Didn't there used to be some old rule that said architects were never supposed to criticize another architect's work? Obviously that's no longer the case, but where do you draw the line? If a world-famous architect designs a building in your city, it's pretty much open season. But what if, say, a local firm designed something in your city that's completely atrocious? When do you call them out, and when do you bite your tongue? Or do you try to couch your criticism in general terms without mentioning them or their project by name?
All the professional ethics rules are silent on this issue, but is it still an unwritten rule? I'm curious to know what others think.
Dec 19, 15 2:49 pm
In general I think there are limits to how much our minds can consciously be open and perceive (or abstract) from. Everything in our perspective is an abstraction not the whole picture to it's absolute finest detail. I'm not just talking visual abstraction but perceptual abstraction of what is.
As it is an opinion, my opinion is there is a link between the values we live by, that shapes us, the culture of societies along with their set of values, culture of a distractive workaholic lifestyle & utilitarian economic culture values influences, etc. that shapes the focus of our perception.
As people, our brains can not be open to perceiving everything at once. Medically and biologically, my opinion (not as a doctor) is that we would probably literally faint at the overwelming information overloading. We train ourselves throughout our lives to focus. That focus become a framework for perceptual focus which implies being attentive to perception of certain things in order to not be exhaustively overwhelmed all the time. At birth, we are at default prewired to be limited in perception at any given moment.
Whether an individual willfully shifts their perceptual focus to be attentive to things that aren't in their 'areas of interests' depends a lot on the individual and even the societal culture open-ness.
I think we are diving very deep into the domain of psychology. Interesting subject and I allude or been dancing around this point in a way in my earlier post.
Although we were talking or pointing to two totally different things that aren't necessarily so totally different. It's like the cause and effect cycle in this. There is a elaborate and meta-link between the two points and what is out perceptual focus..
I hope this is coherent enough.
This isn't exactly getting into the historical values that shapes architecture and continues to influence generations down.
Carrera
Dec 19, 15 5:07 pm
“…..money is the root of all evil”- 1 Timothy
Today it may be better to state it this way - “At the root of all evil is money”.
Counterfeit Society – A May 2014 Frontline exposed the story of the secret program to spy on the American people and the lies told from the President on down that were exposed by truth-tellers. In the end the liars all kept their jobs and the truth-teller’s lives were destroyed. The Government has made lying “legal” by lying so often that the American people see this as the new normal….everyone in this country is lying to save their jobs, learning that if you tell the truth the money will stop…the money is the root of this evil.
90% of everything we hear is some form of lie under a new title called “Politically Correct”….feeling powerless to do anything about this; the American people have followed Timothy Leary’s advice to - "turn on, tune in & drop out"…if not literally certainly figuratively.
Counterfeit Architecture – Architecture is truth, is honest in its form and materials, music in its details and anything that isn’t is counterfeit. Following, if 90% of everything people are exposed to is counterfeit then it too becomes the new normal. Our profession has allowed this dilution and people accept this because too they can’t do anything about it…but we can, but don’t, because of money. This constant exposure to ugliness is too corrosive to our society and makes architecture complicit with its own lies.
Critiques of the 10% are constructive, but shouldn’t be 90% of the criticism; otherwise it’s just violin music on the Titanic.
The Roman Empire fell because of overexpansion, military overspending, government corruption, political instability & loss of traditional values….all perpetuated by lies.
Architects should refuse to participate and call out those that do.
citizen
Dec 19, 15 5:37 pm
It's actually "the love of money is the root of all evil."
Josh Mings
Dec 20, 15 10:31 am
Blair Kamin only cares about the big names in Chicago. He's never done a piece on the remaking of affordable housing in the city for example, or stepped out of his Loop/Streeterville/Gold Coast comfort zone.
End rant. He used to be a really good critic. All he does lately is pander and trash anything that isn't SOM, SCB, Perkins, etc...
Miles Jaffe
Dec 20, 15 12:12 pm
+ citizen, ties into the social construct argument in Mein Kampf's thread. But let's not lose sight of the fact that it is also evil as a tool of enslavement / power / corruption, which may not have to do with the love of money itself.
David Cole, AIA
Dec 28, 15 9:26 am
As promised, here's my article. I ultimately decided not to mention the terrible projects by name, as I decided it would've been a distraction from the overall direction of the article and would've no doubt led to a bunch of comments about those particular projects rather than the more general point of the article.
Carrera
Dec 28, 15 12:45 pm
^ Lots of good nuggets therein…recent Gold Medal Firm Award lineage is promising, thanks for writing the article, needed to be said.
SneakyPete
Dec 28, 15 1:23 pm
Nice, David.
Good article. I think you may be the first person to place Moore Ruble Yudell and BCJ so closely together in a complimentary statement. ;)
My wife and I have been keeping an eye on the Sproul project at UC Berkeley. Exciting to know someone who worked on it.
BCJ hit a home run with Ballard, for sure. I'm overly biased towards their work since they employed me for a while, but that project is really quite good.
I visited UC before the star architect program, and let me tell you, it's been a Godsend for the campus. There are many (MANY) problems with higher education, but UC was a stangant cesspool of a campus before the current efforts, so suggesting that leaving it be would have been the better choice is patently false. That being said, I've heard some first-hand (second hand now) stories about how badly some of those buildings were designed, with many things left to be figured out after the proper time had passed.
Anyhow, I'm rambling. I enjoyed your article. Look forward to seeing it on Facebook on one of our mutual friend's feeds. :)
Miles Jaffe
Dec 28, 15 1:39 pm
David, by title you set out to defend starchitecture but then fail to do so. Sure, they are easy targets, but they only have themselves to blame. Your economic arguments don't stack up: what you cite as liberalism is really the face of libertarianism - for-profit education etc., branded by starchitects.
As to being a minuscule part of the profession, I'm not so certain. By dollar volume they are responsible for a significant amount of work. By notoriety and media - also driven by economics - they are headliners, as they are also considered by those who seek maximum exposure / funding for their projects.
I'm not trying to defend them or disagree with your points about urbanism or more responsible firms and collaborative efforts. I just find the title misleading, which makes an encompassing article seem rambling. I also think further exploration of economics would prove illuminating, as some of the positions taken seem almost contradictory in that respect.
benjamindarras
May 1, 20 1:22 pm
Belgian equivalent to AIA or ARB says:"Article 25: The architect shows fraternity and loyalty. He judges the work of his colleagues objectively, and must also admit that colleagues criticize his work in the same spirit. He generally refrains from any practices that tend to harm his colleagues in their professional situation."
Didn't there used to be some old rule that said architects were never supposed to criticize another architect's work? Obviously that's no longer the case, but where do you draw the line? If a world-famous architect designs a building in your city, it's pretty much open season. But what if, say, a local firm designed something in your city that's completely atrocious? When do you call them out, and when do you bite your tongue? Or do you try to couch your criticism in general terms without mentioning them or their project by name?
All the professional ethics rules are silent on this issue, but is it still an unwritten rule? I'm curious to know what others think.
In general I think there are limits to how much our minds can consciously be open and perceive (or abstract) from. Everything in our perspective is an abstraction not the whole picture to it's absolute finest detail. I'm not just talking visual abstraction but perceptual abstraction of what is.
As it is an opinion, my opinion is there is a link between the values we live by, that shapes us, the culture of societies along with their set of values, culture of a distractive workaholic lifestyle & utilitarian economic culture values influences, etc. that shapes the focus of our perception.
As people, our brains can not be open to perceiving everything at once. Medically and biologically, my opinion (not as a doctor) is that we would probably literally faint at the overwelming information overloading. We train ourselves throughout our lives to focus. That focus become a framework for perceptual focus which implies being attentive to perception of certain things in order to not be exhaustively overwhelmed all the time. At birth, we are at default prewired to be limited in perception at any given moment.
Whether an individual willfully shifts their perceptual focus to be attentive to things that aren't in their 'areas of interests' depends a lot on the individual and even the societal culture open-ness.
I think we are diving very deep into the domain of psychology. Interesting subject and I allude or been dancing around this point in a way in my earlier post.
Although we were talking or pointing to two totally different things that aren't necessarily so totally different. It's like the cause and effect cycle in this. There is a elaborate and meta-link between the two points and what is out perceptual focus..
I hope this is coherent enough.
This isn't exactly getting into the historical values that shapes architecture and continues to influence generations down.
“…..money is the root of all evil” - 1 Timothy
Today it may be better to state it this way - “At the root of all evil is money”.
Counterfeit Society – A May 2014 Frontline exposed the story of the secret program to spy on the American people and the lies told from the President on down that were exposed by truth-tellers. In the end the liars all kept their jobs and the truth-teller’s lives were destroyed. The Government has made lying “legal” by lying so often that the American people see this as the new normal….everyone in this country is lying to save their jobs, learning that if you tell the truth the money will stop…the money is the root of this evil.
90% of everything we hear is some form of lie under a new title called “Politically Correct”….feeling powerless to do anything about this; the American people have followed Timothy Leary’s advice to - "turn on, tune in & drop out"…if not literally certainly figuratively.
Counterfeit Architecture – Architecture is truth, is honest in its form and materials, music in its details and anything that isn’t is counterfeit. Following, if 90% of everything people are exposed to is counterfeit then it too becomes the new normal. Our profession has allowed this dilution and people accept this because too they can’t do anything about it…but we can, but don’t, because of money. This constant exposure to ugliness is too corrosive to our society and makes architecture complicit with its own lies.
Critiques of the 10% are constructive, but shouldn’t be 90% of the criticism; otherwise it’s just violin music on the Titanic.
The Roman Empire fell because of overexpansion, military overspending, government corruption, political instability & loss of traditional values….all perpetuated by lies.
Architects should refuse to participate and call out those that do.
It's actually "the love of money is the root of all evil."
Blair Kamin only cares about the big names in Chicago. He's never done a piece on the remaking of affordable housing in the city for example, or stepped out of his Loop/Streeterville/Gold Coast comfort zone.
End rant. He used to be a really good critic. All he does lately is pander and trash anything that isn't SOM, SCB, Perkins, etc...
+ citizen, ties into the social construct argument in Mein Kampf's thread. But let's not lose sight of the fact that it is also evil as a tool of enslavement / power / corruption, which may not have to do with the love of money itself.
As promised, here's my article. I ultimately decided not to mention the terrible projects by name, as I decided it would've been a distraction from the overall direction of the article and would've no doubt led to a bunch of comments about those particular projects rather than the more general point of the article.
^ Lots of good nuggets therein…recent Gold Medal Firm Award lineage is promising, thanks for writing the article, needed to be said.
Nice, David.
Good article. I think you may be the first person to place Moore Ruble Yudell and BCJ so closely together in a complimentary statement. ;)
My wife and I have been keeping an eye on the Sproul project at UC Berkeley. Exciting to know someone who worked on it.
BCJ hit a home run with Ballard, for sure. I'm overly biased towards their work since they employed me for a while, but that project is really quite good.
I visited UC before the star architect program, and let me tell you, it's been a Godsend for the campus. There are many (MANY) problems with higher education, but UC was a stangant cesspool of a campus before the current efforts, so suggesting that leaving it be would have been the better choice is patently false. That being said, I've heard some first-hand (second hand now) stories about how badly some of those buildings were designed, with many things left to be figured out after the proper time had passed.
Anyhow, I'm rambling. I enjoyed your article. Look forward to seeing it on Facebook on one of our mutual friend's feeds. :)
David, by title you set out to defend starchitecture but then fail to do so. Sure, they are easy targets, but they only have themselves to blame. Your economic arguments don't stack up: what you cite as liberalism is really the face of libertarianism - for-profit education etc., branded by starchitects.
As to being a minuscule part of the profession, I'm not so certain. By dollar volume they are responsible for a significant amount of work. By notoriety and media - also driven by economics - they are headliners, as they are also considered by those who seek maximum exposure / funding for their projects.
I'm not trying to defend them or disagree with your points about urbanism or more responsible firms and collaborative efforts. I just find the title misleading, which makes an encompassing article seem rambling. I also think further exploration of economics would prove illuminating, as some of the positions taken seem almost contradictory in that respect.
Belgian equivalent to AIA or ARB says:"Article 25: The architect shows fraternity and loyalty. He judges the work of his colleagues objectively, and must also admit that colleagues criticize his work in the same spirit. He generally refrains from any practices that tend to harm his colleagues in their professional situation."