.
raison d'etre... let us start here. CAC members are reading this discussion.
wellbornroot: Agreed. Editorial decisions are impossible to avoid and, frankly, a great asset for the magazine. 'Theming', either before or after submissions are made, is tricky business however, and much easier when the submitters are willing to be flexible about how their content is displayed.
raison d'etre: The club is, as I understand it, in the position of being a jack of all trades and master of none; not quite AIA Chicago, not quite the Graham Foundation, not really part of the local architecture schools or keyed into local magazines, television, or other publishing concerns. This ambiguity of purpose makes 'taking sides,' as tomjacobs puts it, difficult.
what I'd like to see, most abstractly, is the club simply promoting openness, community, and discourse within the architectural community of Chicago.
bobby b: Regarding your proposal of a creating a working relationship with the city - Is the city going to acknowledge this club as a think tank or is it going to be club makes voluntary offerings just to be ignored by the city. And is this relationship with the city going to be reciprocal? For instance, a member in one of the previous meetings had raised the issue of lobbying to get public commissions awarded only through competitions. Is the club willing to take such proposals to the city and expect to be heard? The club certainly has the necessary pedigree to expect to deal with the city at a high level.
our intention with the city is to be recognized as an organization that can help. obviously we are not interested in being ignored.
there are many ways we can address problems in the city. we can solicit challenges from the city and write them into competition programs in partnership with the city and offer the competition entries as solutions. we can gain the city's support, benefit from the media exposure and ultimately affect change for public benefit. i can envision this relationship becoming stronger overtime with the CAC being thought of as a true think tank.
i can also imagine the CAC finding issues that the city doesn't address that need solutions. The CAC may become the entity bringing public attention to such problems. again, our relationship with the media can help the CAC achieve such a goal.
the CAC has no pedigree. while individual member's certainly do, the club currently has no political capital. this is an important point. we are constructing our reputation now. as an organization we need to build relationships in the community.
by the way... at the end of the "implications of media and architecture" event, we got into a discussion with lee bey about the general public and their interest in architectural criticism. lee and i disagreed on this and i am curious what you think.
do you believe the public is interested in architectural criticism?
there is not lack of interest for architecture in the general public- but rather a deficiency in the general public's architectural education that creates a disconnect in them being involved in the discussions. how then, do we educate the general public so that they may effectively contribute to these discussions?
accessibility is an issue- unless you are actively involved in the architecture community it is difficult to know what is taking place when (in reality it's a challenge even when you're involved).
how could little jimmy find out about the lecture? How would his father become involved in the discussions? We live in a consumer based society- what harm would it do to identify a target consumer and market to them?
we’re competing with george w’s color coded terror alert, paris hilton and terrell owens- can we draw the general public’s attention to something that they can contribute to that will actually affect their everyday lives?
pilgram - how do we get the public informed about architecture? you're looking at a solution right here. Archinect has enlightened me about architecture and even provided a forum that allows me (a non-architect) to take part in discussions about current affairs in architecture (albeit i'm usually rather silent because i still feel out of my league).
i agree- archinect is a great platform but feel more can be done to get greater numbers of the public actively involved.
how exactly did you find this site? your comments could prove to be invaluable to us reaching a larger audience!
based on your interactions- do you feel that the architecture community is easily approachable? do you have any criticisms of how we interact with the public?
i can't recall exactly how i found this site. i've been interested in architecture for ages and after searching the web for information, this site has proven to be the most valuable resource i've come across, by far. i appreciate how it keeps me up to date with news, views, events. the image gallery has been an amazing source of inspiration too. the thing that i like about archinect the most is how it allows the public to become involved in EVERY area of the site.
i have a feeling there's a lot of non-architects out there reading archinect but not participating because the level of discussion is not yet within their reach. this is a place where professionals mingle with beginners, unfortunately, the beginners often get kicked to the curb when they ask a "stupid" question. so, to answer your question "do you feel that the architecture community is easily approachable?", i would have to say not really, in general, even though i've met many helpful people here, in the forums and via email.
we’re competing with 1. george w’s color coded terror alert, 2. paris hilton and 3. terrell owens - can we draw the general public’s attention to something that they can contribute to that will actually affect their everyday lives?
Pilgram - a valid observation
Should we (Architects, and the like) compete for attention with the ol' standby advertising techniques as you stated above such as 1. Fear; 2. Sex; or 3. Violence?
I say, "ask your doctor about" ads or how about humor?
I have never been to Chicago, but have heard it is a great town, you’re obviously rich in American Architectural history, and this group seems like a good asset.
Keep up the good work CAC and good luck refining yourselves!
i recall a few years ago that the AIA flirted with a few attempts to advertise on television. if my memory serves me correctly, that effort was demolished by a bad internet investment that left the AIA in a very bad financial position. if there are any AIA experts reading perhaps they can clarify.
i believe that being involved in televised media is a sound idea. media exposure generates interest and that can only help. considering the popularity of home improvement programs and MTV cribs, there has to be a place for architecture, other than PBS.
perhaps we can get terrell and paris to flim something on top of the guggenheim at bilbao...
i will indeed. archinect is an important site with which the CAC will continue to be involved.
the CAC is also preparing a new website that allows posting and hosts a forum. the issues will likely be more locally motivated but should remain interesting for all.
watch the snippet of the "i'm so fly" video...one of the most popular rappers out today must think, or at least his marketing director thinks that bilbao is "fly"
it's all over television already- how can we bring the architecture out of the background for these videos/car commercials etc. and get the public to talk about it?
(thinking aloud) how compelling would it be to take one of the advertising pieces using the museum as a backdrop- ghost the product being sold until it disappears- and advertise a new exhibit at the guggenheim?
I unfortunately was unable to attend the remaining segment of the discussion but hearing the introductions from the panelist', asssured me that the discussion following would have been well worth it to experience. Motivation and Change is so important to any organization and with the hearthfelt efforts of the CAC presidents, Chicago will hear architectural ctriticism whether they like it or not. Time for the old guard to change and the new to thrive.
Dec 3, 04 10:15 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
The Implications of Media and Architecture
Recently, I attended a Chicago Architecture Club event on the Implications of Media and Architecture in Chicago. I though it would be intriguing and beneficial to invite members of the Chicago Architecture Club to utilize Archinect and it's valuable community to continue the discussion on issues of architecture, media, and community education.
Dear CAC Members and Sponsors,
We all owe the panelists, Annette Ferrara, Lee Bey, and Lynn Becker, sincere gratitude for spending an evening with the CAC discussing media and architecture. The November event was provocative and inspiring as we discussed the state of art and architectural criticism, the necessary energy to publish a periodical and the media relationships between the general public, the government and design professionals. I can honestly state that all three panelists are gifted storytellers who deftly blended their perspective through each of our discussion topics.
This, our third event, was attended by sixty members and guests that contributed to a lively discussion. “Why is architectural criticism so nice? (this does not apply to lynn becker) Does it have to be so simplistic?†“is the public interested in art and architectural criticism?†“is it possible to gain revenue from advertising and still publish freely?†“what are the issues and problems, not getting attention from the press, for which the CAC can propose solutions?
In an effort to keep the discussion continuing beyond the event, we are posting a discussion group on Archinect.com. http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=10502_0_42_0_C
The CAC also thanks John Jourden from Archinect for attending the event, contributing to the discussion and setting up the discussion group.
Our next event will be on a MONDAY December 13th.
Best,
Robert and Brian
Co-Presidents
Chicago Architectural Club
fyi
www.tenbyten.net
www.lynnbecker.com
Good to see that the CAC is trying to figure out its place: both its overall role in the chicago architecture community, as well as its agenda for media, whether newspaper articles or websites or whatever.
These last few meetings have been productive insofar as they've turned the lens inward onto Chicago's own architectural climate, rather than bitching about the usual suspects (Daley, developers, etc).
what role do you think the journal should play in the CAC's agenda?
we in chicago, specifically in the CAC but in general as well, spend a lot of time discussing how important it is that we have an identity, etc., but have done very little to DEFINE this identity, specifically through exposition and discussion. noone really knows what the architects in chicago really think beyond what is reported somewhat feebly by the local papers. what is it that we talk about? what are contemporary discussion in our particular local culture? i do not believe that we are that far off from the rest of the planet in terms of issues, but i also feel that these issues are unique to our locale. we need to place ourselves within the global discussion...
to that end, the journal should, well, loosen up a little bit as far as formatting goes, and speed up in terms of it's production and release. we want a documentation of the years events, discussions, and the work that reflects the climate in chicago at that time. the journal should serve as a snapshot, for better or worse, of the moment; it should serve as a piece of a larger whole loosely defined as the social and historical context that makes up chicago as illustrated by the members of the club.
furthermore, the journal should not be separated from the discussions that occur on the website or during the meetings themselves. for lack of a better synonym, again, it's an issue of context. it's like viewing a piece of architecture constructed in a dense urban fabric as a singular object. (actually, that is a completely different conversation, but one best suited for next month's CAC meeting about capturing architecture through photography) what happens around the object is as important, in this case, as the object itself. it is current, and helps to define the object.
read your Heidegger, people :)
(thumbing through martin)
so you see the journal as a snapshot, yearbook, archive piece etc... as opposed to a themed journal pointed in a particular direction addressing specific issues?
we have debating this point for some time. as you know the new website is focused upon making such discussions more public. i wonder if the snapshot version of the journal presents a reader with enough clarity to be understood...
as with all discourse, there is a need for balance, indeed. i think the snapshot version content should be diverse enough to offer an explanation of the terrain of the conversations that have occurred, but offer moments of magnification, whether that be through specific member work, a conversation thread from the website replicated, or an article of critque. the real crucial element of the snapshot is to define a unit of time, in our case, a season. the 'exposure' time, to stay within the photographic analogy, defines the amount of information inscribed on the paper (alright, enough of that, but i think you get the point).
and to comment on the idea of a themed journal; i think there's no need to define a theme. i think i clever group, whether that be a committee of the CAC or an affiliate graphic designer, can take the presented content, and through juxtaposition of threads, commentary, and projects, a theme of the unit of time will emerge on it's own, either through repetition or opposition.
if a CAC editor or graphic designer creates juxtapositions that infer thematic relationships, is it just being too clever by half to pretend such judgements are not being made by supressing them from reference in the text? isn't it more honest to be upfront about this, and let people react and repond, in sympathy or rage?
The recent CAC event titled Implications of Media and Architecture was important and insightful, yet only marginally relevant to the declared goal of the Club this year: It is a year we must all decide the Club's new mission.
When will we discuss what the raison d'etre of the Chicago Architecture Club shall be?
My hope is that the CAC is a group of people who first and foremost, through their creative work, strive to inspire and improve the lives of all. Our documentation and discussions of the state of Chicago architecture as relayed to the larger community through the journal should primarily address whether planned and built projects do make a positive difference in people's lives. In order to build upon our credibility, we should focus our opinions on people related issues: a window that opens, a tree that provides shade etc. Great architecture is made up of little decisions like those.
This is how we are different from the architects who build the embarrassing, painted concrete monsters all over town. It is time for us to take sides.
marginally relevant? media is a large part of the identity of the club. the last two events have specifically been designed to direct the raison d'etre discussion. we are preparing a website, due out early next year, where members can continue discussions from events. we will be able to post images and text for discussion.
we are in contact with the city to offer the club's collective creativity to address civic problems. inspiring and improving the lives of the society is a fantastic goal. this goal is not limited to the members of the CAC. providing a place, forum, context for a community of architects to debate and hopefully cooperate is a large part of our mission.
raison d'etre... let us start here. CAC members are reading this discussion.
wellbornroot: Agreed. Editorial decisions are impossible to avoid and, frankly, a great asset for the magazine. 'Theming', either before or after submissions are made, is tricky business however, and much easier when the submitters are willing to be flexible about how their content is displayed.
raison d'etre: The club is, as I understand it, in the position of being a jack of all trades and master of none; not quite AIA Chicago, not quite the Graham Foundation, not really part of the local architecture schools or keyed into local magazines, television, or other publishing concerns. This ambiguity of purpose makes 'taking sides,' as tomjacobs puts it, difficult.
what I'd like to see, most abstractly, is the club simply promoting openness, community, and discourse within the architectural community of Chicago.
bobby b: Regarding your proposal of a creating a working relationship with the city - Is the city going to acknowledge this club as a think tank or is it going to be club makes voluntary offerings just to be ignored by the city. And is this relationship with the city going to be reciprocal? For instance, a member in one of the previous meetings had raised the issue of lobbying to get public commissions awarded only through competitions. Is the club willing to take such proposals to the city and expect to be heard? The club certainly has the necessary pedigree to expect to deal with the city at a high level.
our intention with the city is to be recognized as an organization that can help. obviously we are not interested in being ignored.
there are many ways we can address problems in the city. we can solicit challenges from the city and write them into competition programs in partnership with the city and offer the competition entries as solutions. we can gain the city's support, benefit from the media exposure and ultimately affect change for public benefit. i can envision this relationship becoming stronger overtime with the CAC being thought of as a true think tank.
i can also imagine the CAC finding issues that the city doesn't address that need solutions. The CAC may become the entity bringing public attention to such problems. again, our relationship with the media can help the CAC achieve such a goal.
the CAC has no pedigree. while individual member's certainly do, the club currently has no political capital. this is an important point. we are constructing our reputation now. as an organization we need to build relationships in the community.
NLUKEN: i agree that the club must promote dialogue. as president, i can confirm that getting members to agree on any point is difficult and nearly impossible. as the cliché is stated, "getting architects to agree is like herding cats"...we need to take sides during debates about specific issues but i doubt the organization will be able to craft an ideological platform. however, that notion does not preclude initiatives that can be effective!
by the way... at the end of the "implications of media and architecture" event, we got into a discussion with lee bey about the general public and their interest in architectural criticism. lee and i disagreed on this and i am curious what you think.
do you believe the public is interested in architectural criticism?
there is not lack of interest for architecture in the general public- but rather a deficiency in the general public's architectural education that creates a disconnect in them being involved in the discussions. how then, do we educate the general public so that they may effectively contribute to these discussions?
accessibility is an issue- unless you are actively involved in the architecture community it is difficult to know what is taking place when (in reality it's a challenge even when you're involved).
how could little jimmy find out about the lecture? How would his father become involved in the discussions? We live in a consumer based society- what harm would it do to identify a target consumer and market to them?
we’re competing with george w’s color coded terror alert, paris hilton and terrell owens- can we draw the general public’s attention to something that they can contribute to that will actually affect their everyday lives?
pilgram - how do we get the public informed about architecture? you're looking at a solution right here. Archinect has enlightened me about architecture and even provided a forum that allows me (a non-architect) to take part in discussions about current affairs in architecture (albeit i'm usually rather silent because i still feel out of my league).
i agree- archinect is a great platform but feel more can be done to get greater numbers of the public actively involved.
how exactly did you find this site? your comments could prove to be invaluable to us reaching a larger audience!
based on your interactions- do you feel that the architecture community is easily approachable? do you have any criticisms of how we interact with the public?
i can't recall exactly how i found this site. i've been interested in architecture for ages and after searching the web for information, this site has proven to be the most valuable resource i've come across, by far. i appreciate how it keeps me up to date with news, views, events. the image gallery has been an amazing source of inspiration too. the thing that i like about archinect the most is how it allows the public to become involved in EVERY area of the site.
i have a feeling there's a lot of non-architects out there reading archinect but not participating because the level of discussion is not yet within their reach. this is a place where professionals mingle with beginners, unfortunately, the beginners often get kicked to the curb when they ask a "stupid" question. so, to answer your question "do you feel that the architecture community is easily approachable?", i would have to say not really, in general, even though i've met many helpful people here, in the forums and via email.
Pilgram - a valid observation
Should we (Architects, and the like) compete for attention with the ol' standby advertising techniques as you stated above such as 1. Fear; 2. Sex; or 3. Violence?
I say, "ask your doctor about" ads or how about humor?
I have never been to Chicago, but have heard it is a great town, you’re obviously rich in American Architectural history, and this group seems like a good asset.
Keep up the good work CAC and good luck refining yourselves!
i recall a few years ago that the AIA flirted with a few attempts to advertise on television. if my memory serves me correctly, that effort was demolished by a bad internet investment that left the AIA in a very bad financial position. if there are any AIA experts reading perhaps they can clarify.
i believe that being involved in televised media is a sound idea. media exposure generates interest and that can only help. considering the popularity of home improvement programs and MTV cribs, there has to be a place for architecture, other than PBS.
perhaps we can get terrell and paris to flim something on top of the guggenheim at bilbao...
Hmm, Terrell and Paris - sounds like a nice fit for our blobitecture/archiporn movement Bobby. I believe you're onto something...
Will you keep us up to date on your group's efforts?
alpha whatever
i will indeed. archinect is an important site with which the CAC will continue to be involved.
the CAC is also preparing a new website that allows posting and hosts a forum. the issues will likely be more locally motivated but should remain interesting for all.
watch the snippet of the "i'm so fly" video...one of the most popular rappers out today must think, or at least his marketing director thinks that bilbao is "fly"
it's all over television already- how can we bring the architecture out of the background for these videos/car commercials etc. and get the public to talk about it?
(thinking aloud) how compelling would it be to take one of the advertising pieces using the museum as a backdrop- ghost the product being sold until it disappears- and advertise a new exhibit at the guggenheim?
how about gehry on leno?
I unfortunately was unable to attend the remaining segment of the discussion but hearing the introductions from the panelist', asssured me that the discussion following would have been well worth it to experience. Motivation and Change is so important to any organization and with the hearthfelt efforts of the CAC presidents, Chicago will hear architectural ctriticism whether they like it or not. Time for the old guard to change and the new to thrive.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.