Earlier today, Patrik Schumacher of Zaha Hadid Architects posted a nearly 1,400 word polemic on Facebook denouncing contemporary architecture criticism and defending the “star-system” that has been instrumental in his firm’s success in the last few decades. Instead of “seeing conspicuity and success merely as a red cloth and occasion to knock down icons (and to teach the virtues of the ordinary, obscure and underappreciated),” Schumacher suggests that the role of the architecture critic should be to explicate and defend the work and status of successful architects to an ignorant public.
Schumacher sets out some “heuristic principles” that he hopes could guide his proposed role for the architecture critic. He states that so-called “iconic architecture” is the invention of critics rather than “the architects’ discourse,” which “serves the purpose of filling the explanatory gap that inevitably opens up because the methodology and motivation behind the unusual appearance of a radically innovative design cannot be fully explained to the general public.” Basically, Schumacher says that the visual appearance of the work of his firm (and, presumably, unstated others) emerges from complex relations to site and program. That the result appears as “iconic” to the public is merely a symptom of more “radical architectural innovation” that the general public simply cannot understand. Working under his often-stated assumption that his methodology will define the future of architecture, Schumacher says that the iconic status of their buildings is an inevitability until “our methodology and style becomes more widespread.” And it helps with the clients, he adds.
In a similar manner, Schumacher defends the “star-system,” while also dismissing it as an invention of the critic. His basic sentiment here is that “starchitects,” as they are commonly-called, achieve that status through “a long, competitive process of peer selection.” The system helps prevent the usurpation of status from “falling prey to the superficial, short-lived spectacles of the charlatan epigones.” (Woah!) Like a commercial brand, Schumacher argues that a starchitect must still be able to deliver quality work in order to maintain their legitimacy. And like brands, they help condense complexity into legible form for the, once again, assumedly ignorant masses.
Schumacher concludes by condescendly relegating the role of the critic. He states, “The critics only distil [sic] what the expert discourse among architects and architectural theorists has already selected and confirmed through a proliferating influence within the discipline.” Then, moving from vinegar to honey, Schumacher suggests “the foregrounding of the underlying innovative possibilities and the (if sometimes only partial) rationality of the stars’ oeuvre could be attempted as a worthy task for the critics’ informed intelligence and eloquence.”
Schumacher makes some legitimate points in his Facebook rant. Certainly, the idea of the starchitect emerges, in part, from the reduction of complex discourses by critics for a larger audience. But his general elitism is hard to stomach, as is his continued insistence on the perpetuation of a hermeneutic architectural field. Architecture criticism and “the architects’ discourse” have never been, and shouldn’t be, considered distinctly separate. Some of the most fruitful work of the last few decades, it seems, has come out of alliances between critics and architects. And I’m wary, generally, of any architect who tries to preempt critique (of their own work) by relegating the work of criticism to that of explanation. Criticism is not mere explanation of “complex innovations,” (which oftentimes only appear that innovative to their author), but a necessary mode of, yes, translation, but also of critique as critique. Moreover, it seems to me that if “the general public” can’t understand a work of architecture, than perhaps its merits aren’t so great after all. Architecture should not exist only for the propagation of its own discourse. Architecture constructs and instructs lived experience by spacing individuals and objects in relation to one another. Architecture should first and foremost be oriented around this fundamental act, not around the hermeneutics of its own obfuscated rhetoric.
I could go on – there’s a lot to be said about the way Schumacher seems to maintain rather outdated and elitist aspects of architecture, particularly its self-isolating tendencies. Schumacher assumes that criticism of “starchitecture” emerges primarily from jealousy and superficial readings, in the process affirming probably the most salient critique of it: namely, that the current socioeconomic system in which the most visible architectures exist today perpetuates outmoded distinctions between high and low architect/-ures and isolates architecture from necessary interactions with the public and political sphere. I actually agree that critics should spend less time trying to bring down so-called "starchitects," and more time on the more pressing realities facing the field, such as housing shortages, climate change, economic instability, militarism, etc (all of which continue, at great cost, to be largely relegated to the outside of the "architects' discourse.")
Oh, and, as a note, by "charlatan epigones," he probably means you.
165 Comments
playing devils advocate here Miles - what if your main guiding principle in life is to succeed at all costs in architecture, with starchitect being your definition of success? would you respect this person for sticking to their principles, which presumes constant compromise of other principles, or would you decide their main principle is just wrong?
isn't getting the label of 'starchitect' more about getting your name in magazines or in a book, rather than actually doing something with a building? that's not what your asking of course, and may not be an important part of the question, but i'm not sure 'succeeding at architecture' and becoming a starchitect are related.
if your goal is to sacrifice principle to become a starchitect, hire a publicist and a marketing team, not an architect.
Having not read everything, I’m taking the risk of this being irrelevant, but, I believe that many architects design for “the critics”, and worry more about what other architects will think about it than they do worry about what the client/community it serves thinks of it, kind of like the way people want their homes designed based on what their friends might think…..both make for poor outcomes.
Chris, succeed at all costs is not an ethical principle, at least according to my ethics.
There is a great deal of research showing that disproportionate financial success leads to unethical changes in behavior.
Carrera, if the critics are other starchitects, yes. It's a competition of oneupmanship.
Miles, the problem is that the “award” system is architect on architect….know that “The People’s Choice Awards” are utter bullshit, but something’s missing the point….of course if we went to that system Walmart would win every year – conundrum.
the problem is that the “award” system is architect on architect
don't you have some sort of local chamber of commerce or similar organization that hands out awards? that would be architect on business people award.
i think my office got an award from a sub-contractor association of some sort once
you could just go to a trophy shop and buy your award
the problem is, you're competing for the wrong awards. or, the problem is when architects think competing for awards is somehow important.
Curt, starting out I used to think that “awards” were bullshit, but when we started winning some, better work followed, then the more we won the more work. It was still bullshit to me (privately), I wouldn’t even go up to get the award, I’d send up the PM, or the owner….awards are a funny kind of reality.
Said before that what’s needed is to bring back the old AIA “Orchids & Onions” awards….educating the public on the difference between good & bad….chastising the bad….but of course no one had the balls to do it, but it would help if the critics would stop talking to us about it and work to educate the public about – “This is architecture, and this isn’t”.
The only real award system here is $.
carrera, i get that awards can be used for marketing, but think about who your clients are. do they really care what other architects think? if you design slaughterhouses, it would be better to get an award from a slaughterhouse organization than the aia, because then you can market to other slaughterhouses that you're good at designing slaughterhouses, right?
so go to a trophy shop and buy a few awards. pay a few magazines to run a story about your firm. it's not the recognition you need, it's the line on a resume to show other people that someone gives a shit about you, even though they don't, right? the point of what i was saying is that 'architect on architect' is only how the aia award system works. there are many other avenues to get awards if that's something you're interested in.
patrik schumacher has more facebook friends than i do. that clearly is an indicator that he is more successful.
Curt, I said “bullshit”, but to my amazement that’s how it works, not sure I understand why, it just did.
Don’t want to enflame this, but when you get those kinds of awards, it brings better work, and better work makes for better work, spirals.
ethics - moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.................................. virtue - behavior showing high moral standards..........................i am sure these differ greatly between practicing architects and critcs.
i found my Punt Pass Kick trophy from 25 years ago, its kind of funny to have on display on a book shelf.......Carrera you take any awards home or left them at the office? (not on facebook, never was, i win)
Chris, I’M NOT being cocky, just answering your question – we had so many we kept them in a closet, after 9/11 I decided we needed to move, and in the new office we decided to display them – 30’ feet up in the skylight cavities :) When we sold the firm we just left them there and left…should have at least photographed them, just to remember.
don't ever worry about me Carrera, I know you are answering the question ..........that would of been a nice photo - architects trophys in the skylights.
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.