Architecture, of the capital “A” variety, is exceptionally capable of creating signature pieces, glorious one-offs. We’re brilliant at devising sublime (or bombastic) structures for a global elite who share our values. We seem increasingly incapable, however, of creating artful, harmonious work that resonates with a broad swath of the general population [...]
We’ve taught generations of architects to speak out as artists, but we haven’t taught them how to listen.
— nytimes.com
57 Comments
And now, 50 more articles about Frank Gehry!
I'm all for a user-centric approach, but I find it disingenuous when the media calls out architects as the problem. There are plenty of architects who engage with the public and create a more humane buildings (in addition to the countless who engage in historical architecture). Now, with memetecture accelerating the short-attention span, what are architects left to do in this landscape? There is little attention given creating a good building for people--today Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater would get a tweet and onto the next thing.
"Another back to the drawing board op-ed"
Read: 'dismiss this article, move on, nothing to see here.'
All the talk about creating more humane places and buildings that connect, as long as they don't break the cardinal rules of modernism. Don't bother addressing any of the substance. Fascinating how this works.
Lightperson, I totally agree with you.
ThayerD, your comment is word salad.
How about the points in the article? You're quick with the quip but light on content.
For what it's worth, the article isn't refering to buildings like Falling Water, surrounded by acres of forest, something specifically mentioned, if you where actually willing to engage.
I forwarded this article to the editor at this morning.
This article is calling out to us, from the OpEd page of the NY Times, trying to tell us that something is seriously wrong with the way architects are approaching their work.
In my opinion, this article is right on the money, and the sooner architects realize that we ARE the problem, the sooner we can start mending the estrangement that plagues our profession.
Please, read the article again, listen to what he is saying, and view this as an opportunity and not an imposition.
Well of course the article is "right on the money"--just like if Vogue or Cosmo did an article claiming how the fashion industry is "out of touch." If there is a failure it is that good design is only reserved for the 1% super wealthy, when it should be available to everyone. Instead most of the country is no different from how it looked in the 1950s.
That we haven't progressed is a failure across the board, of politics, education, economics. If you remember the 1950s generation, a more well-read, educated and optimistic people, were all about the future--futuristic devices, houses, Jetsons all day every day. A user-centric approach doesn't need to be pandering to historical styles, but it should address human needs. The idea that "regular" people don't like modernism is equally dumb and borderline patronizing... they don't like bad architecture, period. Everyone loves BCJ buildings, but you rarely see those in the NYTimes. There's little room for nuanced debate in the media today.
Singling out architects, even starchitects, for blame is both hypocritical and dumb. Then journalists turn around and claim they too have no power over the changing tides of media. Think they would have some sympathy for trends that are overwhelming.
A reality check from Devil Wears Prada:
Andy Sachs: No. No, no. Nothing's... You know, it's just that both those belts look exactly the same to me. You know, I'm still learning about all this stuff and, uh...
Miranda Priestly: 'This... stuff'? Oh. Okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select... I don't know... that lumpy blue sweater, for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent... wasn't it who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh, filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff.
From the article:
"It’s easy to dismiss Mrs. Bingler as an unsophisticated layperson. But that’s the problem: For too long, our profession has flatly dismissed the general public’s take on our work, even as we talk about making that work more relevant with worthy ideas like sustainability, smart growth and “resilience planning.”
We’ve confronted this problem before, with the backlash against what was seen as soulless modernism in the 1960s and ’70s. But our response, broadly speaking, was more of the same, dressed differently: postmodernism, deconstructivism and a dozen other -isms that made for vibrant debate among the professionals but pushed everyone else further away. And we’re more insulated today, with an archipelago of graduate schools, magazines and blogs that reinforce our own worldview, supported by a small number of wealthy public and private clients.
The question is, at what point does architecture’s potential to improve human life become lost because of its inability to connect with actual humans?"
I can't tell you how many times I've had conversations with colleagues, face-to-face, or on this or other online venues, where the attitude is very clearly that "if people don't like our work, it's because they are too uninformed, or lazy, or naive, or foolish. If only they could be re-educated."
Heaven forbid we should look at the profession with a critical eye, and consider that there might be something wrong.
Doctor, heal thyself.
who appointed mrs. bingler as the representative of the public?
the story also says "
To Steven, an architect, this model for affordable housing — a tough pair of stacked boxes, sheathed in corrugated metal — was a bold design statement.
why are you saying that mrs. bingler's right to an opinion outweighs mr. bingler's right to an opinion?
the universal truth here is that some people like some stuff, and other people like other stuff. you're not going to make everyone happy. your strategy of picking the opinion of the person who agrees with you and ignoring the other opinions is not how architects should proceed with design in the future.
what if a little kid walks by and says 'oooo shiny, i like that.' are you going to dismiss their opinion as irrelevant too?
Early in the process, Make It Right’s founder, Brad Pitt, invited a few returning residents to critique the designs, most of which tried to take a basic form, the single-family home, and squeeze it into the latest style, with little consideration of local needs or the local vernacular architecture. The residents weren’t impressed, and asked perfectly logical questions: What’s with the flat roofs — you know it rains a lot here, right?
Damned if you do..... damned if you don't. I find it hard to believe they weren't impressed that a movie star was presenting designs for them and asking for their feedback.
This faulty logic can be extended beyond this article to other trends: design media's fetishization of the favelas and MoMA's Tactical Urbanism, which instead of using the modernist notion of creating better life through architecture, seeks to separate the rich from poor by celebrating low living standards and basic, ad-hoc solutions. Let the poor and uneducated to their own devices! They are always right! Guess what, most people would prefer a nice home and nice clothes, you communist curators and writers.
Interesting read. I agree with the first part of the article (stylistic modernism, post, decon), but midway through the argument goes paper thin. It fails to account for two major forces outside the control of the architect.
to quote..."In China and in other parts of Asia, Western architects continue to perform their one-off magic, while at the same time repeating many of the urban design catastrophes of the previous century, at significantly larger scales."
Having worked in China for one of those famous architects, I know the huge super-block projects of which he speaks, I was project manager for one.
We simply had to follow the direction of the client AND the communist party!
The government wanted a 6m sqft development on 6 city blocks, built all at once, next to their new high-speed rail station. Government set the density rules, the setbacks, the roads, all the rules. The client (commissioned by govt to develop) then tried to fill the blocks up completely to the max, leaving no room for pedestrians, greenspace, or humanity.
It was an endless 7 month battle with both the government and client to make that project livable. I'm not sure we won the battle, but the project is getting built. In the end we put trees and green space throughout the buildings, partly because there was no room for green space and communal space outside, around the base of the buildings.
The other half of the argument is building construction technology mixed with economics
We have convinced ourselves in the construction and banking sector, that the only thing we can afford are glass curtain walls and metal clad facades, built over concrete frames. (in cities at least)
Try to build anything with a wood or other natural facade material in a city, you won't be allowed for both economic reasons, and fire code.
so, its easy to blame the architect, there is blame all around, mainly in governance, banking, and engineering.
Curtkram - So you are basically saying that it's impossible to be able to address public taste, since we can never draw any conclusion about it?
Nobody appointed her as representative of the public. No need to appoint her - she is a member of the public. And believe me, there are lot and lots of people who believe exactly the way she does.
eke, i'm saying it's pointless to agree with people who agree with what you want while ignoring people who disagree with you.
there is not one preferred aesthetic acceptable to all people. the notion that people have evolved in such a way as to develop an actual dna sequence that causes them to have similar emotional responses to construction methods that mimic those used in ancient greece or rome is beyond ridiculous.
you cannot address "public taste" as a single thing that all people like because there isn't a single "public taste" that all people agree to. people are allowed to have different opinions, even when those opinions are different than yours.
some people like the sort of design you advocate, and that's fine. a lot of those old european cities really are great to walk through. but to say that's the only thing that should be built is terribly close minded.
why do you think your opinion on design is better than my opinion on design? what makes you more important than me?
A user-centric approach doesn't need to be pandering to historical styles, but it should address human needs. The idea that "regular" people don't like modernism is equally dumb and borderline patronizing... they don't like bad architecture, period. Everyone loves BCJ buildings, but you rarely see those in the NYTimes. There's little room for nuanced debate in the media today.
This well intentioned quote illustrates why we end up speaking past eachother so often that even the heads of this site stoop to sophmoric insults. People "pander" to historical styles in architecture the same as they do so in their tastes for music, art, cuisine, and their own abode. They simply don't see the historical part, but rather the beauty and/or feeling these styles evoke for them.
This is clearly seen from the highly educated liberals choices of homes in Greenwich Village to some basterdized McMansions of conservatives in t he ex-urbs. For the millionth time, this dosen't disvalidate modernism, but not to recognize how architecture is seen by all parts of society is a willfull ignorance that can't be supported on an academic level with any credibility.
Many keep wanting it to be a zero sum game, that anyone who points to the empirical evidence represented by the market supposedly speaks for everyone, is simple sophistry. This article is as nuanced as it gets, pointing to some of the great masterpieces of modernism that anyone should recognize, whatever aesthetic ideology they shoud subscribe to. But this one sided view of a pluralistic world does a disservice to those who aspire to create beauty entering schools as it is to those who still think architects are responsible for our built cultural output.
to follow up; there were 2 opinions presented in that architect.
the first was from the co-author who said he thought the example was a 'bold design.'
the second was his mother, who didn't like it.
the only thing you hear is that "the public" doesn't like it. you completely missed the fact that a full 50% of the people who's opinions were counted in that article don't agree with you.
so when you say that lots of people agree with that lady, i'm sure you're right despite the fact that absolutely no evidence to support that was provided in the article. however, i would also say that lots of people like other things too, and what's wrong with the way you present your statement is that you think we should ignore all of those other people. in your view, the only 'public' opinions that should be expressed are those that agree with your opinion, right?
this is where architects get a bad reputation. it's not that we're not listening or that we're condescending to 'the public.' it's that you're condescending to others.
Woah, Curt. You just put a whole bunch of words in my mouth that I have never said.
EKE, he does this all the time. (sorry I won't see you in Charleston)
Curtkram, we've had this discussion many times before. If your point that no one can speak for the public where true, then why don't you "rick-roll" those who say that traditional architecture is crap? Becasue you're an ideologue playing rhetorical games. When people post countless surveys showing people's *general* preference for traditional architecture, you disvalidate them. If you where truly as open minded as you say, you wouldn't knee jerk call contemporary traditional work, disney, styraphome and the like. You're flipping the script on EKE who has said many times that he admires certain modernist work, just acknowledging what is clear where one to hold an open mind. Donna and others have come straight out and declared their 'elitism' about matters of taste in this regard, yet you give her a pass becasue she is in your camp. (Don't believe your lying eyes!)
Curtkram - So you are basically saying that it's impossible to be able to address public taste, since we can never draw any conclusion about it?
i'll try to give you a simpler answer to your question.
yes, because the public isn't one person. the public doesn't have a singe "taste."
would you disagree with that?
if you were to try to address the taste of all of the public, how do you account for differing opinions?
When people say Americans like cars, hamburgers, or movies, do you argue with them also?
i would say that i would rather watch a samurai movie instead of a romantic comedy. that doesn't mean everyone wants to watch samurai movies though. i hope movie producers continue to make action movies for people like me and romantic comedies for people that prefer those. i miss akira kurosawa now. thanks.
i like my chevy. a lot of people i work with buy more foreign cars. i don't argue with them though, because i know the world doesn't revolve around me, and that people sometimes have different opinions than i do. that doesn't make them wrong, and cars other than chevys are still built.
i know a lot of americans that don't really like mcdonalds hamburgers. some of those people like 5-guys though, and we have a local chain called hi-boy that is a hit with some people. turns out, that actually reinforced my opinion that not everyone agrees with your opinion, therefore i don't speak for all americans on what american hamburger preference should be.
Sometimes when sitting at a stop light. I wonder how the hell do those Car Designers do it? You every hear anyone bitch about cars looking, "To Modern?" Thinking the author of this article is most likely behind the wheel of some electric car, European import, or American, Japanese knock off. Who knows maybe she drives one of those radical Dodge reinvented muscle cars. Doubt if she is driving a boring Ford Focus.
I have a lot of issues with this well intended article, sorry for no spacing on cell phone........................................1. When did the Architect serve the common person daily?..................... 2. Was that modernism and its attempt at social housing and mass production?.................3. What group of professionals developed the Vernacular? Was it the Office of Vernacular Architecture (OVA), best represented in a data diagram translating Capital into Fun? ...............................3. Was the Architect really representing the common person when the rose window in Chartes was built and designed by a master builder who worked for elite clients only after decades of training? ...................4. Is it engineering that binds Johnson and lady from Dubusque, physics is without style?......................... 5. Did we ever own the market on the common dwelling? We took a stab at it with case studies we call Art now that are often displayed at your local museum of Modern Art. I was at a lunch and learn once at Janos Spitzer flooring a few years ago and learned hedge fund managers were even dabbling in the lumber to flooring industry. Quantity was defeating quality. The built environment has been out our hands forever, not because of lack of trying ......................... 6. The global elite don't share our values, they pay for them like an art piece.................7. Was this article about the Art of Architecture or the Profession? The words appear to be interchangeable according to the article.........................8. If Architecture is an Art, or Architecture with a capital A, then why do we need a license and more importantly why do we need to serve anyone, good art does not need humanity or even a context occupied by most of humanity................9. If it's a profession most our college education was a complete waste of time wasn't it?................10. One current job I have been working on - I am legalizing an alteration that was never permitted and signed off so the owner can sell the property because the Title companies and lawyers have decided although the work did not effect the Certificate of Occupancy and the buyer may have cash the work which has stood for over a decade needs to be legalized on paper. That's Architecture with a capital P for profession which serves the daily public at lawyer rates if you can get it..not a damn thing to do with style, but a lot to do with technical drawings, law, and engineering. If I get this job legalized will it be presented at MoMa?.........11. This article was about the Art of Architecture and not the Profession and therefore we having pissing match here over what amounts to 'taste'.........12. So our disconnect with humanity is 'taste' or is it the denial of an actual Profession, while we obsess over Art?.............13. Why would the media talk about the Profession, they could be liable?..........don't get me wrong, I would love to do an Art piece some day.
Dear All:
This article was clearly an Op-Ad promoting the first co-author's firm, Concordia. Why it took 2 authors to generate such a vapid text is open to speculation.
The author's mother, Mrs. Bingler, doesn't like corrugated metal siding because it looks cheap. The author's firm, Concordia, has the solution - which we should all respect because it reflects the insights of the broader public uncontaminated by intellectualization. It looks like this:
Good enough for me! Gotta respect those community values.
curtkram,
You made my point though. You're argument is based on how far in or out you might want to focus the microscope. People like EKE and I are merely pointing out that on a generic level, people still strive for architecture that speaks to them and for them, and this includes modernism or whatever you can see with your own eyes. But the fact that one sees differences dosen't mean one can't make generalizations. Polls show that Americans like their cars, even though we know that some prefer transit or simply to walk (like me). Polls show that people like movies, although some prefer to see plays (not me). Polls show people like McDonald's hamburgers, but more and more they are rejecting their processed crap food (definatly like me).
So while one can always find differences in the details, it dosen't make generalizations useless. If we know that boys are more kinetic learners, schools should take that into consideration, even though there are some boys completely capable of sitting still and listening for hours (not my little guy!). So when EKE or I or someone else points out that people still want traditional architecture, please understand it dosen't mean that others don't (thankfully), it simply means that we need to move beyond the mental block of so much academia that is stuck in the revolutionary ethos of the early modernists.
Nobody is saying that liking modernism is bad, what we are saying is that liking traditionalist architecture is also not bad, and as such we should be training architects to handle that simple preference. I've often wondered why such liberal and well intentioned people as architects tend to be would be so obstinant to this simple opening up of academia. While human nature has a lot to do with it, there must be something in the schooling that seems not to allow a wider view of people's preferences. Like your preference for Chevy's, I would guess that good industrial designers study form in any era simply to augment their visual repertoirs. In most archtiectural schools, you aren't allowed to do that, at least not on any level where those forms might show up on a drawing. They must be so sublimated and abstracted as to lose any meaning.
Being a musician, I always go back to it for analogy. How many current artists, both pop and indie sample and borrow from wherever their ear takes them? And what would we say of classical music? I don't know anyone who would call it anachronistic. It still has the power to sooth the soul like a lyrical Joni Mitchell song or some hypnotic electro-pop tune. I've certainly met musicians that adhere strictly to certain musical genres, but rarely have I heard them disqualify other genres unless it was to advertise their own expertise and sophistication. This is what I see on this site. There are those who regardless of their preference for modernism, are happy to live and let live when it comes to other tastes. Then there are those who freak out and start disparaging those who profess an admiration (that extends to new work) of traditional work.
You can never dictate how people want to express themselves, and the sooner you understand that the better for everyone.
bullshit.
you're always on the retreat, walking something back or tossing out some mediocre bone of appreciation/appeasement. live and let live my ass. what miserable architectural school did you go to and how often did the professors abuse you? god I hate the reading this shit you post.
Why not live and let live? What's your problem with that stance? For what it's worth, I went to Pratt Institute and Syracuse University. I'm sorry you hate what I write, but I assure you I mean no harm, merely to prevent it.
Like a musician drawn to melodic beauty from whatever source, I am also drawn to beauty in the built form and never bought into the paradigm that I need to justify what makes something beautiful, whether it be abstract minimalism or a riot of ornament. I go both ways and every way in between, it just seems that one of those ways seems to generate much more hostility than the other, and ever curious about the human animal, I seek to understand the sourse of this anger.
In reading old architectural periodicals from around 1880 to 1930, there was this same issue with those who might have been called eclectics vs. those who where all in on classicism or Gothic, or whatever. Being eclectic now seems to piss off those who feel one must hue to a single line. I guess I'll never understand the anger of purist.
There is no point to your post Thayer. If someone hires you to design in a style that you consider `traditional,` then go do it. Nobody here is stopping you.
In the article, someone hired an architect to design a house with metal panels, which the owner presumably likes and an 88 year old lady doesn't like. Good for them, right? We agree that everyone doesn't have to prefer what you consider to traditional, so we agree that it's good it got built.
If they wanted you to design their house they would have hired you. But they didn't. We don't need to find a survey and cherry pick bad data to support our bias.
go to bed Thayer. you aren't drawn to beauty whatever the source. Suss out your own anger. Architectural witness 40. call me when your eclecticism gets real and embraces gerhy.
Midlander I think we have been had....from what I can tell the piece probably evolved as follows......Bingler thinks to self - I need some promotional material, meets Pedersen who appears to have written before to get the piece in NYtimes...........the entire article is based on standard stereotypes and for the most part formulates incorrect summaries and conjectures nearly every paragraph, but who would know besides a few people on this forum and academia. His next laymen client will be able to shoot the shit about their one visit to Chartres and both Bingler and client will agree on something - great ar architecture is great architecture. If I had graded this article it would have received at best a "C" ...... Bingler did work/study under Paolo Solari.........too Bingler's credit though, how is this self-promotion any different than say some starchitects self financed publishing via the Monacelli press? is Rem Koolhaas really that much more genuine?
curtkram,
The whole point of the article is that we need to better prepare architects to respond to the desires of a large segment of the population. If you are fine with people doing a traditinal buildings, dosen't it make sense that schools should address this need? It's disengenuous to laugh at the general output of traditional architecture (which I agree with) and not address ways to solve it. It belies any attempt at seriousness and openmindedness on this issue. And your discrediting surveys and data remind me of climate change denialists who will go to any length to keep data from altering their world view.
boy in a well,
I've long stated my admiration for many modernist works under whatever sub-ism they might be. Like the article states, the world would be a poorer place without many of these master works, but that's not the question at hand. You want to paint me as an ideologue to dismiss my call for more accord in the architectural profession, but I don't think in terms of teams, unless that team you speak of allows for all of our human differences. Sure, I may have my preferences, but I don't begrudge yours, I simply want places of higher learning to stop being so afraid of the diversity that truly exists, and I don't mean just the color of one's skin, but one's particular view of beauty.
chris teeter,
Didn't realize that everytime someone stated an opinion, it was no more than a great marketing scheme. BTW, is Rem Koolhaas more genuine? Does he live in Rotterdam as he preaches or does he live in the more humane and beautiful Amsterdam?
You want to see the world as it suits your own particular vision, but refuse to allow others the same rights. I think it's obvious why you are so prejudiced against traditional work, but it's clear that you still don't.
thayer-d, what?
Thayer-d I think you have some residual anger or something, I am sure your last paragraph is confused. I just ordered two books on traditional based on EKE'S recommendation, see the "dogma process" thread. Either way the article was self promotion masked in opinion, and it really was opinion, like a student whipping a report together based on Wikipedia links....
Sorry Chris, the last paragraph was meant for curtkram and boy in a well. When I went into correct my usually horrible grammer I saw your comment about this being nothing more than a marketing bit, so I snuck in my resopnse with out clarifying that the last paragraph wasn't meant for you.
I'll admit to some anger after I left school becasue of how many times I saw professors degrade anyone for liking traditional architecture and the hypocracy of it all when they all seemed to prefer to live in it, wether it be a loft in Soho or a revival townhouse. Never did I see them live in the projects type of buildings they asked students to design. Now, I simply try to understand this schizophrenic world view where one can live and work very pleasantly in these wonderful environments yet not be able to design in a way that might perpetuate their charms.
I wouldn't take Rem seriously becasue he dosen't practice what he preaches, but I don't fault him for picking Amsterdam over Rotterdam. And I'm happy to admit that he might be a great social commentator, but his buildings are horrible, bobmastic, and just plain ugly. Mind you, it's only my opinioin!
I'm glad to hear that you are open to learning more about traditional architecture. It's something that's given very little attention in most schools. I can recommend Geoffrey Scott's The Architecture of Humanism for a very interesting read on classicism. All though he might be a little too attached to that one style in particular, his points are still valid in other styles, including modernisst stlyles, at least the more buildable ones.
Can you recommend any books for me that might broaden my understanding of the modernist perspective? I'm familiar with the manifestos and the like, but have tended to appreciate those who leave the archispeak to the side and embrace their expressionist vision for what it is, beautiful scupture like many of Gehry or Zaha Hadid's work. Can't say the same for her sidekick, Patrick Schumaker.
Thayer, I agree with so many bits of what you say but somehow in the whole we always end up disagreeing. Example, this:
...we need to better prepare architects to respond to the desires of a large segment of the population.
I totally agree! But to me that means that in school, we need to teach students how to listen and do good programming before they even start designing; they need to understand good construction techniques (or at least realistic ones that don't rely on sky hooks) and relative costs; they need to understand spatial arrangements that function; they need to understand the cultural context (urban, economic, climate, etc.) of where they are building. None of these things have to relate, in any way, to style.
If a client says "I want Neo-Georgian" and you don't do Neo-Georgian, then you either learn about it quick or you pass on the project.
I think you and I agree that many architecture schools today are mistakenly teaching innocent students to be starchitects, but we disagree on how to improve that situation.
Donna,
I have two critiques on the state of architectural education today, as I'm sure many of us do. One has to do with the programatic way we teach and the other has to do with aesthetics. In this thread I was dealing with the aesthetic one becasue the practical one can more easily be fixed in the real world should one want to get paid in the slightest.
I fully agree with you're point about listening to do good programing and other practical considerations. In fact I applauded the initiative you mentioned about architecture schools creating a 'building' degree as opposed to one more theoretically based like the ones that predominate schools today. I've even offered to help in anyway possible, which still stands. In school, I used to hew mighty close to the program hoping that this would spare me the worst of the "Disneyland" critiques from my professors. (usually didn't work).
This article in part addresses that on the listening level as when Ms. Hochberg did her piece on empathy in architecture, meaning *listening* to the end user in terms of function and other aspects like symbolism and feelings. Love the 'sky hooks' reference btw, sed to see (not) my share of them at Pratt. Not so much in Syracuse as the program was based in Florence, Italy. Maybe something to do with all those weighty stone structures outside the studio. I'd quibble with your assertion that none of that has any thing to do with style, at least in terms of context, where climate certainly comes in to play. Bauhaus mediteranean aesthetics might be fine in LA, but in DC with snow and rain, it's not the best play.
To your point about a client wanting a neo-georgian building, a couple of points. This is *also* part of listening to a client. Many of us don't have the luxury of 'passing' on a client, unless you're Rem or Zaha, and as we've seen time and time again, they'll work for a dictator faster than you can blink. So how well will a young architect handle the neo-georgian request is the question. Why look down our noses at those 'philistines' who want a charming older style or those neighborhood groups who would like some harmony from the new infill projects coming to their neighborhood? Why not adapt?
We agree on the most important aspect though and that's wonderful progress. As you might know, most 'traditional' architects are self taught, allthough this is slowly changing. This article talks specifically about the starchitect culture, which to some degree is inherent in our love of celebrity. We don't have to have the same tastes in architecture, but why not extend this agreement to the idea that we ought to teach students the compositional techniques and historical traditions of the towns and states in which we reside? This is surely as much about *listening* to our future clients as is the right location of spaces and the soundness and practicality of good construction. Afterall, man does not live on bread alone. (I'm not religeous, but it sounds appropriate).
And thank you for responding to me in a serious way. Only with this kind of dialogue will we make some advances for who I think are the ultimate recipients of our efforts. The public who has to live around our creations.
I almost added a coda that climate does absolutely relate to style. I'm happy to admit I'm a big fan of Critical Regionalism, which *I* consider to be a subset of Modernism, though I may be wrong. And certainly an understanding of traditional proportions and how they have changed over the years should be a part of every architect's education. I think it's not unreasonable to suspect that very few architecture students today are being taught anything of significance about proportion.
As you say, many traditional architects are self-taught. I'm acquainted with one in Georgia who is not only self-taught but wildly, crazily successful - as in super wealthy. he's giving his clients what they want, and doing a good job of it. Good for him, good for his happy clients.
My main issue with that article is that it falls into the TOTALLY common trap of labeling "all architects" as Roarkian ego-driven artistes who don't care about the community. We all know this is BS. The vast, vast majority of architects - even some of the starchitects - are listening to their client's desires. When the client is a developer, money is going to mean more; when the client is a museum, culture is going to mean more.
"My main issue with that article is that it falls into the TOTALLY common trap of labeling "all architects" as Roarkian ego-driven artistes who don't care about the community. We all know this is BS. "
I agree that criticism is BS, but I disagree that this is what's being said in the article. One always get's in trouble with generalizations, but how does one then compile patterns and address trends? Surely we can talk about larger phenomena and still allow for the exceptions.
The Roarkian ego-driven architect *is* the starchitect critique, so on some level it sounds like your arguing with yourself, especially when you talk about how schools tend to teach to this model, not on the ego side, but from our responsibiliby to our clients and our communities. That kind of Roarkian egomania is a persnal issue completely divorced from aesthetics.
Back to my aesthetic criticism of schools though and how they are too ideological for the world as it exists in reality. If we are fine with friends desigining traditional work in Atlanta, why not allow some of this to be taught in schools? Afterall, all the early modernits recieved traditional educations and that didn't seem to hold them back. Infact, one might surmise that this foundational eucation is what gave their work the kind of lasting power that those who followed seemed to lack. Now we are far removed from the sociological and technological imperatives that drove them, but their ideological residue is still apparent in the angry denunciations of anyone who would profess an admiration for styles other than modernist. Surely we can do better than that.
The ad hominem attack on the authors of the article is really amusing. A marketing piece, really? I certainly see nothing in that article that indicates a marketing approach, except that the author's firm is mentioned in the byline, which is a common publishing convention. However I realize that attacking the messenger is standard procedure, when the message makes people uncomfortable.
This isn't really about style. This is about a profession that generally values personal, unique artistic expression above thoughtful engaging of the tastes of the public. The avant-garde are hurtling head-long towards a wall of terminal weirdness in architecture, and further away from a broad consensus with society. The universities encourage it, and the press, the journals, and the e-media provide a cozy echo chamber of self-congratulation, where dissenting voices are quickly quelled, and if the public's taste is considered at all, it is looked upon with derision and condescension.
Modernism can create beautiful things, and can engage the public's imagination and earn their admiration again, but there is much work to be done. A big attitude adjustment is in order, and articles like this are a wake-up call. Ignore it at your own peril.
Flame on, flamers!
Except , Thayer, that people hire Zaha *because* they want a Zaha building. They hire Gehry *because* they want a Gehry building. They don't hire a starchitect then try to tell them what to do. We've discussed this over and over. The starchitects *are* listening to their clients and delivering what makes their clients happy.
I don't think it's quite that simple Donna. Starchitects are brought in for marketing, fundraising, PR, stroking client egos, etc. Movie studios don't hire Michael Bay because of the quality of his films, or Schwartzenegger for his acting.
This isn't really about style. This is about a profession that generally values personal, unique artistic expression above thoughtful engaging of the tastes of the public.
It's not anout style but it is about unique artistic expression and taste? LOL
I agree with you about the starchitects and why they are hired. You're right. I don't even have a problem with the fact that they exist as celebrity is part of our culture. But I go back to our point of commonality...
"I think you and I agree that many architecture schools today are mistakenly teaching innocent students to be starchitects, but we disagree on how to improve that situation."
Putting the aesthetics aside, this aspiration to be a starchitect when most of us will never be is a huge problem when manifested in students aping the disregard for program and context that most starchitects have. Teaching to the top rather than the middle is where school disserves society. Architects can't solve the economic issues that lead to big box stores surrounded by parking lots or why many mixed main streets are still outlawed by outdated codes. But when asked to design them, we should be able to do better than stamp on a styrophome cornice if the developer insists on a 'homey' look. How can we educate them on doing it better if schools essentially still outlaw the study of these traditional styles? Granted, the main reason they don't teach them is becasue they are unable to. Schools are filled with teachers who have never understood the principles of older buildings that make loved by so many, and exibit the same hostility towards them as many commentators here. And that's the problem. Not that people hire a Gehry or Zaha, but becasue the other 99.99% of commisions have nothing in common with the large cultural institutions these architects specialize in.
BTW, I agree that Critical Regionalism is a subset of modernism, now that I looked it up.
"Critical regionalism is an approach to architecture that strives to counter the placelessness and lack of identity of the International Style (architecture), but also rejects the whimsical individualism and ornamentation of Postmodern architecture."
This way of thinking that rejects ornamentation as a vehicle through which to 'counter placenessess and identity' is exactly the kind of arbitrary self censorship that modernism was about. Not recognizing that selectin a shade of glass panel or the prifile of a mullion as ornamentation is exactly the kind of intellectual gymnastics that leads to the cynicism so often found on this site. Let people ornament with out pre-judgine what ornaments are permisible and from what era. We all do it.
How can we educate them on doing it better if schools essentially still outlaw the study of these traditional styles?
real-world experience can't be replaced. studying 'traditional styles' isn't going to change the fypon industry. architecture education, or the lack thereof, is not what created the fypon industry. the problem isn't that the architect doesn't know how to specify more durable materials.
when your client says 'let's glue on a styrofoam cornice on this concrete box,' one might jump and say, 'no, it has to be cast stone like our ancestors used.' but perhaps another way to approach this is to say 'let's design a concrete box that doesn't need tacky ornament to be glued on.'
curtkram,
Why not get educated in a wide range of styles *and* pragmatic principles when your actually paying for it, why should you rely on yourself? Although I recommend doing that all the time regardless of the quality of your education. Plus, if you think studying traditional styles is just applying ornament, you have a lot of self education to do, esspecially if you can't afford to'pass' on some of those other jobs out there. There's composition, rythem, balance, ciaro/schorro, for ground and background, etc. to say nothing of the interplay between a parti and the massing. In our age of instant gratification where you get an app for anything, it takes years of study and training one's eye to do good proportions.
The kit of parts in the 19th century, whether they be cast iron fronts for warehouses or a kit of parts Sears house was vastly superior to Fypon, not just becasue the materials where better, but becasue the draftsmen who did them where drawing from a base of knowledge not discredited by institutions of higher educatioin. Plus, it's disengenuous to dump styraphome on the lap of traditionalists when theres are a ton of 'modernist' styled schlock build out of the same styraphome. The industry dosen't discriminate who they sell to. The only reason, besided retorical ones, that it/you constantly peg it on traditionalism is it's hard to see much actual design in abstract minimalism. It's like asking to quote a mute person. That's why so many money shots of expensive modernism is based on the pure material, because the natural irregularity is all the minds eye has to eat! Not exactly a feast.
Plus, clients know to say "let's glue on a styrofoam cornice", they tend to say 'I want it to look good' by which they mean 'give it some character', any character, but with a budget that dosen't allow for much, how is your lack of training supposed to give you the tools to handle the job? Plus, some of our ansestors used plaster of Paris ornaments (Ever been to London?). Chincing on expense has deep historic roots. It's how you handle it.
So when you tell the client, who only has money for the concrete box and some applied decorations, that he shouldn't use tacky ornaments, you're essentially passing on the job, unless you can use your starchitect training to bullshit him into thinking that others will buy the genius of your bland concrete box. By the looks of our landscape though, those folks are few and far between. Or, they pick a garish glass colour curtain wall or opt for the 'textured' cmu block. In which case, people are still going to driveby more commercial dross.
Thanks for nothing.
i'm sorry your education failed you, but i think you need to understand that in higher education you have to put in an effort to learn how to learn on your own. they can't spoon-feed you shit to regurgitate the way you learn multiplication tables as a kid. if all you do is fight your professors because for whatever reason you don't like them or their 'style,' you're not going to be able to get a good education. you can't fix stubborn students that refuse to learn new things. at a college level course, it's not the school's job to fix that. the student has to want to learn, and clearly you don't.
so, when you say
we should be able to do better than stamp on a styrophome cornice if the developer insists on a 'homey' look
you're right, we don't need to stamp on a styrofoam cornice if that's not what our client is asking for. we don't have to put a plaster corince on either. we don't need to do whatever it is you think 'traditional' means at all. instead, we can simply listen to our clients and provide them an architectural design that suits their needs.
-----
So when you tell the client, who only has money for the concrete box and some applied decorations, that he shouldn't use tacky ornaments, you're essentially passing on the job, unless you can use your starchitect training to bullshit him into thinking that others will buy the genius of your bland concrete box.
what do you actually do for a living where this makes sense to you?
How can we educate them on doing it better if schools essentially still outlaw the study of these traditional styles?
I'm assuming you don't mean style as appliqué but style as evolved from centuries of design refinement in response to local climate and available materials.
Yikes, another media spawned fight! This article reflects my general opinion that the media has become too divisive and over-simplifies complex political issues. In every issue, there is an attempt to caricature and create a conflict where it's police vs. society, dems vs. republicans, or here, architects vs. the public. The straw man of the ego-driven, (white, male) architect who doesn't care about the public is as oversimplified as anything. There are people who like traditional architecture and those that like modern (some like both), and they can't be so easily identified, grouped, or judged--sometimes people change in relation to what they experience.
I like both traditional and modern, but i think that opinion has a lot to do with the type of buildings you live in, work on, or work in-and the particular qualities of that building. It's personal identity mixed with he particular thing at hand. If you live in a big city, you don't go around telling some Jamaican dude that his clothes look funny or the old guy in a business suit that he looks too traditional. It's the sign of an ignorant person to be closed-minded about anything--Buildings are a lot like people--some are old, some new, some pretty, some ugly, some racist, some traditional, some modern. Some are models and stars, and some are regular people with extraordinary stories, but they all sort of coexist together. The media doesn't reflect this relation--its seeks to divide, oversimplify, praise the stars, then critique everyone for not being more like/being too much like the stars. My own work concerns this very issue--rethinking media to be more reflective of architecture reality, which is there are very simple solutions too.
As for schooling, I don't mind that students are taught the newest ideas of what design can be, how far it can go, before they take that knowledge to the real world and try to figure it out for themselves. Why be closed minded about anything? I remember my arch school (very heavy on critical regionalism) giving us the full spectrum of history and modern architecture, as all related by phenomenology and context. We are both burdened by the weight of history but also live in the context of our modern time. A lot of these arguments in the media are the result of too much branding in society--it's a basic philosophical debate from Plato about universals vs. particulars... do you believe in the reality of the particular building or do you believe in styles connecting them? Of course both are true, but architecture at heart is about the particular place and reality, whereas media (and its medium of graphic design) is a powerful form of focused systemizing and categorizing that is very outdated.
I spent first few years of my internship as a young draftsman working on a restoration of a beaux arts villa that was built on Sunset Blvd in 20's by a real beaux art educated architect. It was acquired by a very well known arts patrons in Los Angeles and in the nation so money was not an object. Since I was the only person in the little top decorator "studio" I ended up doing all the architectural drawings and developing restoration designs for the building. It was nicely balanced between forensic work and some some spatial improvements to the villa. I learned the notational aspects of ornament, the relationship and connecting floors via walls to ceilings in compositional ways in a classical designs, what ornament does to interior spaces, how to establish ceiling heights based on furniture collection, how to place art in a room and properly light them (there were some Chagalls, Matisses and Picassos you name it), how to design a proper fire place, etc., etc.
Anybody who relates to that type of architecture to fypons is not knowing what is coming out from their mouth. Same way they relate Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown to postmodernism.
Please don't cheapen spectrum of the architecture just because you know very little about it. And all you see is styrofoam moldings.
There are tons of smaller buildings and houses spread through Los Angeles that were build with a great care and knowledge of classical and traditional and colonial European and American architecture with its many varieties. Any architect, whether is a starchitect (god knows we have many residing in LA) or just an unknown good practitioner will attest to you they are great buildings we can learn from and many before us did.
Btw, my reading of this thread is very spotty (fast reading) and I am only responding to a certain nuance here.
I saw some of EKE 's early modern work online while back when we were fighting on building on the hill s and sands of Malibu Beach. And he can give you some real lessons on understanding modernism. (I hope I am not mixing him up by someone else, if I do nevermind.)
Thanks, Orhan. I do remember that discussion!
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.