yeah, so what, you're gonna listen to what a douche bag attorney has to say? that's like listening to a serial killer talk about faith and religion. this guy is a fabricator, and a dilettante, just what you'd expect from a lawyer.
I have criticized my fellow architects, (I am trying to not be so hypercritical, it is going to take some time to get there) but this individual does not know jack shit about what most architects do on a daily basis.
The vast majority of Architects have a service based business model and give the client what they want and if possible go above and beyond to create something of value within sometimes difficult parameters.
The last thing this profession needs is some asshole whose sum total of architectural knowledge he got from a comic book on FLW cherry picking some of architecture's failures and conflating them into fodder for some bullshit blog. Fuckwad.
read about half and then tried to understand who was writing it...
looks like a failed law student turned blogger and Forbes writer?...wonder if he ever had to work for a living? seems like a real bad example of a Yale grad who has an opinion about Gehry and that made him famous, yay.....
EKE, I do not mind that he has an opinion about architecture but that he is holding himself out as an authority on a subject that by his own admission he knows nothing about.
Mar 19, 15 1:51 am ·
·
yep, the idiot doesn't know what he is talking about. He plagarized what we already said about some of ourselves for years and he talks as if that is new or the whole profession. Sure, some of the problems is partly an endemic problem of how architecture education is setup. Especially when it is so closely tied into the art department and fin arts artist philosophy of art school makes a bad professional in a professional service occupation because artists works for themselves and produce fine art for their own sake not for others. Architects and building designers and similar professions does not work that way. We are more akin to applied art than fine artists even though there is some fine art elements but the overall work is not about us and our vision but the vision of the client because by nature, our occupation is about designing for others because people are not going to pay us to design our own vision but theirs... customarily. We usually do not get a carte blanche opportunity to design. Clients may have varying degree of involvement but typically they outline alot of the specifics of what they want and their needs. We have to subdue our own interests more than a painting or a sculpture.
Starchitects as the saying goes is an incredible minority despite they get a majority of attention from glossy mags. The reality is very different. We all know this except the author which I would invite him to show up here and talk to real architects and building designers and understand how things really are. I agree with him about AIA's disconnect especially with their magazines but this goes against AIA and architecture school center of attention which is about the idiosyncratic architecture than about the common houses which nobody really talks about and sometimes talk about in terms of mediocre but then when we critique we slip into that architecture school idiosyncratic biases and the interest in the unique and avant gard. It's a culture from fine arts that permeates our education in architecture school due to being so closely connected.
The American common houses are not necessarily works of art or social statements because that isn't the goal. So they maybe boring or bland when viewed from the perspective of architecture school culture where you seek a social statement. Alot of clients have absolutely zero interest in making social statements or standing out and they do not want attention. We professionally work with a variety of clients for good or bad.
I speak of residential projects alot because those projects are often not necessarily social statements and often, they shouldn't be because these are places where people live and commode for their private / personal life not public or public image statements unless they are some sort of star that is a sort of public figure so they got used to not having a real private life but for most people, they want privacy and these places needs to retain some degree of that and not draw attention to the occupants. So that is an intentional premise to the design.
Some of the stuff they preach and push in architecture school just rubs wrong with residential clients. Honestly, Gehry should not practice residential architecture and it is good that he doesn't other than his own personal home which maybe an issue in and of itself but that is another matter altogether an no better than the McMansions and snout-front houses (houses with oversized garages projecting out in the front of the house drawing attention to the garage.
All I really want to comment on is how awful an example that list is. It should be obvious that neither design quality nor public opinion on design is the driver for that list.
I actually love when non-architects have an opinion on architecture and want to talk about it. But if they want to validate their opinion they should really talk to someone with more understanding of the topic before they go off and start a hate blog.
Mar 19, 15 2:32 am ·
·
Yep. In this case, the author of that Forbes article is a true definition of a non-architect. I maybe a non-architect from a licensure perspective but that's another topic and probably more an architect than the author of the article linked.
Granted, the person has some points but fails under a real critical analysis but wins as a sensationalized rant to an audience that doesn't spend the time to critically analyze. The same mentality as those that reads the national enquirer but under a thin veil of business man facade and veil sophistication when under the mask is no more sophisticated than those that reads gossip tabloids.
Lye Nerd has said all that needs to be said about this guy and this inaccurate article. It's not worth our time to give it more attention - to reference our recently departed Michael Graves, it's a tempest in a teapot.
Richard, your last paragraph above my previous comment is spot on. Sad that Forbes, which I thought had a reputation as an intelligent outlet, does tabloid clickbait.
What exactly are starchitects - the visible leaders of our profession - doing to counter what is undoubtedly a widely held view about architects? Not much that I see, and quite a lot to further that perception.
Richard Balkins said: "Granted, the person has some points but fails under a real critical analysis but wins as a sensationalized rant to an audience that doesn't spend the time to critically analyze. The same mentality as those that reads the national enquirer but under a thin veil of business man facade and veil sophistication when under the mask is no more sophisticated than those that reads gossip tabloids."
I beg your pardon? Ehhhemm,... what critical analysis is it that Justin's article fails under? I haven't heard a shred of analysis from anyone here. I've heard him called bastard son of a Nazi, I've heard him called an idiot, a "failed law student". I've heard people say that the article is wrong and inaccurate. But I haven't heard anything much besides this hysterical ad hominem assault. If you can take a break from making fun of his appearance for just a moment, can you please describe where it is you think he is wrong?
I think that the article is right on the money in many respects. It's a bit alarmist in its tone, but that doesn't negate the fact that he raises valid points, points that the AIA and its membership should take seriously and consider thoughtfully. And Justin's article is not the only recent public expression of concern about the direction of the profession. There has been quite a string of recent media questioning the direction of the profession, and the avant garde that the AIA holds up as the paragon. Each and every time one of these kind of articles is published, the cry from the architects is, " It's not a problem with us! Its a problem with them! They are just not well enough informed about the awesomeness of what we produce! It's self evident. Why, just LOOK UP!"
Something's really gone askew with this profession. Can't you feel it?
Great article - you can't discount his quotes by contemporary architects: “I’m sorry that people get blown off their feet, but we could not let that become decisive in the design." And he gives the finger to Gehry. Precious.
The premise of his article is spot on for exactly the reasons EKE points out. The failure of this thread is that no one else recognizes it and dismisses the article at first glance.
His examples of architects and their projects are exactly the same examples the AIA is using to applaud our noble profession. The only difference is that the author looked past the pretty pictures and did exactly what our clients should do ... question why they need to hire an architect if this is the kind of attitude we give them. Sure, I'll design you a building that will be beautiful (it will nearly kill people, piss of your neighbors, cost way too much) and win an AIA award.
EKE said this: "points that the AIA and its membership should take seriously and consider thoughtfully."
I try to be polite and helpful on Archinect but this is really pushing me too far. So I'll speak plainly: If you think the AIA is out of touch and unaware of what is going on in the profession right now, YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
Here is what I posted on the Facebook page of an architecture group who shall remain nameless. On the other hand, screw it, I name names in the comment so might as well leave it:
Here is my argument, since you asked: Your original - since removed - headline on this article asked "Why do we need the AIA, anyway?" which is what I'm responding to in my argument. This article is at the very least factually incorrect. Shubow has no understanding of architectural practice today, he cherry-picks examples to provide histrionic clickbait. Worse than being poorly-researched, of course, is that he's simply making the most outlandish argument possible to generate clicks. Your previous headline showed that you really have no understanding of what is going on in AIA, either. The AIA is in a time of drastic change, driven by members who want an organization that will be better for the profession and thus for the built environment and those we serve overall.
Here is information about the AIA's ongoing RePositioning initiative, which is addressing the need for overall change in the organization. The entire structure is being revamped, as are its focus, media outreach, and levels of entry. http://www.aia.org/about/repositioning/AIAB099340
Here is information about the AIA Emerging Professionals group, which is addressing how recent graduates and young professionals are facing a practicing discipline extremely different from that of a decade ago. What worked for us old guys won't work for them, and AIA knows this. http://www.aia.org/careerstages/resources/AIAB100248
Here is information about the potential change in titling of accredited program graduates and registered architects, not an AIA initiative but supported by them. It's likely that in a few years anyone with a degree will be able to call themselves an architect, which I support. http://www.ncarb.org/News-and-Events/News/2014/08-FTTF.aspx
Here is a link to the I Look Up website and commercial - I'm guessing you didn't see it yet, because if you had you would know that Shubow's interpretation of it is laughably off-base. http://www.ilookup.org
My sense is that the rebel Taliesin Fellows like to paint AIA with a broad brush of conformity, without actually having knowledge of what the Institute is working on these days. It brings to mind the commonly heard dismissal of Taliesin Fellows as mindlessly devoted Wrightbots. I know, and you know, that the reality of Taliesin and its graduates is far more nuanced and diverse than can be understood without paying attention to what is happening there right now. Take a look at AIA and you'll find the same is true. Articles like Shubow's paint a sensationalized and incorrect view of our profession - the profession you all belong to, too. If you're truly interested in significant and relevant discussion about the profession and where it is headed right now you won't look to him for any of your talking points.
sameolddoctor, EKE, all of you who are slamming the AIA are like anti-vaxxers who, no matter how many scientific facts you shove in their face, shut their eyes and plug their ears and say "I have a right to my beliefs!". Your beliefs are wrong. Justin Shubow is wrong, but by promoting this article you guys ensure that misinformation and bullshit dominates the conversation about what architects actually do.
The guy is fully vested in the Bill O'Reilly school of blowhard journalism. His twitter spat with Donna a few months back is enough not to put much into his opinion. That being said I don't think he could've been any more spot on in his opinion of the AIA and of the type of architecture that they're propping up.
@ekeI haven't heard a shred of analysis from anyone here.
OK. Concerning what I said about the list. It's not applicable to the conversation of popularity of style because the data has been filtered to determine popularity of individual buildings which naturally favors the most well known buildings, most of which are only such because of historical significance or because they are famous for some other reason.
Which is to say, if you ask an architect for his 20 favorite buildings, and he gives you 18 modern buildings and two traditional buildings, the probability of the traditional buildings aligning exactly with the results of another 2000 architects who gave the same breakdown of style is extremely high. This is because most people have a broader range of contemporary architecture that interests them, and they will always be drawn to specific historical buildings as examples of traditional style. However, that obviously dosn't account for which style they actually favored.
On a separate note, the list has very little to do with public vote because the original survey could have included more than 40,000 buildings, where the public only voted on 250. That list was already largely decided by architects and the public input was very minor.
This doesn't mean that the public doesn't prefer traditional buildings, it just means that that list has nothing to say on the matter.
And once again I'll invite all you actual architects who care about your professional organization representing you accurately and well: join the AIA. Get active and you can be the change you want to see. Otherwise at least criticize constructively, instead of whining like toddlers.
so, is this like one of those things where the self-identified 'traditionalist' line up and say 'damn right, you people suck' and what i would consider to be 'normal people' say 'this is shit. move on.' kind of like all the hillary bashing among tea partiers. it's actually kind of hard to present a rational case to someone who built a world-view on emotionally charged cognitive dissonance. there really isn't any content in the article to refute.
when people hire my company to provide architectural services, they aren't typically looking for a new weekend house with pretty gingerbread glued on. i know there are people who hire architects for that purpose, and i'm not saying it's a bad thing (though i accept the connotation i'm providing isn't appealing). i would, however, like to point out that what some people here consider to be 'architecture' is actually a very small niche in the profession.
what people do hire my company for is to help their business. if a developer is prepared to pay for and build a spec building, they come to us to provide architectural drawings for a spec building. if they have a build-to-suit, same thing. if it's a tenant, we'll do a layout to meet the needs of their business. if it's a bowling alley, we'll provide architectural documents to get the bowling alley that meets their desires and their performance requirements so they can operate a successful and profitable bowling alley. we provide architectural services to the people who need buildings designed and built.
the starchitects are hired to design the buildings they design for a reason. there is a necessary place in the broad field of architecture for them to practice their small niche within the profession just as there is a necessary place for eke to practice his small niche. both are important.
the aia has to respond to a larger audience though. their goal would be to create a marketing campaign that appeals not only to eke's small niche, or gehry's small niche, but all the people looking for architects to design schools, hotels, warehouses, pottery barns, and everything inbetween.
i believe this article fails to recognize what architecture is, just as i think the self-identified 'traditionalists' fail to see the scope of what the profession of architecture entails. the aia cant focus simply on what eke wants the profession to be, or on what a click-bait internet 'journalist' wants to see. they have to appeal to a broad range of clients and needs; and we should also understand that architects really aren't the intended demographic these ads are designed to appeal to. we want people to hire us. tailoring ads to appeal to other architects will not achieve that.
Erroneously elevation of simplistic and stupid petition:
"To counter the AIA’s stultifying monoculture, a few months ago a number of architects began circulating a petition calling for stylistic pluralism within the organization and in its magazine."
There may be a crisis in the profession, but the dilettante that I quoted above, is lacking the skill, or knowledge to speak about the crises. 185 signatories is a "number" no doubt, but the number 115,000 is also a "number" as is 85,000, the first being number of architects in America, the second being the number in the AIA. 185 wouldn't budge a needle on vinyl, if they jumped up and down trampoline.
How about this, a recasting of a quote from Mayne;
“So at a time in which the media give the public everything it wants and desires, maybe art should adopt a much more aggressive attitude towards the public. I myself am very much inclined to take this position.’”
Unsubstantiated quote:
"The reputation of architects is at its lowest point ever."
Then there's this quote, from a signatory in the petition, cited above:
"The publication Architect is not representative of the practice of architecture today, especially in the area of residential design. Homeowners want traditional and vernacular design inspired homes. The vast majority of homes built in the United States are attempts at designing traditional houses. However, because aspiring architects who graduate from accredited architectural schools have no exposure to or knowledge of traditional design, the houses that they design are poorly designed and destroy the neighborhoods where they are placed. Therefore please include examples of traditional and vernacular architecture in your magazine so that aspiring architects and architects can [at] least see good examples of architecture that is not modern. Your view of the built environment is very myopic."
Where are these "traditional and vernacular" homes being designed, today, that form these lovely communities, and where, pray tell, are these modernist homes that are destroying communities?
I'll answer that question, neither exist, they are a fantasy, constructed by the same people that would have you believe black people are taking all the white jobs, and affirmative action is giving all the work to the black man. Soothing fictions, by a dying class of boomers, and soon, these "traditionalists" will be gone too.
So let's all agree that the argument about architectural style are misconstrued and off-base. If not that, then let's at least agree to keep them to the recently resurrected thread that deals with sorting out that cluster. I couldn't care less about what style the AIA want to promote. I would hope we would try to please our clients and not stylistic dogma in the end anyway.
I am much more concerned with the idea that even those criticizing the author bring up. Quoting Lye_Nerd__Sky_Nerd, "The vast majority of Architects have a service based business model and give the client what they want and if possible go above and beyond to create something of value within sometimes difficult parameters."
Does it not bother you that the I Look Up campaign is not highlighting these architects that make up the vast majority of the profession? The author points out, and it is evident on ilookup.org, that the AIA is not representing our profession very well by using examples of the vast majority. Do we want our clients expecting to get Gehry or Mayne when they really need an architect like the vast majority of us are? Is the value we bring only that we might win an AIA award? When you look at what the AIA is using to promote the profession, do you see yourself in the videos? Do you see the type of work you do every day? Do you see an accurate representation to your clients of what service you are providing them?
The supporters of this article have Dale Peck syndrome, as explained by Clay Shirky, here:
I don't know if there's a DSM-IV category for it, but a lot of New Yorkers are exhausted by excellence. And it's in that environment that things like Dale Peck happen.
Now Peck will say that people read his hatchet job book reviews as literary criticism, which is like Penthouse saying they publish articles, essays and photos. Factually true, actually false. What Peck writes is distilled envy, sanitized for your convenience.
If you're exhausted by excellence, Peck is a relief because he whispers lies in your ear you really want to hear -- "A lot of those people who seem to be doing good work -- they're actually not so hot."
Because he doesn't offer any alternatives, he lets you fill in the conclusion you're desperate for: the city around you is more mediocre than it seems, so the gap between you and the people at the top of their form comes to seem liveably small.
And Peck is just an avatar of the pattern. Go to any party -- architects, fashion designers, mathematicians -- and you'll hear the same thing, and usually so subtle, so sophisticated: "Well, I enjoyed the piece, but I thought it was a little derivative", "The building is interesting on its own terms, but it isn't very well integrated with the neighborhood." Tiny sprinklings of corrosive doubt, offer by people gnawed by envy, and seized on by those made sick by over-exposure to quality.
Me again. If you're an architect and you can only feel good about yourself by belittling the excellence of others then you're a sad human.
the commercial shows mountains and clouds and trees and stars. i don't see how the commercial is highlighting starchitects.
i believe the idea is to associate that term with 'vision.' looking up isn't just turning your eyes in an upward direction, it has a connotation of pride and things like that. it's something that a marketing company came up with, not an architect. there was an archinect podcast that talked about it. it's a good listen if you can find it.
again, it isn't designed to appeal to us as architects, and it shouldn't be designed to appeal to us as architects. it's designed more to illicit an emotional response from the intended demographic, sort of like the old coffee commercial soap operas or budweiser ads.
on the other other hand, the aia commercial starts with someone drawings with a pencil, and a mayline on their desk. somewhere someone should have said that crosses the line of good taste. 'we pursue possibility' is pretty good though.
Donna, I have had a long standing problem with the AIA I inherited from a family member who was an architect who did not feel they were ever represented by the organisation. I appreciate your willingness to go to bat for the AIA and also act as a conduit (perhaps lightning rod may be more approriate) for the criticisms and questions we have here at Archinect.
Just thought I would express gratitude today instead of my typical cynical vitriol.
Mar 19, 15 12:14 pm ·
·
EKE,
Justin fails in any real critical analysis. Cut through the sensationalized word usage that creates a fallacy because it makes great assumption that all architects are like these starchitect. It may have kernels of truth or kernels of facts but it is framed in a manner that is factually wrong and incorrect and uninformed.
AIA's magazines are that magazines. They aren't going to cover that expensive glossy paper with stuff like:
or
or
These are too common and the AIA's partners at the hip (jointly responsible for the architectural licensing laws) the architecture school education of high style avant gardism since the days of the Ecoles Beaux Arts (in some cases before) which held a fundamental belief in elaborate or otherwise rebellionism against the common norm to be stand out. It's the same culture that permeates fashion designer culture because of fashion designer culture tone... they focus on architecture as a fashion statement of the architect and promote that perspective a bit more than they probably should.
However, the article makes implied statements that is what AIA is about considering they have a total lack of understanding really what AIA is. AIA is an association of its members. The handful of leaders in AIA does not makeup or entirely represent the works of AIA members of whom has a large body of architects.
Why do the magazines focus on the more extreme idiosyncratic homes of high end custom? Because they are more interesting to look at and are sources for new ideas before they go through a sort of filtering public vetting process of acceptance. The common homes are not seen as exciting because they often lack the more unique elements that are visible. In addition, what are people interested in seeing in a glossy magazine, your neighbor's house or the more fanciful or elaborate examples in the neighborhood.
Most of what architects and building designers produce are more closer to the common examples above in the style and form that are generally popular by interests of clients. Justin makes a false impression that unkeen viewers would assume that the majority of architects are producing stuff like Frank Gehry. The majority of us aren't doing those outlandish kinds of projects. A majority of us are producing works that aren't all that noticed and nor should they. They aren't for a reason. The author's intent is to perpetuate the anti-architect public perception besides the AIA part. AIA is just an association like the AIBD. These associations are irrelevant to the end work of architects and designers. Our end work is irrespective of AIA, AIBD and other such associations. These associations serves a purpose but they aren't the one dictating how buildings are designed. That part is between the architect/designer and his or her client.
That is something the way the article is framed fails any real critical analysis and factual analysis which is part of critical analysis.
Either Justin is intentionally making a false impression by intentionally leaving out a comprehensive understanding of the architectural profession and presenting it factually and comprehensively or Justin doesn't know what he is talking about other than having a few kernels of truth but lack real research analysis. Something a Forbes magazine article writer is highly unlikely to actually do.
Mar 19, 15 12:43 pm ·
·
"so, is this like one of those things where the self-identified 'traditionalist' line up and say 'damn right, you people suck' and what i would consider to be 'normal people' say 'this is shit. move on.' kind of like all the hillary bashing among tea partiers. it's actually kind of hard to present a rational case to someone who built a world-view on emotionally charged cognitive dissonance. there really isn't any content in the article to refute.
when people hire my company to provide architectural services... "
Only quoting a portion of it for point of reference. Thanks curtkram, a good post there. I agree with your points there.
I feel the same way about the AIA as I do about Congress...As individuals they may be fine people and care deeply about society but they are doomed because of 2 fundamental things.
1. They are operating within a broken system
2. As a group they combine to form a a single monotone, watered down, bland, collective personality incapable of getting anything meaningful done.
As for the article...I think that he makes some valid complaints but oversimplifies the cause in a way only comparable to Glenn Beck talking about evolution.
A lot of good thoughts here, Richard sounds particularly cognitive today. I read and listen to a lot of crazy things for the reason that there is always something to learn somewhere within, in this case I found this …..”Look Inward”.
We need the AIA today more than ever in a world of bought politics and media frenzy…..AIA needs to speak back for us…..but it is true that they, as do the media, are defining architecture as one thing when in reality it is a myriad of things. I’m particularly critical of our magazines which should be showing all forms of architectural expression…..journalism is reporting on what’s going on in architecture, everywhere in architecture… which isn’t just this (first photograph) it’s this too (second photograph)…..and much more and the AIA needs to represent all of us and all that we do....believe the media will follow.
It's ridiculous to post those unremarkable vernacular houses and suggest that this is what we are arguing Architect Mag should publish. If that's not clear, then let me be crystal: There is plenty of exceptional architecture inspired by great traditions that never sees the light of day in the leading architecture journals, such as Architect, for ideological reasons. They do get published elsewhere, in journals that are not so ideologically cloistered.
"If you're an architect and you can only feel good about yourself by belittling the excellence of others then you're a sad human."
I did no such thing, as you well know, Donna. If you can show me where I belittled the excellence of others, I'd be the first to admit it. Calling me a "sad human" is an excellent conversation snuffer, however. The last few hours of piling on here has been so full of misrepresentation and nonsense that I frankly have no desire to parse through it. It's pointless. I'm done.
Everyday Intern, I missed your post before, but the architecture I see in the I Look Up ad is the kind of architecture that people live in and enjoy: historic, new, for business, for culture, public spaces, private houses. I see spaces that culture happens within. It's not all Bilbaos. There are plenty of humans in this world who walk into any building with a simple atrium and appreciate the fact that there is an enclosed space that still feels airy and open, as opposed to the smaller more private enclosure of a hotel room or office. That's architecture.
jla-x, check out my links about the AIA's ongoing changes. It's happening already, slowly, yes, but it's happening.
Did any of you AIA lovers see this?
He makes a couple of good points, mostly about obsolescence.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/justinshubow/2015/03/17/the-american-institute-of-architects-outreach-campaign-is-doomed-to-failure/
++++ Great article.
yeah, so what, you're gonna listen to what a douche bag attorney has to say? that's like listening to a serial killer talk about faith and religion. this guy is a fabricator, and a dilettante, just what you'd expect from a lawyer.
^ An ad hominem attack is the best you've got?
Fabricator and dilettante describes some of the architects in the article.
I have criticized my fellow architects, (I am trying to not be so hypercritical, it is going to take some time to get there) but this individual does not know jack shit about what most architects do on a daily basis.
The vast majority of Architects have a service based business model and give the client what they want and if possible go above and beyond to create something of value within sometimes difficult parameters.
The last thing this profession needs is some asshole whose sum total of architectural knowledge he got from a comic book on FLW cherry picking some of architecture's failures and conflating them into fodder for some bullshit blog. Fuckwad.
attorneys are the only people that can afford to hire architects.
Wow.....
World record short post by RB !
Nope. I done shorter.
.
read about half and then tried to understand who was writing it...
looks like a failed law student turned blogger and Forbes writer?...wonder if he ever had to work for a living? seems like a real bad example of a Yale grad who has an opinion about Gehry and that made him famous, yay.....
some comparison to?
media, about worthless.
I think this fuckwad looks like the bastard son of Heinrich Himmler.
So I guess the only people who are allowed to say anything critical about the profession are architects now.
It's rough out there, once you step out of the self-congratulatory echo chamber, huh?
EKE, I do not mind that he has an opinion about architecture but that he is holding himself out as an authority on a subject that by his own admission he knows nothing about.
yep, the idiot doesn't know what he is talking about. He plagarized what we already said about some of ourselves for years and he talks as if that is new or the whole profession. Sure, some of the problems is partly an endemic problem of how architecture education is setup. Especially when it is so closely tied into the art department and fin arts artist philosophy of art school makes a bad professional in a professional service occupation because artists works for themselves and produce fine art for their own sake not for others. Architects and building designers and similar professions does not work that way. We are more akin to applied art than fine artists even though there is some fine art elements but the overall work is not about us and our vision but the vision of the client because by nature, our occupation is about designing for others because people are not going to pay us to design our own vision but theirs... customarily. We usually do not get a carte blanche opportunity to design. Clients may have varying degree of involvement but typically they outline alot of the specifics of what they want and their needs. We have to subdue our own interests more than a painting or a sculpture.
Starchitects as the saying goes is an incredible minority despite they get a majority of attention from glossy mags. The reality is very different. We all know this except the author which I would invite him to show up here and talk to real architects and building designers and understand how things really are. I agree with him about AIA's disconnect especially with their magazines but this goes against AIA and architecture school center of attention which is about the idiosyncratic architecture than about the common houses which nobody really talks about and sometimes talk about in terms of mediocre but then when we critique we slip into that architecture school idiosyncratic biases and the interest in the unique and avant gard. It's a culture from fine arts that permeates our education in architecture school due to being so closely connected.
The American common houses are not necessarily works of art or social statements because that isn't the goal. So they maybe boring or bland when viewed from the perspective of architecture school culture where you seek a social statement. Alot of clients have absolutely zero interest in making social statements or standing out and they do not want attention. We professionally work with a variety of clients for good or bad.
I speak of residential projects alot because those projects are often not necessarily social statements and often, they shouldn't be because these are places where people live and commode for their private / personal life not public or public image statements unless they are some sort of star that is a sort of public figure so they got used to not having a real private life but for most people, they want privacy and these places needs to retain some degree of that and not draw attention to the occupants. So that is an intentional premise to the design.
Some of the stuff they preach and push in architecture school just rubs wrong with residential clients. Honestly, Gehry should not practice residential architecture and it is good that he doesn't other than his own personal home which maybe an issue in and of itself but that is another matter altogether an no better than the McMansions and snout-front houses (houses with oversized garages projecting out in the front of the house drawing attention to the garage.
All I really want to comment on is how awful an example that list is. It should be obvious that neither design quality nor public opinion on design is the driver for that list.
I actually love when non-architects have an opinion on architecture and want to talk about it. But if they want to validate their opinion they should really talk to someone with more understanding of the topic before they go off and start a hate blog.
Yep. In this case, the author of that Forbes article is a true definition of a non-architect. I maybe a non-architect from a licensure perspective but that's another topic and probably more an architect than the author of the article linked.
Granted, the person has some points but fails under a real critical analysis but wins as a sensationalized rant to an audience that doesn't spend the time to critically analyze. The same mentality as those that reads the national enquirer but under a thin veil of business man facade and veil sophistication when under the mask is no more sophisticated than those that reads gossip tabloids.
Miles = Teardown and Ruiner
Richard, your last paragraph above my previous comment is spot on. Sad that Forbes, which I thought had a reputation as an intelligent outlet, does tabloid clickbait.
What exactly are starchitects - the visible leaders of our profession - doing to counter what is undoubtedly a widely held view about architects? Not much that I see, and quite a lot to further that perception.
Richard Balkins said: "Granted, the person has some points but fails under a real critical analysis but wins as a sensationalized rant to an audience that doesn't spend the time to critically analyze. The same mentality as those that reads the national enquirer but under a thin veil of business man facade and veil sophistication when under the mask is no more sophisticated than those that reads gossip tabloids."
I beg your pardon? Ehhhemm,... what critical analysis is it that Justin's article fails under? I haven't heard a shred of analysis from anyone here. I've heard him called bastard son of a Nazi, I've heard him called an idiot, a "failed law student". I've heard people say that the article is wrong and inaccurate. But I haven't heard anything much besides this hysterical ad hominem assault. If you can take a break from making fun of his appearance for just a moment, can you please describe where it is you think he is wrong?
I think that the article is right on the money in many respects. It's a bit alarmist in its tone, but that doesn't negate the fact that he raises valid points, points that the AIA and its membership should take seriously and consider thoughtfully. And Justin's article is not the only recent public expression of concern about the direction of the profession. There has been quite a string of recent media questioning the direction of the profession, and the avant garde that the AIA holds up as the paragon. Each and every time one of these kind of articles is published, the cry from the architects is, " It's not a problem with us! Its a problem with them! They are just not well enough informed about the awesomeness of what we produce! It's self evident. Why, just LOOK UP!"
Something's really gone askew with this profession. Can't you feel it?
Great article - you can't discount his quotes by contemporary architects: “I’m sorry that people get blown off their feet, but we could not let that become decisive in the design." And he gives the finger to Gehry. Precious.
The premise of his article is spot on for exactly the reasons EKE points out. The failure of this thread is that no one else recognizes it and dismisses the article at first glance.
His examples of architects and their projects are exactly the same examples the AIA is using to applaud our noble profession. The only difference is that the author looked past the pretty pictures and did exactly what our clients should do ... question why they need to hire an architect if this is the kind of attitude we give them. Sure, I'll design you a building that will be beautiful (it will nearly kill people, piss of your neighbors, cost way too much) and win an AIA award.
Apathy....
Apathy is everywhere these days, "who gives a fux", "Im just a single person, what can I do"...
Once we are all apathetic they can do whatever they want to us.
Pretty sure the 1%ers just want us to be apathetic, that or just shut up and die.
Come on, it's cool not to give a fux, right?
He must have been abused in a modernist house, poor boy.
EKE said this: "points that the AIA and its membership should take seriously and consider thoughtfully."
I try to be polite and helpful on Archinect but this is really pushing me too far. So I'll speak plainly: If you think the AIA is out of touch and unaware of what is going on in the profession right now, YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
Here is what I posted on the Facebook page of an architecture group who shall remain nameless. On the other hand, screw it, I name names in the comment so might as well leave it:
Here is my argument, since you asked: Your original - since removed - headline on this article asked "Why do we need the AIA, anyway?" which is what I'm responding to in my argument. This article is at the very least factually incorrect. Shubow has no understanding of architectural practice today, he cherry-picks examples to provide histrionic clickbait. Worse than being poorly-researched, of course, is that he's simply making the most outlandish argument possible to generate clicks. Your previous headline showed that you really have no understanding of what is going on in AIA, either. The AIA is in a time of drastic change, driven by members who want an organization that will be better for the profession and thus for the built environment and those we serve overall.
Here is information about the AIA's ongoing RePositioning initiative, which is addressing the need for overall change in the organization. The entire structure is being revamped, as are its focus, media outreach, and levels of entry. http://www.aia.org/about/repositioning/AIAB099340
Here is information about the AIA Emerging Professionals group, which is addressing how recent graduates and young professionals are facing a practicing discipline extremely different from that of a decade ago. What worked for us old guys won't work for them, and AIA knows this. http://www.aia.org/careerstages/resources/AIAB100248
Here is information about the potential change in titling of accredited program graduates and registered architects, not an AIA initiative but supported by them. It's likely that in a few years anyone with a degree will be able to call themselves an architect, which I support. http://www.ncarb.org/News-and-Events/News/2014/08-FTTF.aspx
Here is a link to the I Look Up website and commercial - I'm guessing you didn't see it yet, because if you had you would know that Shubow's interpretation of it is laughably off-base. http://www.ilookup.org
My sense is that the rebel Taliesin Fellows like to paint AIA with a broad brush of conformity, without actually having knowledge of what the Institute is working on these days. It brings to mind the commonly heard dismissal of Taliesin Fellows as mindlessly devoted Wrightbots. I know, and you know, that the reality of Taliesin and its graduates is far more nuanced and diverse than can be understood without paying attention to what is happening there right now. Take a look at AIA and you'll find the same is true. Articles like Shubow's paint a sensationalized and incorrect view of our profession - the profession you all belong to, too. If you're truly interested in significant and relevant discussion about the profession and where it is headed right now you won't look to him for any of your talking points.
sameolddoctor, EKE, all of you who are slamming the AIA are like anti-vaxxers who, no matter how many scientific facts you shove in their face, shut their eyes and plug their ears and say "I have a right to my beliefs!". Your beliefs are wrong. Justin Shubow is wrong, but by promoting this article you guys ensure that misinformation and bullshit dominates the conversation about what architects actually do.
The guy is fully vested in the Bill O'Reilly school of blowhard journalism. His twitter spat with Donna a few months back is enough not to put much into his opinion. That being said I don't think he could've been any more spot on in his opinion of the AIA and of the type of architecture that they're propping up.
@eke I haven't heard a shred of analysis from anyone here.
OK. Concerning what I said about the list. It's not applicable to the conversation of popularity of style because the data has been filtered to determine popularity of individual buildings which naturally favors the most well known buildings, most of which are only such because of historical significance or because they are famous for some other reason.
Which is to say, if you ask an architect for his 20 favorite buildings, and he gives you 18 modern buildings and two traditional buildings, the probability of the traditional buildings aligning exactly with the results of another 2000 architects who gave the same breakdown of style is extremely high. This is because most people have a broader range of contemporary architecture that interests them, and they will always be drawn to specific historical buildings as examples of traditional style. However, that obviously dosn't account for which style they actually favored.
On a separate note, the list has very little to do with public vote because the original survey could have included more than 40,000 buildings, where the public only voted on 250. That list was already largely decided by architects and the public input was very minor.
This doesn't mean that the public doesn't prefer traditional buildings, it just means that that list has nothing to say on the matter.
And once again I'll invite all you actual architects who care about your professional organization representing you accurately and well: join the AIA. Get active and you can be the change you want to see. Otherwise at least criticize constructively, instead of whining like toddlers.
so, is this like one of those things where the self-identified 'traditionalist' line up and say 'damn right, you people suck' and what i would consider to be 'normal people' say 'this is shit. move on.' kind of like all the hillary bashing among tea partiers. it's actually kind of hard to present a rational case to someone who built a world-view on emotionally charged cognitive dissonance. there really isn't any content in the article to refute.
when people hire my company to provide architectural services, they aren't typically looking for a new weekend house with pretty gingerbread glued on. i know there are people who hire architects for that purpose, and i'm not saying it's a bad thing (though i accept the connotation i'm providing isn't appealing). i would, however, like to point out that what some people here consider to be 'architecture' is actually a very small niche in the profession.
what people do hire my company for is to help their business. if a developer is prepared to pay for and build a spec building, they come to us to provide architectural drawings for a spec building. if they have a build-to-suit, same thing. if it's a tenant, we'll do a layout to meet the needs of their business. if it's a bowling alley, we'll provide architectural documents to get the bowling alley that meets their desires and their performance requirements so they can operate a successful and profitable bowling alley. we provide architectural services to the people who need buildings designed and built.
the starchitects are hired to design the buildings they design for a reason. there is a necessary place in the broad field of architecture for them to practice their small niche within the profession just as there is a necessary place for eke to practice his small niche. both are important.
the aia has to respond to a larger audience though. their goal would be to create a marketing campaign that appeals not only to eke's small niche, or gehry's small niche, but all the people looking for architects to design schools, hotels, warehouses, pottery barns, and everything inbetween.
i believe this article fails to recognize what architecture is, just as i think the self-identified 'traditionalists' fail to see the scope of what the profession of architecture entails. the aia cant focus simply on what eke wants the profession to be, or on what a click-bait internet 'journalist' wants to see. they have to appeal to a broad range of clients and needs; and we should also understand that architects really aren't the intended demographic these ads are designed to appeal to. we want people to hire us. tailoring ads to appeal to other architects will not achieve that.
Thank you curtkram for that well-reasoned and accurate response.
[high-five to Donna Sink]
Erroneously elevation of simplistic and stupid petition:
"To counter the AIA’s stultifying monoculture, a few months ago a number of architects began circulating a petition calling for stylistic pluralism within the organization and in its magazine."
There may be a crisis in the profession, but the dilettante that I quoted above, is lacking the skill, or knowledge to speak about the crises. 185 signatories is a "number" no doubt, but the number 115,000 is also a "number" as is 85,000, the first being number of architects in America, the second being the number in the AIA. 185 wouldn't budge a needle on vinyl, if they jumped up and down trampoline.
How about this, a recasting of a quote from Mayne;
“So at a time in which the media give the public everything it wants and desires, maybe art should adopt a much more aggressive attitude towards the public. I myself am very much inclined to take this position.’”
Unsubstantiated quote:
"The reputation of architects is at its lowest point ever."
Ironically, from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2014/11/07/americas-most-prestigious-professions-infographic/
Then there's this quote, from a signatory in the petition, cited above:
"The publication Architect is not representative of the practice of architecture today, especially in the area of residential design. Homeowners want traditional and vernacular design inspired homes. The vast majority of homes built in the United States are attempts at designing traditional houses. However, because aspiring architects who graduate from accredited architectural schools have no exposure to or knowledge of traditional design, the houses that they design are poorly designed and destroy the neighborhoods where they are placed. Therefore please include examples of traditional and vernacular architecture in your magazine so that aspiring architects and architects can [at] least see good examples of architecture that is not modern. Your view of the built environment is very myopic."
Where are these "traditional and vernacular" homes being designed, today, that form these lovely communities, and where, pray tell, are these modernist homes that are destroying communities?
I'll answer that question, neither exist, they are a fantasy, constructed by the same people that would have you believe black people are taking all the white jobs, and affirmative action is giving all the work to the black man. Soothing fictions, by a dying class of boomers, and soon, these "traditionalists" will be gone too.
So let's all agree that the argument about architectural style are misconstrued and off-base. If not that, then let's at least agree to keep them to the recently resurrected thread that deals with sorting out that cluster. I couldn't care less about what style the AIA want to promote. I would hope we would try to please our clients and not stylistic dogma in the end anyway.
I am much more concerned with the idea that even those criticizing the author bring up. Quoting Lye_Nerd__Sky_Nerd, "The vast majority of Architects have a service based business model and give the client what they want and if possible go above and beyond to create something of value within sometimes difficult parameters."
Does it not bother you that the I Look Up campaign is not highlighting these architects that make up the vast majority of the profession? The author points out, and it is evident on ilookup.org, that the AIA is not representing our profession very well by using examples of the vast majority. Do we want our clients expecting to get Gehry or Mayne when they really need an architect like the vast majority of us are? Is the value we bring only that we might win an AIA award? When you look at what the AIA is using to promote the profession, do you see yourself in the videos? Do you see the type of work you do every day? Do you see an accurate representation to your clients of what service you are providing them?
The supporters of this article have Dale Peck syndrome, as explained by Clay Shirky, here:
I don't know if there's a DSM-IV category for it, but a lot of New Yorkers are exhausted by excellence. And it's in that environment that things like Dale Peck happen.
Now Peck will say that people read his hatchet job book reviews as literary criticism, which is like Penthouse saying they publish articles, essays and photos. Factually true, actually false. What Peck writes is distilled envy, sanitized for your convenience.
If you're exhausted by excellence, Peck is a relief because he whispers lies in your ear you really want to hear -- "A lot of those people who seem to be doing good work -- they're actually not so hot."
Because he doesn't offer any alternatives, he lets you fill in the conclusion you're desperate for: the city around you is more mediocre than it seems, so the gap between you and the people at the top of their form comes to seem liveably small.
And Peck is just an avatar of the pattern. Go to any party -- architects, fashion designers, mathematicians -- and you'll hear the same thing, and usually so subtle, so sophisticated: "Well, I enjoyed the piece, but I thought it was a little derivative", "The building is interesting on its own terms, but it isn't very well integrated with the neighborhood." Tiny sprinklings of corrosive doubt, offer by people gnawed by envy, and seized on by those made sick by over-exposure to quality.
Me again. If you're an architect and you can only feel good about yourself by belittling the excellence of others then you're a sad human.
the commercial shows mountains and clouds and trees and stars. i don't see how the commercial is highlighting starchitects.
i believe the idea is to associate that term with 'vision.' looking up isn't just turning your eyes in an upward direction, it has a connotation of pride and things like that. it's something that a marketing company came up with, not an architect. there was an archinect podcast that talked about it. it's a good listen if you can find it.
again, it isn't designed to appeal to us as architects, and it shouldn't be designed to appeal to us as architects. it's designed more to illicit an emotional response from the intended demographic, sort of like the old coffee commercial soap operas or budweiser ads.
does this really tell you about coffee?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpOBFELO0Qc
on the other other hand, the aia commercial starts with someone drawings with a pencil, and a mayline on their desk. somewhere someone should have said that crosses the line of good taste. 'we pursue possibility' is pretty good though.
I think the I Look Up ad has more in common with this one from Google. It tells a story, which is what our architecture should do.
"Do you see the type of work you do every day?"
No - but I generally do see the type of work most architects aspire to produce.
Donna, I have had a long standing problem with the AIA I inherited from a family member who was an architect who did not feel they were ever represented by the organisation. I appreciate your willingness to go to bat for the AIA and also act as a conduit (perhaps lightning rod may be more approriate) for the criticisms and questions we have here at Archinect.
Just thought I would express gratitude today instead of my typical cynical vitriol.
EKE,
Justin fails in any real critical analysis. Cut through the sensationalized word usage that creates a fallacy because it makes great assumption that all architects are like these starchitect. It may have kernels of truth or kernels of facts but it is framed in a manner that is factually wrong and incorrect and uninformed.
AIA's magazines are that magazines. They aren't going to cover that expensive glossy paper with stuff like:
or
or
These are too common and the AIA's partners at the hip (jointly responsible for the architectural licensing laws) the architecture school education of high style avant gardism since the days of the Ecoles Beaux Arts (in some cases before) which held a fundamental belief in elaborate or otherwise rebellionism against the common norm to be stand out. It's the same culture that permeates fashion designer culture because of fashion designer culture tone... they focus on architecture as a fashion statement of the architect and promote that perspective a bit more than they probably should.
However, the article makes implied statements that is what AIA is about considering they have a total lack of understanding really what AIA is. AIA is an association of its members. The handful of leaders in AIA does not makeup or entirely represent the works of AIA members of whom has a large body of architects.
Why do the magazines focus on the more extreme idiosyncratic homes of high end custom? Because they are more interesting to look at and are sources for new ideas before they go through a sort of filtering public vetting process of acceptance. The common homes are not seen as exciting because they often lack the more unique elements that are visible. In addition, what are people interested in seeing in a glossy magazine, your neighbor's house or the more fanciful or elaborate examples in the neighborhood.
Most of what architects and building designers produce are more closer to the common examples above in the style and form that are generally popular by interests of clients. Justin makes a false impression that unkeen viewers would assume that the majority of architects are producing stuff like Frank Gehry. The majority of us aren't doing those outlandish kinds of projects. A majority of us are producing works that aren't all that noticed and nor should they. They aren't for a reason. The author's intent is to perpetuate the anti-architect public perception besides the AIA part. AIA is just an association like the AIBD. These associations are irrelevant to the end work of architects and designers. Our end work is irrespective of AIA, AIBD and other such associations. These associations serves a purpose but they aren't the one dictating how buildings are designed. That part is between the architect/designer and his or her client.
That is something the way the article is framed fails any real critical analysis and factual analysis which is part of critical analysis.
Either Justin is intentionally making a false impression by intentionally leaving out a comprehensive understanding of the architectural profession and presenting it factually and comprehensively or Justin doesn't know what he is talking about other than having a few kernels of truth but lack real research analysis. Something a Forbes magazine article writer is highly unlikely to actually do.
"so, is this like one of those things where the self-identified 'traditionalist' line up and say 'damn right, you people suck' and what i would consider to be 'normal people' say 'this is shit. move on.' kind of like all the hillary bashing among tea partiers. it's actually kind of hard to present a rational case to someone who built a world-view on emotionally charged cognitive dissonance. there really isn't any content in the article to refute.
when people hire my company to provide architectural services... "
Only quoting a portion of it for point of reference. Thanks curtkram, a good post there. I agree with your points there.
I feel the same way about the AIA as I do about Congress...As individuals they may be fine people and care deeply about society but they are doomed because of 2 fundamental things.
1. They are operating within a broken system
2. As a group they combine to form a a single monotone, watered down, bland, collective personality incapable of getting anything meaningful done.
As for the article...I think that he makes some valid complaints but oversimplifies the cause in a way only comparable to Glenn Beck talking about evolution.
So if the ad campaign is worthy, then we should all see some results in our favor. Anyone want to place any bets on whether that will happen?
A lot of good thoughts here, Richard sounds particularly cognitive today. I read and listen to a lot of crazy things for the reason that there is always something to learn somewhere within, in this case I found this …..”Look Inward”.
We need the AIA today more than ever in a world of bought politics and media frenzy…..AIA needs to speak back for us…..but it is true that they, as do the media, are defining architecture as one thing when in reality it is a myriad of things. I’m particularly critical of our magazines which should be showing all forms of architectural expression…..journalism is reporting on what’s going on in architecture, everywhere in architecture… which isn’t just this (first photograph) it’s this too (second photograph)…..and much more and the AIA needs to represent all of us and all that we do....believe the media will follow.
Richard-
It's ridiculous to post those unremarkable vernacular houses and suggest that this is what we are arguing Architect Mag should publish. If that's not clear, then let me be crystal: There is plenty of exceptional architecture inspired by great traditions that never sees the light of day in the leading architecture journals, such as Architect, for ideological reasons. They do get published elsewhere, in journals that are not so ideologically cloistered.
"If you're an architect and you can only feel good about yourself by belittling the excellence of others then you're a sad human."
I did no such thing, as you well know, Donna. If you can show me where I belittled the excellence of others, I'd be the first to admit it. Calling me a "sad human" is an excellent conversation snuffer, however. The last few hours of piling on here has been so full of misrepresentation and nonsense that I frankly have no desire to parse through it. It's pointless. I'm done.
Carry on...Everything is awesome.
Everyday Intern, I missed your post before, but the architecture I see in the I Look Up ad is the kind of architecture that people live in and enjoy: historic, new, for business, for culture, public spaces, private houses. I see spaces that culture happens within. It's not all Bilbaos. There are plenty of humans in this world who walk into any building with a simple atrium and appreciate the fact that there is an enclosed space that still feels airy and open, as opposed to the smaller more private enclosure of a hotel room or office. That's architecture.
jla-x, check out my links about the AIA's ongoing changes. It's happening already, slowly, yes, but it's happening.
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.