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
I always try to steer my clients towards responsibility, and I've walked away from some gluttonous pigs. But I'm nobody.
Miles, hopefully Mr. Schumacher will consider your suggestions.
This guy is a maestro provocateur. He manages to make everyone drop their PC pants in a New York minute, and doesn’t mind pissing off anyone by stating the obvious. When was the last time that a starchitect scholar had the gumption to speak his mind? But wait, he also has a treatise to blow your mind, if you’re literate enough to read it.
^delusional
This guy is a maestro provocateur. He manages to make everyone drop their PC pants in a New York minute, and doesn’t mind pissing off anyone by stating the obvious.
Thank you for the nice compliment.
housing shortages, climate change, economic instability, militarism ??? as working agendas for architects ??? ... are we meant to be princes on white horses with magic wands ??? ... even housing shortages are NOT our concern ... because we can do NOTHING about such shortages, or about any shortages ...
geesh - we are partners in helping to solve these issues - some people have even managed to make a business out of focusing on specific areas. It's worth thinking about these things because sometimes great design and real solutions (and a business) can come out of it. And it's not just in architecture, but in the design world at large. Sure, some of these things end up being specious (especially student work), but seriously - who the fuck are you to go around dictating what other architects choose to focus on if they can make money doing it? Just because this is not what YOU are doing doesn't mean it isn't a viable and valuable part of the profession. You want to do art - do art - but don't go around shitting on what everyone else does. It just makes you sound really insecure.
Look - you've already built up your brand - and trying to bully the media to continue with praise just so you don't actually have to adapt to cultural changes or further innovate is complete bullshit. Yeah, critics, keep the gravy-train flowing.
Actually, i think he is quite right about the crits.....shoot the messengers they are idiots (media needs to take some courses on architecture first and then learn to translate)
Quondam, what is your sureness of anything based on? My sureness is based on the same thing. Or not. But let's stop derailing this.
Great post, toasteroven. As I've said over and over lately, there is room for all kinds of practice in our discipline.
This guy is a maestro provocateur. He manages to make everyone drop their PC pants in a New York minute, and doesn’t mind pissing off anyone by stating the obvious.
no - he's trying to preserve ZHA's (and his?) brand by telling the critics to give them free advertising. He's probably pissed off that clients (and consumers of academia) are increasingly asking for green and/or socially aware stuff - because that's not what ZHA does. The pendulum will swing back to high-style eventually at some point... but by then we'll have a new crop of starchitects. It's pretty risky playing the singular style game because even if you end up being "important" in the long term people eventually move on to other things. ZHA is going to have to adapt in some way like everyone else - but yelling at everyone because the world is changing faster than you can keep up isn't a good tactic.
crits have always been a part of the art/design world. they are productive in school...why should they stop in practice? I understand that architects lack the ability to solve all of the worlds problems, but thats not what this is about...The argument is not that starchitecture fails to solve the worlds problems, but rather that is furthers them by glorifying the might of the elitists that are at the root of many of these problems. Its part of the problem. Its the shiny box that entices one to buy the genetically mofified happy meal. If you do work that acts as PR and even propaganda for the elitist you should expect babklash from the "peasants". Its the reality of the post 2008 world...the zeigeist IS to resist the forces of corporatism. the only "avante garde" thing one can do in this era is to resist and redirect the forces of elitism so I fo not consider most starchitecture as "avante garde." Patrick frames his argument with the assumption that he is "forward" and the rest of us are "behind" but in reality his work is more of the same pre 2008 bullshit imo...sure its reshaped, repackaged, but a titanium clad prison with curves is still a prison...
i don't understand how the 'architect as architect' argument is supposed to work;
"we architects as architects can do NOTHING about THESE things"
as architects, we're also human beings, members of our communities, mothers, husbands, nephews, daughters, dog lovers, etc. it's convenient for your argument to separate out the aspect of 'architect' but it's a bit disingenuous because it doesn't provide a view of the true capacity your operating in.
to make this a more concrete example, as an architect if you're hired to design a condo tower, the program is probably defined pretty strictly, and you can't really tell your client to add a couple floors of subsidized housing. you might, as an architect, have a small voice in a decision like that, but the developer and financier and leasing agents and those other members of the team are probably going to have a bigger say. so in that case, you probably can't do much
however, you're use of 'architect as architect' seems to be used more to alleviate yourself from taking a moral position, or even having morals for that matter. who you are as an architect is the same thing as who you are as a person, and it's your character that defines you both as a person and as an architect.
when you design a condo for a client you may not be in a position, as an architect, to solve public housing problems. however, when you give an interview, or write a book, or post something to facebook, that reflects who you are as a person rather than who you are simply as an architect. if the media has given you a bully pulpit, then you aren't stuck to the confines of your client's program, but rather you have a voice that reflects your character as a person. to say climate change or housing or whatever else isn't your concern because your an architect is a cheap cop-out. if you can't offer a solution because you don't understand the problem, then that's fine, but to say it isn't your concern because of your profession is just wrong. it's everyone's concern, regardless of their profession.
there's nothing wrong with the media or a given prize committee taking under consideration what impact you projects have had on their communities or to consider your character. who you are as an architect is a reflection of who you are as a person, and it would make much more sense for the media to give attention to good people who want to help make the world a better place rather than arbitrary forms.
I read Schumacher text much differently.....in short there is a process to every design project and the problem is the critics only see the final result or marketing bits and only read it their way and therefore will make stupid translations of design like "it looks like a dragon" to the public to shoot down whatever process the architect wad going thru to arrive at their solution. He also notes the problem with the starchitecture but is that talent often gets passed over for branding sake. So if critics actually knew what was involved they could help those who don't know find new young talent, but since the critics are pretty much clueless and have their own agendas it's just a stupid pissing match over opinions. A journalist's opinion is far less important than a practitioner, since journalist just watch and write....
The argument is not that starchitecture fails to solve the worlds problems, but rather that is furthers them by glorifying the might of the elitists that are at the root of many of these problems.
+++ jla-x
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Another priceless quote from the FB comments:
Patrik Schumacher James, i underestmated you ... my relative success as architect (e.g. compared with ... you for instance) might give you cause for reflection here. ...
April 10 at 3:55p
outside of the neoliberalist slant that tends to be associated w/ patrik schumacher, i agree with his thoughts on architecture in the press.
journalism in general is too focused on the fox news or click-bait sort of sensationalism. the content is gone. that's a bad thing.
Exactly curtkram. The media doesn't even know what content is anymore.
I think the main point here is media not architects. I've heard critics say flat out a starchitect hit piece is the only way to get attention now. Nobody reads. Did you actually read this post in its entirety?
Either way, there is a lot of holier than thou sentiment here. I appreciate How Bans work can go both high and low end, but we just don't invest in architecture as a society anymore. Why couldn't Zaha's techniques craft and style be applied to low income housing? Society doesn't feel the need to invest in these projects so here we are. Perhaps we need to look at why the 30s-60s generation seemed to have integrity in what they built and said.
Media is to journalism what starchitecture is to architecture: it's all about sales. With media it's advertising, with starchitecture it's self-promotion.
Which only makes Schumacher's rant all the more disingenuous. He sounds like Paris Hilton whining about the media. In a funny way it sort of proves his point about being powerless.
Poor Patrik, things must be tough on fantasy island.
there was a time when integrity was a part of journalism.
Donna, that's right, blame me for your inability to back up your claims.
No, I'm blaming you for your inability to back up your claims.
Actually read a lot and read all of this. I can't believe people don't read. If anything they read what interests them and everything else they gloss over. With that said why do click - bait to get readers? Once they read what the critic provides them, I wager they won't come back. Not sure if a non architect reader knows to be disappointed in the critic or the starchitect? Maybe the non architect just shrugs it off and wonders why and moves on and gets back into what they like: sports, stocks, Martha Stewart or HGTV? Maybe they guess the debates between the media and the profession is some long standing interaction that only insiders understand and if that's the case they start to write us all off? Why can't we and the critics communicate this to the rest of the population? Politics is no answer by any means. Simple translations would so just fine. Maybe if critics wrote like BIG does diagrams we might have a more active public?
I'm not interested in playing your diary games, Quondam.
I have to agree with Schumacher, at least to a limited extent.
The top 5% of designers are (historically) those that become publicly known, because theirs are the buildings that celebrate technology and innovation, that positively impact public space, that redefine how the public sees architecture. Think Daniel Burnham, Richardson, FLW, Mies, Bertrand Goldberg, etc... These are the buildings that stick around and avoid demolition, and it happens at multiple scales - there are internationally, nationally, and regionally known "stars" in architecture, and always have been. The problem with this is that digital tools (the same one's Schumacher champions so) have enabled the balance of architects to make drastically better buildings in the past 25 years... I am genuinely shocked at how good the banal, the normal, has become in architecture, but that doesn't mean every one of these small firms deserves to be elevated to "star" status, nor doesn't mean there isn't a whole lot of shit still being built, and often it is not the architect's fault - that belongs to the developer, city, owner, etc...
I absolutely think arch. criticism could do a better job of taking on these forces in addition to the banal in architecture... if you read Sorkin's original criticism of say, the AT&T building, he takes on not only Phillip Johnson, but the cultural conditions and board decisions that must have been made to allow such a monstrosity to be built. Where have all the Michael Sorkin's gone?
Miles, do you refuse many commissions? I don't have my own practice, so I can't really comment, but I would find it difficult to do so with a wife and kids to provide for and no other source of income.
Architects absolutely have to play a role in the conversation, but it is one that is much larger than what we can take on. As Mr. Schumacher suggests, a retreat from specialization and globalization would severely damage productivity.... but I am not sure we can continue on with business as usual. We are talking about no less than the confrontation of capitalism and hierarchical authoritarianism with a quasi-socialist partnership-type society, something that has been brewing since the Renaissance.
Palladio was such a douche!
digital tools (the same one's Schumacher champions so) have enabled the balance of architects to make drastically better buildings in the past 25 years
What makes them drastically better? 98% of everything is shit. One of the things computers do is make it easier to produce.
a retreat from specialization and globalization would severely damage productivity
Where, in China? Wake up - globalization is simply a tool to make the rich richer and everyone else a slave. Sustainable communities are where it's at, and they are exactly what globalization is trying to destroy so they can squeeze every last bloody penny out of everything.
Schumacher is selling his global brand to power. He's powerless to change anything because real people and their concerns don't exist for him. He's living in a bubble - look at Hadid's client list. That's who he is sucking up to, trying to make his brand appear better than Rem's, or Gehry's, etc.
I think political architecture is a bad trend on downward spiral, at least the way it has been framed in the last decade or so. It's a cute idea but one that has fed the media monkeys to much fodder to just trash a very hard profession. I don't need the extra headache it's political enough in its own workings. I don't need media monkeys doing click bait to further distract everyone. This has been the most sensible Schumacher has been in a while
mies, isn't that the same with gothic churches and big french palaces and the like? same shit, different day.
I agree with a lot of what Schumacher says - in *this* FB post - too.
It's becoming clear that your claim that I made claims that I can't back up is really a claim of yours that you cannot back up. I'm yanking your chain, Quondam, and a sentence like this makes it so worthwhile.
Do you agree with his comments too?
The rejection of neo-liberalism is the rejection of our times and of the societal conditions underlying the gains in innovative, entrepreneurial dynamism, productivity and prosperity that were achieved. The rejection and hatred of elites entails a similar practical contradiction, it is effectively the rejection of high performers, of those who do most for us. … Its like all those people hating google because it is a “powerful corporation” while relying 100 times per day on their free service.
Gains at what cost? The problems we face today largely stem from neoliberalism. I find it insulting that Schumacher, the self-styled avant-garde, is simply just a toady for the status quo, and that he sees criticism of his work as pissing on his superior 'high-performer' benevolence. The Google metaphor is particularly good for neoliberalism - spying on users for both commerce and the state, insidious advertising that tracks your every virtual move and incessantly targets you individually with personalized advertising, etc.
the economic superiority of parametricism is latent but not yet manifest ... the more the new methodologies and the attendant investments in computationally empowered fabrication and construction are generalized, the more parametricism's economic superiority will become evident via savings in space, material and energy translating into money
Forgetting for a moment that Hadid's rep is for hugely expensive buildings ... money, the ultimate measure of all things, neoliberalism in a nutshell.
I guess Patrik Schumacher is John Galt.
Wow, a brand that is regurgitated googie and a philosophy that is regurgitated Ann Rand. Planet Schumacher seems fairly arid and lifeless from any distance. Maybe he should not have avoided the humanities.
The only thing extraordinary seems to be his temerity if the belief of his own greatness. Maybe he should stop reading his own press.
I want to point out that Nicholas Korody's write-up here is very good, as always. As I said previously, there is just so much to talk about here!
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.
Yes, this is one of the claims of parametricism, right? But then Schumacher says that if the form derived from the parametric process ends up looking like, say, a dragon, ZHA changes it. They don't want it to look too iconic, so they make it not iconic, But isn't that then subverting everything that the parametric process has told you to do; isn't that then becoming an icon-maker by making it specifically anti-iconic?
Donna, Isn't that the definition of site specific design? If they did what they said their buildings would look different from each other which they don't. Which is fine. They have a brand, an image that they have.
I am not trying to derail into a discussion of art and architecture so just within the specific context of my argument: I believe that architecture is a type of building that is an art. The problem I have with Zaha is that it is form without content and therefore not art.
The other problem I have is that Schumacher seems to intentionally obfuscate the obvious to give their work more substance than it does and to make outlandish statements to manufacture controversy.
I believe that there is room for all types of design in architecture so I guess there is room for work that at least to me is the very definition of bullshit.
To what extent does parametricism suplant the role of the architect in the first place? Zaha's best work, like in Baku and Gangzhou don't seem completely parametric, but allow for shaping by hand and eye. I'm not sure that a complete parametric devotee can argue for the role of the architect?
I'd like to give PS the benefit of the doubt but his bullshit is so utterly transparent and contradictory to itself that it's impossible.
That's exactly the question, Lightperson. Zaha's Baku project is beautiful, so sensual and balanced, and I can't believe that there wasn't a human eye (inside a human body) adjusting those forms to make them appealing.
fineprint, how does it work when someone says 'that looks like a dragon?' somehow you have to draw the line between when something looks like a dragon, and apple, or a building. of course we all know what a dragon looks like based on the shared pictures we've seen and stories we've read, so i'm not asking where you get the notion of dragon, but where your imagination makes the leap from a potential building rendering to 'that's a dragon.'
the point is, you're using your imagination, and patrik schumacher said this in the facebook link provided at the start of this post.:
The general public is often trying to make sense of these strange, abstract spatial creations by way of giving them a figural reading, as if these designs were metaphors for dragons, snakes or flames etc. We are always trying hard to pre-empt such figurative reading by changing the design as soon as such allusions suggest themselves.
it seems to me that donna's point is that schumacher is relying on his imagination at this point, or the imagination of the person saying the project looks like a dragon.
to take that a step further, schumacher is relying on a person's imagination to define the form of his building rather than relying on something else, such as relying strictly on an equation or algorithm, such as with parametrics.
the following methodology is what what schumacher says is practiced by ZHA in the same facebook link as the previous
For instance, it is often our ambition to adapt the shape of our buildings to the complex site conditions they are meant to address. Further, we are often dealing with complex programmatic arrangements that might call for an internal intensity of relations. Our methodology involves the use of distortions, curvature and gradients, respectively in order to adapt to irregular sites, maintain legibility in the face of complex interrelations, and to articulate connections and transitions.
so, my guess at the direct quote your looking for is where his forms come from. they come from the site conditions and complex interrelations and such, but after the form is defined by those complex interactions, it's looked at with someone's imagination to decide if they like it, and if not, they try again.
thus, it's not really formulaic. it may start as formulaic, but it ends up just being someone's arbitrary opinion, the same as any second year studio project.
i hope that helps.
Clarifying the role of architect as humanizer of technology (re. Parametricism) is fundamental to defending the role of the architect (and perhaps starchitect). If you say parametrics are just creating parameters where computers can do magic it just isn't good enough... intuition has always been the best way to imagine what works best, even if it's done selfishly.
As for the desire to anthropomorphize, perhaps that is a natural human reaction... One that goes back to the Greek column as phallus (an idea their architects played with). We humanize objects everywhere. New media accelerates this impulse, but you can't put most of what makes buildings successful into words.
I find a good deal of the work formulaic. That is what makes it instantly recognizable as a brand.
The manifesto states the superiority of a particular technological tool and process as a philosophy that ironically creates a very specific set of limitations resulting in, among other things, a readily identifiable style.
is that what you curtkram mean by form?
yes. if you were to see an early iteration of a ZHA design and say 'that looks like a dragon' i believe you would be referring to the shape. you can attach a different definition to 'form' if you want, but in the specific and narrow context of the quote being discussed i think it's essentially the same.
so the process is to start with parametrics, then use your imagination to disregard the parts you don't like and sculpt the building design into whatever it is your imagination wants it to be. if that's an accurate representation of the process, the parametric part becomes less definitive than the imagination part. i'm sure some of the form in the end is derived from site and program requirements, but generally speaking adding the parametric part seems to generally complicate the process more than it needs to be complicated. ZHA designs that take a non-rectilinear form do so because they like designing buildings with non-rectilinear forms. the addition of parametrics is as much post-rationalization as it is form-determinate.
this has nothing to do with the press dismissing iconic buildings out of hand. i agree with PS that critics and journalists can do better.
Would it kill Zaha to use a little wood in these projects! Geez!
Everyone has a style... If you found a trick that resonated with clients you can be sure you'd use it forever. There are no second acts in architecture. If you don't like it invent something better.
I like the song better than the thread
also this
there is absolutely nothing wrong with form for the sake of form....just when its at this scale and is impossed on its context that is becomes problamatic. I would rather visit a zha building than a walmart or taco bell but that dosent mean its any healthier for the society at large.
if you wanted a light bulb, i would think walmart would suit your needs better
if you wanted a nacho bell grande, the always delicious taco bell would be there for you.
if you wanted to go to an iconic building, i would think the ZHA building would be the better option.
Exactly, curt. The original Facebook post is so dense with so many ideas we can grab onto, but to me the most interesting aspect is the role of critics. I'm not familiar with the critic he namechecks -Woodman? - who writes for BDOnline which is paywalled from me, I think. But it sounds like, similar to many writers in the States, it is someone writing flamboyantly aggressive criticism of flamboyant buildings, all the while focusing mainly on drawing attention to themselves rather than actually trying to address the state of the built culture we inhabit.
On of Schumacher's statements that Nicholas quotes, that don't understand, is this: ...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)...
I can't tell if Patrick is saying critics should or should not discuss ordinary, obscure, and underappreciated buildings at all, or if he's saying they should not *only* discuss them as somehow superior to the red flags of iconic buildings, because the two streams of work occupy different worlds that can't be compared.
Lightperson, she does! This project in Cambodia looks beautiful, and it's very woody!
Sleuk Rith Institute
I'm very excited about this one. I think I'm going to Cambodia in January, so maybe it will be underway...
Is it a decorated shed or a dragon? Find out in Pat's Not So Gentle Manifesto.
That is actually quite moving. I knew she did not find her PHD in a box of Cracker Jacks. I just did not think she would do a building that was not superficial. All souls to heaven from a mass grave.
did we ever come to a consensus as to whether P Makka's big book of big ideas was worth reading?
I mean, I can't even find a crumb of interestingness to spend any time reading his fb post.
but I can dance to this!
I am truly liking the "Whatever" period of architecture. It is a time of no rights no wrongs, it was before but it is now, or not, or, or, there is something in his words, no nothing there, yes there is., second year at the best, no way a masterpiece, take your masterpiece and shove it, no you shove it, no take this profession and shove it, now you said profession are you with us or against us?, it is beautiful and awesome, it is a piece of shit, wrong form, right form, politically correct, politically shitty, shitty architecture.., 98%, 1%, 99%, my job, my god. hey hey my my. what's eating architecture? my my..
Let Patrik do his you do yours. In any capacity, go ahead and do architecture. Whatever that might be to you. Let ZHA trickle down. They already are in academia and marketplace, let it go its course. If it is truly useful it will sustain itself and if it is a fad, it will became a style, and we know what happens to style every season. Patrik knows he can only own his words. Parametricism is everyone's. technology is everyone's.
..it is beautiful and awesome, it is a piece of shit, wrong form, right form, politically correct, politically shitty, shitty architecture.., 98%, 1%, 99%, my job, my god. hey hey my my. what's eating architecture? my my..
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.