doesn't it bother anyone 'ethically' that you as a jury member can shortlist your 'boss' at the school, director of architecture? and please dont be nieve to think that colleagues within an institution can separate themselves --
when will the profession learn to abide by the UIA guidelines for competitions.
I dont know, but I think the jury was pretty diverse with members from outside the profession (3) and representatives from Cornell, Princeton, UCLA, and yes, Harvard ... I dont think there was any way that one jury member could swing all 7 of these strong-minded individuals.
Its not like any of the stage I participants did the comeptition brief. *ahem.
I think the process was legitimate.
having been a juror, you can swing it, particularly with the 'non-professionals'. thats easy pick'ns if its your intent. its a numbers game. you give them 1- you have 3 others to select.
not to suggest speicifically rigging in this case, but it is establishing ethical seperation of those who have a known and established professional relationship outside the competition; they dont let 'employees of the state of new jersy' 99% of which have no connection to the competition or jury participates [lets say for example a recent qualified grad from UPenn who just happens to work for the state GSA] and stipulated that 'No partner, associate, or employer/employee of a Jury member may participate in Stage I or Stage II' yet we are led to believe a department chair of a school of architecture is not an 'associate' of a jury member who is a full time faculty member? if cohen himself sees no ethical conflict in his participating, i am suggesting that laise faire attitude to ethics goes beyond the blind jury deliberations. its a doggie dog world, and we all are competitive and do use 'what ever it takes' to win.
if the aia wasnt so weak and protective of its posititions it has taken, it would force lehner who calls him self a FAIA to utilized the UIA guidelines that have been sanctioned by the AIA for US International competitions. this would not be allowed under those rules.
certainaly more balance in jury can take place is professional jury member are include others beyond the walls of academic institutions. it is lerhner opinion that no 'creativity exist' with in the non-discourse practice that has the ability to select critical competitions entries.
similar situation is occuring in the current feidad.org competition. does anyone think that decoi won't win with the goulthorpe working at MIT and the chair of the jury is head of the Media Lab at MIT. wake up people competitions like elections aren't fair. never have been and never will be. but its still the best way for unkown firms to get out there and smile when they finish second with a better project.
Dec 28, 04 11:35 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.
5 Comments
doesn't it bother anyone 'ethically' that you as a jury member can shortlist your 'boss' at the school, director of architecture? and please dont be nieve to think that colleagues within an institution can separate themselves --
when will the profession learn to abide by the UIA guidelines for competitions.
I dont know, but I think the jury was pretty diverse with members from outside the profession (3) and representatives from Cornell, Princeton, UCLA, and yes, Harvard ... I dont think there was any way that one jury member could swing all 7 of these strong-minded individuals.
Its not like any of the stage I participants did the comeptition brief. *ahem.
I think the process was legitimate.
having been a juror, you can swing it, particularly with the 'non-professionals'. thats easy pick'ns if its your intent. its a numbers game. you give them 1- you have 3 others to select.
not to suggest speicifically rigging in this case, but it is establishing ethical seperation of those who have a known and established professional relationship outside the competition; they dont let 'employees of the state of new jersy' 99% of which have no connection to the competition or jury participates [lets say for example a recent qualified grad from UPenn who just happens to work for the state GSA] and stipulated that 'No partner, associate, or employer/employee of a Jury member may participate in Stage I or Stage II' yet we are led to believe a department chair of a school of architecture is not an 'associate' of a jury member who is a full time faculty member? if cohen himself sees no ethical conflict in his participating, i am suggesting that laise faire attitude to ethics goes beyond the blind jury deliberations. its a doggie dog world, and we all are competitive and do use 'what ever it takes' to win.
if the aia wasnt so weak and protective of its posititions it has taken, it would force lehner who calls him self a FAIA to utilized the UIA guidelines that have been sanctioned by the AIA for US International competitions. this would not be allowed under those rules.
certainaly more balance in jury can take place is professional jury member are include others beyond the walls of academic institutions. it is lerhner opinion that no 'creativity exist' with in the non-discourse practice that has the ability to select critical competitions entries.
just fyi:
there were 92 submissions ...
similar situation is occuring in the current feidad.org competition. does anyone think that decoi won't win with the goulthorpe working at MIT and the chair of the jury is head of the Media Lab at MIT. wake up people competitions like elections aren't fair. never have been and never will be. but its still the best way for unkown firms to get out there and smile when they finish second with a better project.
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.