As the evening progresses, the event turns into a painful X-ray of the current state of American academia: a strangely insular world with its own autonomous codes, dominated by some antiquated pecking order with an estranged value system and no hope of a correction from within. The often grandiose character of the debate stands in stark contrast to the marginal nature of that which is being debated. — Reinier de Graaf
Reinier de Graaf, partner at OMA, delivers a scathing takedown of the current state of architecture academia as represented by the participants of the ArchAgenda Debates, a panel in which he was also a participant. Alongside Jeff Kipnis, Patrik Schumacher, Peter Eisenman, and Theodore Spyropoulos, de Graaf was meant to discuss "a potential agenda for 21st-century architecture." The panel was a periphery event of the Chicago Architecture Biennial.
But for de Graaf, the all-male panel of architects "from a part of the world to which – unless all current indicators are completely misgiven – the 21st century will not belong" failed to deliver an agenda or achieve relevance. Check out the op-ed on Dezeen.
51 Comments
He knows too much...;)
The Dezeen piece is a terrific portrait of lunacy in a dysfunctional profession. You'd think someone accidentally left the asylum gate wide open.
True, but the fact is that he is doing the same
Too many people are so worried about ruffling feathers or burning bridges that they don't speak out about the more unpleasant aspects of the profession. I'm very glad that de Graaf spoke out.
Urban Planning departments and Architecture departments often exist side by side on university campuses, and yet urban planning profs behave very differently than architecture profs. There is an entirely different culture around debate, civic involvement and public dialog. Its quite normal for Urban Planning academics to be directly engaged in community activism and local government and yet my experience with architecture professors has been the opposite - that they keep to themselves... and both the community and the profession suffers because of it. I'm glad to see more architects speaking out and participating in online forums like Dezeen, Twitter and Archinect.
"True, but the fact is that he is doing the same"
What does this mean? What exactly is he doing that is "the same"?
de Graaf is and is not doing the same thing, see Orhans comment......what i have read by him, unlike Koolhaas, is he sounds like he believes change is possible and we should get on it. Koolhaas just makes observations,maybe they are de Graaf's? ............. although i would like to see the indicators that this will not be the WASPy Male's century. 15 years into it and not a damn thing changing, after decades of telling everyone the world is becoming more equal by skin color and sex....the gulf is more obvious these days and don't forget the WASPs have been protecting their share of power for centuries, they are experts at this....... who runs the banks and countries that run the rest of the world? and who gets to be their architects?.......... as a white male, my advice is to concentrate on anything but race and sex as an individual who wants to gain status and control in their profession, but the media likes all the talking. its a distraction from your concentration on your work and also lends yourself to assuming the position of being a victim. admitting being a victim is an admission of defeat. the ego is paramount in this profession, but most architects squander it on form making or neglect it as politically incorrect. teamwork,yadada...your ego is there to challenge the "victimization" and yes you need teamwork, anyone with a brain knows this...........i am still torn about who is more delusional:1 - architecture is this insular high form of art and theory or 2 - architecture can serve the rest of humanity the way it serves the 1%. the former needs the 1% to exist, they have them or the 1% has them, trust me, these old white guys aren't going anywhere anytime soon - they have the financial support. architecture education is geared for this method of operation. so i would go one step further than de Graaf - change the entire architecture education if you want to see change, otherwise you will learn yourself right into this high art and theory world, supported financially because Art is just a good investment as Real Estate and Blue Chip stocks, and you will add to the perpetuation by trying to be one of the already well established "boys club"......but is architecture anything more than form and space? and can it Actually be political? i have my doubts, but i, like the rest of you have been brainwashed by a long standing education system - breeding ground for potetional starchitects whose work goes for millions in the world of 1%. quality has been quantified and therefore eliminated from existence,resistance is futile.
This essay was really, really fun to read. But I'm not sure it's a very fair view of the evening. Everyone has an agenda.
At the opposite ends of the spectrum are two kinds of architecture - technical/practical and ego/artistic (I shall avoid falling into the semantics of 'art' in architecture as this has been bludgeoned elsewhere).
One is the basis for sound, responsible architecture, the other the basis for generating commissions, and while being largely opposed they are also dependent upon each other. It's a Jekyll and Hyde profession.
Using a Chicago biennal panel filled with Eurotrash as your case about some "state of architecture" or "academia" is absurd. Don't go to the circus and be suprised by the clowns. If the media were really interested it would dissect local work, not the CAB Eurotrash parade. The Europeans just heard about PC and want in on the action!. I've seen many most/all female panels and they are equally annoying. Just the nature of panels.. But the media won't cover a female presenter like SANAA or Berke or countless more because that would be BORING amiright
At what point does content matter in The Narrative driven media landscape? I mean, would you promote Ben Carson over Bernie Sanders? I think The Narrative is meant to line the pockets of media--they don't really care about female architects or they would be talking about them.
"Jeff, Have you been drinking?" priceless.
Egos thrive in entertainment culture.
^ so art is ego? disagree. most art is bullshit, most bullshit is self bullshit, most self bullshit is driven by narcassism, but good art is the opposite of this. good art is driven by self doubt...a struggle between constant doubt and the need to create.
Miles nailed it.
But! The responsibility we ALL have, as active online commenters with unprecedented access to all of these people, is to inject serious discourse into the entertainment, AND to inject fun entertainment into the serious discourse to make it more accessible to all (uh, or am I being too "PC" by asking for accessibility lolz)
Example: the Dean's List series rarely provokes interesting, insightful discussion, even though it is straightforward, in-depth presentations of various schools' pedagogies and goals. But everyone is MORE than happy to bray about "egotistical academics in their ivory towers!!!" whenever an esoteric school project hits the site.
Remember, fellow architects, we have to be good at a BROAD range of skills. Poking gentle but incisive fun at our leaders should be something we all do, for the good of the discipline as well as for entertainment.
"At the opposite ends of the spectrum are two kinds of architecture - technical/practical and ego/artistic"
Wild oversimplification that ignores so much of the history of architecture (Bernini, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Gaudi, Lin, Holl, Acconci) and ignores the vast American landscape (both urban and suburban) of cheap shit architecture by "technical/practical" hacks.
^ This is a rare instance where I agree wit Davvid
If we wouldnt treat art like a naughty thing...perhaps we wouldnt the constant desire to rationalize things...aka bullshit...beauty is the main value of architecture...many others are capable of designing things that function effectively...most vernacular architecture works just fine...
Isn't it also interesting that the European cities (Copenhagen, London, Rotterdam, Basel, Genoa, Paris) that spawned so many of our star/ego/artist-architects and where many of their most well-known buildings are built are the same cities that are also building new vernacular architecture that is vastly superior to what gets built in US communities? Maybe instead of separating out technical expertise from artistry from urban theory from sustainability, we should try to merge them into more a holistic approach.
At the same time, dismissing the content of a panel conversation by their gender/race is a critical dead end. God knows the world needs more intellectual discourse, and the new media wants none of it--just The Narrative.
So how does the profession move to both put more attention on the makers as well as the things being produced and for whom? Before all of the attention was on the works because identity was not an issue--not that this was a good thing, diversity is of course better than not. But now that it is an issue, it has become the ONLY issue, at expense of all else. Just like the critical love for the Gang National History project is pretty tranparently PC, whereas Gehry gets lampooned for breathing--pretty much anti-white-male-ism--go figure...
so art is ego?
Not what I said. And if you're following the thread I previously made it clear that I was avoiding the semantics of 'art'.
Egos thrive in entertainment culture.
Entertainment culture is media, which is sales. Nothing to do with 'art' except as part of the food chain unless you want to devolve into semantics.
Wild oversimplification that ignores so much of the history of architecture
davvid, Bernini, Michelangelo, da Vinci, Gaudi, etc. were not working - or even alive - in an instantaneous global entertainment culture. What part of At the opposite ends of the spectrum don't you understand? The statement describes extremes. Now put that into the context of de Graaf's critique and the Dezeen piece with all those great quotes.
do ya'll really think Kipnis is a jerk because of this takedown review?
no? yes? - it doesn't really matter, because let me tell ya - you should try having him for a studio critic. Yes, he doesn't play nice, but if you can get over your butthurt ego and follow his train(wreck) of thought, you will learn all sorts of things you didn't even know you cared about.
"What doesn't kill you... injures you really bad" - Jeff Kipnis
I sure as hell didn't learn much that applies to the dull world of "professional practice" from him, but his intellectual insights have irrevokably coloured my own thinking post-graduation. No, it's probably not the kind of stuff that gets you hired at a firm, but it IS the kind of stuff that gets you motivated to get up every morning knowing you will spend a good deal of the day taking lazy anti-intellectual "pragmatic" types to task over the magnitude of their contribution to culture. And I don't mean this in the sense of ramming the Kipnis doctrine (if such a thing exists) down people's throats, but in the sense of setting your sights higher than the bottom line on any given project - be it art or architecture.
In closing, one more Kipnis quote, which is appropriate to this article: "Architecture school, it's like prison... At least you guys (students) get to leave!"
Nice post, threadkilla!
"What part of At the opposite ends of the spectrumdon't you understand?"
I don't understand the usefulness of emphasizing the extremes. I'm skeptical that the extremes, as you've defined them, even exist in reality. They might be only theoretical. We know that there are very practical and technical people working in even the most "artsy" firms and we also know that there are ego conflicts in nearly every type of office.
davvid, do I have to spoon feed you, or are you just trying to make an argument?
One is the basis for sound, responsible architecture, the other the basis for generating commissions, and while being largely opposed they are also dependent upon each other. It's a Jekyll and Hyde profession.
Miles,
Haha. You're not spoon feeding anyone. You're describing in the most confusing and negative way possible, the basic reality that there are multiple aspects to every contemporary practice. It's like describing a baby as Jekyll and Hyde because sometimes it eats, sometimes it laughs and sometimes it shits.
So you do understand, and now we know that you're just being argumentative.
Troll much?
I mean he is doing the same by associating with OMA or AMO or whatever tehy are calling themselves these days. Its all pointless architectural academia, with little or no ramification on what most of us do. At the end of the day, he is just pushing his agenda.
Interesting talk, though..
Miles, I'm not trolling. I'm trying to understand you. And I'm still not really sure that I actually do understand your original point. Your comments are sometimes vague and suggestive. Notice how jla-x interpreted your "ego/artistic" category as "so art is ego?".
davvid, maybe start with the assumption that what miles is saying is simple rather than complicated? like maybe there isn't a euphemism or whatever hiding behind the statement?
Curtkram,
I'll try it.
there are two types of 'egos' with all humans and more so in architecture than others and the two often get confused............ego type 1: everything you do is based on how others think about you and for the most part you have a lot of shortcomings. for instance: you are rich but a really shitty architect so you overcompensate financially and emotionally..............ego type 2: you were not aware other people had thoughts and you are really fucking good at what you do. for instance: contractor asks a stupid question about whats on the drawings, you go and build the damn thing and bill everyone for it................from my readings Kipnis is definitely most up to date and knowledgable with regard to architecture theory. the person who asked the question - where are all the women, just dumb, plane dumb,why would you ask the panel invited by others where the women were?
Big egos are an attempt to compensate for lack of ability.
ego type 1 is most of architecture.....but ego type 2 also exists - they are often called assholes who win all the time.
translation: thats a lot of howlin' , Piles.
guess you gotta make up for it somewhere.
Architecture is most potent when we can see a clear hand of the author, but when conveying authorship becomes the objevtive rather than an inevitable consequence of a unique process, the work devolves into something belonging to the world of fashion rather than fine art. It is a fine line, and I believe that intent makes all the difference. Lou Kahns, Scarpas, Aldos intent was to make beautiful and solid works that speak to the human spirit. In doing so they consequently created work with a clear sign of the author. Now it seems that many starchitects are more concerned with their signiture than the work itself.
And if you notice, good architects and artists talk very little. good work shpuld be self explanatory. when we need to justify everymove with mumbo-jumbo it usually sucks.
firms that sell a brand. I understand that economic forces have helped to create this, especially in the age of clic bait media and internet speed sensory overload...BIG for one clearly seems to be a brand, ZHA, FG, The usual suspects, but also the more mundane corporate firms and smaller boutique firms that rely on certain shallow tools like "style" are guilty of this...When your firm is based/dependent on a certain brand of architecture The potential for finding real depth is limited...branding creates unnecessary constraints...
The idea that art must be justified by purpose is why we have so much archi babble in the first place. And all manifestos other than seeking beauty, joy, delight, function, wonder, solace, serenity, fun....are a deteiment to the profession and to the world of art/design in general. If nothing really matters, then do nothing...otherwise do work that matters...
over-thinking what art is, and constantly pushing to find the boundaries of what it can be, has led to a conclusion that anything is art, and therefore nothing is art...possibly true...but reality is rooted in perception...
it is obvious.
A preconcieved expectation of what the work will look like will without a doubt burden/constrain the potential outcome. It is not hard to understand.
and that expectation can be on the client side or the design side
and...can come from the mundne world of beige stucco...the dezeen world of "sleek modern", or the starchitect world of curvy aluminum.
if a wall says, "hey Frank, I would like to be straight" chances are Frank will say NO!
"form follows function" not "form follows brand identity"
oh you're a terrorist. i thought you said theorist. i was worried for a sec.
Every thread is sprayed by the same people. "Fucks follow threads".
no one is stopping you from spraying the thread
jla-x, I really like what you said on the previous page about personal intent coming through when one seeks to fulfill the project well. i can't recall which famous architect said something along the lines of when you solve the problem of the brief well for both the client and the context (physical and cultural) in which it's built, a style will come through.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of generalizing polemics or trashy link-bait narratives and the kind of "narrative design" that we see now. The TED talk polemic, generalizing "academia' or "architects" with a single brush. Sounds more like OMA than architecture.
Then there's the other side of the coin: the ted talk architect, presenting a diagram-as-building, made with a some kind of self-evident formula of politically correct crowd pleasing lowest common denominator equation of user-generated data and corporate branding. It's sustainable! Diverse! Melts in your hand, but not your mouth! With plentiful lightspace, parkspace, shoppingspace all in your living room balcony.
Neither of these have anything to do with buildings or architecture... but everything to do with the new media. Rainer de Graaf is just taking a page out of the Bjarke playbook and putting himself forward as yet another demogauge.
The new "process" is the same as the old--trial and error. Making a lot of models, sketches, etc. But the way its presented now is false: as if the final form was the only result of the "process" when in fact the "process" is just a narrative cooked up in the PR department. The danger now is that the cooked-up false narrative (many times written by the design media and its PR friends) has become the focal point of the discussion, and then actual generator of process, overpowering everything--like the hit men in Fargo, reckless, belligerent, killing everything in their wake.
it's always been presented as 'false.' this is just the same shit, new presenters.
the architects in ted talks now are typically no less sincere than vitruvious. he was just trying to sell books too. if you have a romanticized notion of the past being more virtuous than the present, then somehow you're missing how real life works.
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.