I have heard many conflicting sources of information as to whether Maya Lin is registered as an architect. Some say she is, some say she isn't. While I put my money that she isn't, and poses as such in the world of architecture as an "artist", I have come across an article from the Times where it indicates she is clearly NOT.
+
"Not a licensed architect, Ms. Lin collaborated with a Tennessee firm, and her assistant, Stas Zakrzewski, served as go-between. ''I can't stamp the plans,'' she says, ''but I see them all.'"
Unless she has a license now in the decade that passed. Which is doubtful. But, please prove me wrong. or right, as the case may be. This has bothered me for some time now, and even more now that her new "museum" (the Museum of Chinese in America, a suspicious museum that has not allowed access to its archives for over ten years at least) is re-opening. Thanks.
i worked at a firm that did some collaborations with hter -- no one really made a point about it per se...but I'm pretty sure she had no license -- this was like 6-7 years ago.
the truly amazing thing about the internet is that you actually can look stuff up ... her own website (Maya Lin Studio) makes no mention whatsoever of her having a license, yet it provides a long list of other credentials. I doubt they'd omit that if she had one. Her website also carefully avoids referring to her as an Architect, so I think we safely can assume she's never passed the ARE.
and if you wanna get "official" you can look her up (or come up empty-handed) in the New York State Office of Professions, which lists all licenses issued in the state.
Her home office is here in NYC, so if she's licensed anywhere it ought to be here.
THIS IS SO FUCKING DUMB...she does good work AND is probably a pleasure to be around -- So, obviously she's not a registered architect...SHE HAS BETTER THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT.
for all the naysayers, i would like to mention a few points.
but first i would like to report that when i visited the nascent museum of chinese last week, i was told by the people there that maya lin is not an architect. she is an "architectural designer".
it just so happens that in the latest architectural record of her "art" at storm king, it is also obliquely mentioned that she is an "architectural designer" (not architect).
+
i am just interested in clarification because over the years i have seen maya lin bandied about as an architect, when in fact she is not. it has never been clearly represented, and i find this troublesome. oblique wordplay is not of interest to me. whether one agrees or not, an architect is a person who is licensed to practice legally the profession of architecture. if they are not, they are not architects. maya lin is not an architect. most of the people who replied so negatively to my post probably fall into this category too- that is, not architects, but dabblers in the field.
in the sense that the AIA has helped skew the definition in their favor and made it illegal to call yourself an architect, even if you have 7+ years of school and 5+ years of training, then yes - maya lin is not an architect.
in the sense that she's designed and overseen some amazing projects that most 'architects' (in the legal sense) would never be able to conceive, yes, she's an architect.
in the sense that maya lin actually gives a f*ck, i doubt it. she probably just wants to do her thing and doesn't really care what your thoughts on the matter are.
^ Well, if it makes sense financially / professionally, then why not?
...But if it doesn't really make a difference, why bother with the added time / head-ache?
And to Raymonde's idea of merely "dabbling in architecture"....get over it!
Is Jaques Herzog (just as an example) simply a "dablber" since he isn't recognized by the AIA?
While, to a fairly major extent, this is turning into a silly discussion, I personally see no contradiction between Maya Lin and the architectural profession -- she produces "architecture" without being an "Architect". More power to her. However, I doubt she produces "architecture" without an Architect being involved.
The state, and the AIA, are interested in preserving the health, safety and welfare responsibilities associated with being a licensed Architect. That is why those two institutions protect the title "Architect".
May Lin doesn't call herself an Architect. May Lin may, or may not, be personally involved with the HSW aspects of her projects. However, to the extent one of her projects requires the stamp of a licensed Architect, then that licensed person is -- and should be -- fully accountable for seeing that those HSW responsibilities are met. The public deserves no less.
license or no she is an architect in all the ways that count.
i have a license. i am totally not threatened by maya lin and would happily accept her as my better (clearly she is, and i know it). of course the public needs to be saved from moronic incompetence but somehow i feel less than worried on that point. she has it covered.
but really, lets think about it objectively. shigeru ban and tadao ando never bothered to get licenses (shigeru may have recently but i don't see why he would bother). everyone in holland is basically given a license after finishing school and don't know a damn thing...and yet from there we get OMA MVRDV etc etc. other european countries give us folks like peter zumthor, jean nouvel, herzog and demeuron, none of whom are trained in american way, and yet they produce in the states and no one gives a flying fuck...
so if it makes you feel better just think of maya lin as a branch office of a dutch architecture firm, or better yet swedish (no license necessary to be called architect). and then let the strawman arguments go...
i find maya lin to be a wonderful designer, and her architecture to be poetic and sensitive to a point of being uncomparable. any architect should be humbled by the strength of her work, and her career.
now, let's just all remember to keep this a secret next time a new thread of the "value of becoming a registered architect" comes along.
"let's just all remember to keep this a secret next time a new thread of the "value of becoming a registered architect" comes along'
I admire Maya Lin tremendously and congratulate her on a wonderful portfolio of work. I expect the best is still to come. She is a rare and special talent. However, IMO, there is zero meaningful relationship between her career and the decision the rest of us make about pursuing licensure, or not.
To make an analogy, lots of people play basketball - there's only one Michael Jordon. Not everybody who thinks they're any good at basketball will abandon all preparation for another career while they wait to get drafted into the NBA. Most of those who do ignore other possibilities end up in a bad place because there are so few positions of that nature available and the talent required to compete at that level is extraordinary.
Our arrogance and self-absorption notwithstanding, the vast majority of us -- I'd say upwards of 95% -- don't have the talent, drive and energy to compete with the glitterati of our profession. That doesn't make us bad people, poor professionals or without value. It simply means we have better opportunities in other areas of the profession.
With the passage of years, I see more and more young people who seem to think the only true and meaningful path is to aspire to become the next great 'starchitect' -- and, achieving anything less means you have no talent. I understand that desire, but fear for the futures of these young professionals. This profession already is saturated with disappointed and bitter mid-career practitioners.
Few of us have the capacity to be the next Michael Jordon -- or the next Maya Lin. For most of us, there are many other meaningful ways to practice architecture and enjoy successful careers without putting that sort of artificial pressure on our ambitions. For most of us, licensure is an important way of securing, and protecting, a meaningful role in this very interesting profession over the course of a career.
Just a note to the people in school who are smart enough to realize they are NOT going to be the next Rem or Zaha: you can still do excellent work, be a benefit to the communities in which you practice, and derive a TON of personal satisfaction from being an architect.
I'd go so far as to say that if you got into this profession to be the next starchitect it's a pretty sure sign you're not going to be one. I really doubt Lin spent much time aspiring to be the next Meier/Graves/whomever.
As stone & lb said, do good work and derive your satisfaction from that.
i would not disparage anyone who wants to get license nor do i think Lin's example should be followed by most. am only troubled by opinion that without license lin's work is somehow not valid.
as for becoming starchitect in all honesty if that is not your goal from the outset you will never get there. excellence requires obsessive devotion to career, not only innate genetic ability of one stripe or another. if you just want to be good then a real life is possible ;-)
anyone want to start an "Artistic Licsence" non-profit lobby group, so we can get these damn artists under control? Bad art kills, people - bad art kills...
Ok, so folks have a point about her talent and whatnot, given her works such as the Vietnam Memorial and others. For that matter, I read somewhere that a guy had major input in the design of one the newer terminals at JFK toward the end of his studies at Columbia. We know that there are few Mozarts in architecture and she is one of them.
On the other hand, she went to architecture school at Yale, IIR, and designs for a living. Somewhere in the intervening 20 to 25 years, she couldn't carve out the time to take and pass the exam the way that other famous architects have? That's the only question I ask. Sure, she's successful and I'm inconsequential. I know that. However, Yale would have wiped their ass with my application materials, so if I was able to get into and graduate from an Ivy League school in architecture, you can bet I'd like the letters RA/AIA or RA/FAIA after my name, especially with what she has accomplished.
Maybe she is of the Euro mindset; you go to architectural school, get a diploma saying you graduated, and start working as an architect?
I think today was another day that buildings somehow failed to collapse in Euroland because they didn't have the AIA and NCARB "protecting" the public. The horror of it all.
Maybe she is of the Euro mindset; you go to architectural school, get a diploma saying you graduated, and start working as an architect?
They also have to take an exam in European countries. I wouldn't call it the Euro mindset. I call it the bohemian mindset, where it's a calling to be a mercenary and an artist, and not a professional.
This topic divides people on here into at least 3 camps:
- Got a professional degree? Go take the effin exam sooner than later
- Got a professional degree? "That's cool, man. Wanna smoke a bowl?" Translation: the exam can wait in perpetuity, even if you work in a firm, and I want to make sure as many people as possible on archinect like me.
- I don't understand the value of degrees in architecture. There was a book, either by Saroyan or Steinbeck I read, about a dentist in San Francisco at the turn of the (20th) century whose love interest was named Trina. From what I recall, he became a dentist by apprenticing. That option hasn't been available for a LONG time. Why? It's a profession.
I am not convinced that young people in architecture school all think they are going to be the next starchitect as often as comes up on this board. I think might appear that way but that is what gets attention, good grades and a snazzy portfolio. Nobody is going to get an 'A' in studio for designing a building as if they were not a starchitect. Students are the victims, professors are the perpetual perpetrators of this parade.
I love that Maya Lin glazed over the licensing part of architecture.
Check it out, a pic of her submission to win the war memorial competition.
Sep 21, 13 10:54 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.
Maya Lin- Registered Architect or just an "Artist"/Designer?
I have heard many conflicting sources of information as to whether Maya Lin is registered as an architect. Some say she is, some say she isn't. While I put my money that she isn't, and poses as such in the world of architecture as an "artist", I have come across an article from the Times where it indicates she is clearly NOT.
+
"Not a licensed architect, Ms. Lin collaborated with a Tennessee firm, and her assistant, Stas Zakrzewski, served as go-between. ''I can't stamp the plans,'' she says, ''but I see them all.'"
source: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/01/garden/the-mild-west-davy-crockett-meets-armani.html?scp=2&sq=maya%20lin%20march%201999&st=cse
+
Unless she has a license now in the decade that passed. Which is doubtful. But, please prove me wrong. or right, as the case may be. This has bothered me for some time now, and even more now that her new "museum" (the Museum of Chinese in America, a suspicious museum that has not allowed access to its archives for over ten years at least) is re-opening. Thanks.
i worked at a firm that did some collaborations with hter -- no one really made a point about it per se...but I'm pretty sure she had no license -- this was like 6-7 years ago.
the truly amazing thing about the internet is that you actually can look stuff up ... her own website (Maya Lin Studio) makes no mention whatsoever of her having a license, yet it provides a long list of other credentials. I doubt they'd omit that if she had one. Her website also carefully avoids referring to her as an Architect, so I think we safely can assume she's never passed the ARE.
Ask the rest of the world and nobody cares.
was gonna say what wurdan said...
and if you wanna get "official" you can look her up (or come up empty-handed) in the New York State Office of Professions, which lists all licenses issued in the state.
Her home office is here in NYC, so if she's licensed anywhere it ought to be here.
Who cares she is registered or not.
As long as she is doing well in her design career.
Whats your point? Her work should be discounted because she's not registered? Yawn.
Why don't you call her office and ask her. Like most architects today she probably has a little time to chat.
I'm going to offer to let her join our ARE study group.
As jump noted on another thread, there is no "just" applicable in Maya Lin's work.
maya lin has already "left her mark". she has nothing else to prove...
certainly has no need to take an exam and pay fee's for ncarb idp records - that would probably just bore her to death.
THIS IS SO FUCKING DUMB...she does good work AND is probably a pleasure to be around -- So, obviously she's not a registered architect...SHE HAS BETTER THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT.
She might not have an architect's license with the name of the state on it, but she has a poetic license with 40,000 names.
it is kind of.., she is using the freedom of speech clause with her works rather than an architect's license.
i know a lot of people that are registered and don't plan on using their stamps or doing their own projects......... sort of pointless if you ask me
yup, pointless. Good work is good work, regardless of who does it or what their qualifications are.
Licensed architects are everywhere, but talented designers are rare.
'...or just an "Artist"/Designer?'
what the fuck is "that" suppose to mean?
i know a lot of architects who wish they were artists; wish they could do their own designs and hand it off to some "registered" architect to draft.
get over it.
for all the naysayers, i would like to mention a few points.
but first i would like to report that when i visited the nascent museum of chinese last week, i was told by the people there that maya lin is not an architect. she is an "architectural designer".
it just so happens that in the latest architectural record of her "art" at storm king, it is also obliquely mentioned that she is an "architectural designer" (not architect).
+
i am just interested in clarification because over the years i have seen maya lin bandied about as an architect, when in fact she is not. it has never been clearly represented, and i find this troublesome. oblique wordplay is not of interest to me. whether one agrees or not, an architect is a person who is licensed to practice legally the profession of architecture. if they are not, they are not architects. maya lin is not an architect. most of the people who replied so negatively to my post probably fall into this category too- that is, not architects, but dabblers in the field.
in the sense that the AIA has helped skew the definition in their favor and made it illegal to call yourself an architect, even if you have 7+ years of school and 5+ years of training, then yes - maya lin is not an architect.
in the sense that she's designed and overseen some amazing projects that most 'architects' (in the legal sense) would never be able to conceive, yes, she's an architect.
in the sense that maya lin actually gives a f*ck, i doubt it. she probably just wants to do her thing and doesn't really care what your thoughts on the matter are.
All I know is that I've definitely achieved "dabbler in architecture" status.
"most of the people who replied so negatively to my post probably fall into this category too- that is, not architects, but dabblers in the field."
Well, most people who replied negatively to your post are probably also more creative than you. Like Maya Lin.
lol, exactly.
What would you rather have: talent and not license, or a license and no talent?
Personally, I think the former has much larger impact on architecture and the world. But then again, I am just a "dabbler", so what do I know.
Yeah, but license does not = no talent. And having talent does not stop you from getting a license. Why not have both talent and a license if you can?
^ Well, if it makes sense financially / professionally, then why not?
...But if it doesn't really make a difference, why bother with the added time / head-ache?
And to Raymonde's idea of merely "dabbling in architecture"....get over it!
Is Jaques Herzog (just as an example) simply a "dablber" since he isn't recognized by the AIA?
While, to a fairly major extent, this is turning into a silly discussion, I personally see no contradiction between Maya Lin and the architectural profession -- she produces "architecture" without being an "Architect". More power to her. However, I doubt she produces "architecture" without an Architect being involved.
The state, and the AIA, are interested in preserving the health, safety and welfare responsibilities associated with being a licensed Architect. That is why those two institutions protect the title "Architect".
May Lin doesn't call herself an Architect. May Lin may, or may not, be personally involved with the HSW aspects of her projects. However, to the extent one of her projects requires the stamp of a licensed Architect, then that licensed person is -- and should be -- fully accountable for seeing that those HSW responsibilities are met. The public deserves no less.
license or no she is an architect in all the ways that count.
i have a license. i am totally not threatened by maya lin and would happily accept her as my better (clearly she is, and i know it). of course the public needs to be saved from moronic incompetence but somehow i feel less than worried on that point. she has it covered.
but really, lets think about it objectively. shigeru ban and tadao ando never bothered to get licenses (shigeru may have recently but i don't see why he would bother). everyone in holland is basically given a license after finishing school and don't know a damn thing...and yet from there we get OMA MVRDV etc etc. other european countries give us folks like peter zumthor, jean nouvel, herzog and demeuron, none of whom are trained in american way, and yet they produce in the states and no one gives a flying fuck...
so if it makes you feel better just think of maya lin as a branch office of a dutch architecture firm, or better yet swedish (no license necessary to be called architect). and then let the strawman arguments go...
i find maya lin to be a wonderful designer, and her architecture to be poetic and sensitive to a point of being uncomparable. any architect should be humbled by the strength of her work, and her career.
now, let's just all remember to keep this a secret next time a new thread of the "value of becoming a registered architect" comes along.
too late ;-) Got jump's list noted too :-)!
I admire Maya Lin tremendously and congratulate her on a wonderful portfolio of work. I expect the best is still to come. She is a rare and special talent. However, IMO, there is zero meaningful relationship between her career and the decision the rest of us make about pursuing licensure, or not.
To make an analogy, lots of people play basketball - there's only one Michael Jordon. Not everybody who thinks they're any good at basketball will abandon all preparation for another career while they wait to get drafted into the NBA. Most of those who do ignore other possibilities end up in a bad place because there are so few positions of that nature available and the talent required to compete at that level is extraordinary.
Our arrogance and self-absorption notwithstanding, the vast majority of us -- I'd say upwards of 95% -- don't have the talent, drive and energy to compete with the glitterati of our profession. That doesn't make us bad people, poor professionals or without value. It simply means we have better opportunities in other areas of the profession.
With the passage of years, I see more and more young people who seem to think the only true and meaningful path is to aspire to become the next great 'starchitect' -- and, achieving anything less means you have no talent. I understand that desire, but fear for the futures of these young professionals. This profession already is saturated with disappointed and bitter mid-career practitioners.
Few of us have the capacity to be the next Michael Jordon -- or the next Maya Lin. For most of us, there are many other meaningful ways to practice architecture and enjoy successful careers without putting that sort of artificial pressure on our ambitions. For most of us, licensure is an important way of securing, and protecting, a meaningful role in this very interesting profession over the course of a career.
Very well-stated, stone.
Just a note to the people in school who are smart enough to realize they are NOT going to be the next Rem or Zaha: you can still do excellent work, be a benefit to the communities in which you practice, and derive a TON of personal satisfaction from being an architect.
lb -- thanks for providing a perfect period to my post. Well said.
I'd go so far as to say that if you got into this profession to be the next starchitect it's a pretty sure sign you're not going to be one. I really doubt Lin spent much time aspiring to be the next Meier/Graves/whomever.
As stone & lb said, do good work and derive your satisfaction from that.
i'd love to see someone aspiring to be the next graves or meier. that would be a gas!
I was using the way-back machine and tried to think of someone at the starchitect status when Lin was starting out.
Michael Graves?
very nicely put stone.
i would not disparage anyone who wants to get license nor do i think Lin's example should be followed by most. am only troubled by opinion that without license lin's work is somehow not valid.
as for becoming starchitect in all honesty if that is not your goal from the outset you will never get there. excellence requires obsessive devotion to career, not only innate genetic ability of one stripe or another. if you just want to be good then a real life is possible ;-)
I wonder what our clients would think if they knew I was "dabbling" with there 80 million dollar project? hmmm...
Im glad LB and Stone can articulate their points so well - its good to hear these things!
I think I'll add the PUNCTUATION by repeating how FUCKING DUMB this topic is...
anyone want to start an "Artistic Licsence" non-profit lobby group, so we can get these damn artists under control? Bad art kills, people - bad art kills...
The work is the that we should consider. If the person displays great talent, then he/she should get the considerations.
maya lin is HOT!
Night Folks....dreaming about Maya Lin...! She is a source of inspiration among all the bullshit being put forth as Architecture.
she may not have a license but she sure as hell accomplished more than you will ever in your dreams ;) and has more respect in the community
now get back to CADding and stop obsessing about others
Ok, so folks have a point about her talent and whatnot, given her works such as the Vietnam Memorial and others. For that matter, I read somewhere that a guy had major input in the design of one the newer terminals at JFK toward the end of his studies at Columbia. We know that there are few Mozarts in architecture and she is one of them.
On the other hand, she went to architecture school at Yale, IIR, and designs for a living. Somewhere in the intervening 20 to 25 years, she couldn't carve out the time to take and pass the exam the way that other famous architects have? That's the only question I ask. Sure, she's successful and I'm inconsequential. I know that. However, Yale would have wiped their ass with my application materials, so if I was able to get into and graduate from an Ivy League school in architecture, you can bet I'd like the letters RA/AIA or RA/FAIA after my name, especially with what she has accomplished.
Maybe she is of the Euro mindset; you go to architectural school, get a diploma saying you graduated, and start working as an architect? I think today was another day that buildings somehow failed to collapse in Euroland because they didn't have the AIA and NCARB "protecting" the public. The horror of it all.
just change your last name to Faia if you want more letters.
Maybe she is of the Euro mindset; you go to architectural school, get a diploma saying you graduated, and start working as an architect?
They also have to take an exam in European countries. I wouldn't call it the Euro mindset. I call it the bohemian mindset, where it's a calling to be a mercenary and an artist, and not a professional.
This topic divides people on here into at least 3 camps:
- Got a professional degree? Go take the effin exam sooner than later
- Got a professional degree? "That's cool, man. Wanna smoke a bowl?" Translation: the exam can wait in perpetuity, even if you work in a firm, and I want to make sure as many people as possible on archinect like me.
- I don't understand the value of degrees in architecture. There was a book, either by Saroyan or Steinbeck I read, about a dentist in San Francisco at the turn of the (20th) century whose love interest was named Trina. From what I recall, he became a dentist by apprenticing. That option hasn't been available for a LONG time. Why? It's a profession.
I am not convinced that young people in architecture school all think they are going to be the next starchitect as often as comes up on this board. I think might appear that way but that is what gets attention, good grades and a snazzy portfolio. Nobody is going to get an 'A' in studio for designing a building as if they were not a starchitect. Students are the victims, professors are the perpetual perpetrators of this parade.
I love that Maya Lin glazed over the licensing part of architecture.
Check it out, a pic of her submission to win the war memorial competition.
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.