Scott Merrill, winner of this year’s Driehaus Prize for his work under his firm Merrill, Pastor & Colgan, studied economics before getting an MArch at Yale, and found inspiration early in his career from Vermont's vernacular architectures. He began practicing solo in Florida in 1990, and works at a range of scales, in a form true to what the Driehaus celebrates: traditional, classical architecture. The award, started in 2003 by the architecture school at Notre Dame, celebrates (and gives $200,000 to) an architect whose work “embodies the highest ideals of traditional and classical architecture in contemporary society, and creates a positive cultural, environmental, and artistic impact.”
Scott spoke with me about what the prize means to him, and his view of architecture as primarily about serving our human nature, not fulfilling a formal agenda.
Listen to One-to-One #8 with Scott Merrill:
Shownotes:
The Flannery O'Connor quotation that Merrill paraphrases: “Fiction is about everything human and we are made out of dust, and if you scorn getting yourself dusty, then you shouldn't try to write fiction. It's not a grand enough job for you.”
What he's reading these days:
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, by James M. McPherson
The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism, by Doris Kearns Goodwin
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, by Steven Pinker
Some of Scott's work:
↑ The Seaside Chapel in Seaside, Florida
↑ Rosemary Beach Town Hall in Seaside, Florida
↑ "Honeymoon Cottages" in Seaside, Florida
25 Comments
This was a great interview, good questions and elegant, considered responses. It's nice to hear a human talk about designing for humans without needing to slag off others who design differently.
Next year, though, I think the Driehaus prize needs to add some color to their jury. Surely there are African American historians/designers who are highly knowledgeable of Classical design? Right now the jury is a buncha white dudes (plus Adele Chatfield-Taylor).
Not many African Americans on the Pritzker jury, for that matter.
What's interesting is the similarities between this years Pritzker winner and Mr. Merrills work, as they both focus on human elements, or our "better natures." Mass media has driven the perception of practice pretty far from that.
And, right on cue.... buncha white dudes. You can see who is appealing to our worse natures. If you are sure there is some that shares these values out there, care to name names? naive slacktivism has its limits
Nate, I've been seeing examples all over Twitter etc. of people being asked to present a paper at a conference or speak on a panel who are flat-out asking "How diverse a group will I be with?" and if the group is embarrassingly white male they decline and state publicly why. This is an issue, whether you try to brush it off or not.
Having spoken at Tuskegee University's architecture program a couple years ago, I know for sure there are diverse people with an interest in traditional architecture, not only in the discipline itself but in related fields like art and history.
This is not meant at all to reflect on Mr. Merrill or the prize - I think, and said on the other thread, that it's well-deserved and the work is lovely. But when I listened to the interview and he mentioned names of jurors my mind immediately went "Oh, a bunch of older white men...." If the stated Driehaus goal is to award Classical work, that's fine, but that doesn't mean they can't pull from scholars of all backgrounds to weigh in on awarding it. The jury isn't *only* architects.
Well it's not exactly the oscars--everyone is angry at them for lack of diverse nominees, so they are going to have more diverse jurors. But the issue is more lack of good movies by African Americans.
It's a little disengenious to be angry about an award you just found out about. Oh I see--200k prize. All I see are a lot of white people exploiting race as a platform for personal gain. As it's always been. Let me know when you see a black person offended by it.
Hopefully an African American architect can find inspiration in the art of a white person and vise versa without the kind of gag reflex that some seem to have
To actually hear someone admit that their liberal arts background influences their approach to design? Heresy these days!
But,I had similar questions regarding the competition process.
The phrase "traditional" has raised hairs on the back of my neck, especially in the context of American Colonial architecture. I think the humanist principles that are an implicit part of the competition are identified through the apparent use of humble materials and a scale of construction defined by the ability of a human to complete construction with "limited" technical means. Added to that is that idea of optimism built into the architecture.
It seems to me if you consider that as a tradition, there are other types that could be considered and serve to find cultural precedents. Mulberry row at UVa could inform the surge of homeless housing leading to a critical architectural examination. The shotgun shack has already been reconsidered by Larry Sass, and I would love to hear how the would consider the work of the rural studio which totally challenges the aesthetics of what is on hand and can be done by hand to better the conditions of a community (I can already imagine it).
I guess it's the lack of wiggle room in how these values are physically manifested that bothers me. IMO there's too much representation bias built into the selection process.
Having come from an institution that values those principles and returns to them often, I still think there's a lot more traditional out there, that what is being suggested. Imagine how that could impact architecture.
Perhaps that is why Mr. Merrill was so general and didn't want to pin down what is "traditional" or "classical" in his work. He said something about being open, and his work doesn't look exactly classical. There is a lot of interesting stuff you can take away, even regarding history of race and its relation to this kind of architecture that is still evolving.
But it's a bit divisive or dismissive (a la Bernie Sanders) to think about things (buildings or people) so simplisticly. Representation should be a goal, not a bludgeon to shit on everything. Think he brought up a lot of interesting points.
I'm not angry about an award I just found out about, Nate, is that what you're saying? I'm old; I've known about this prize since its inception (it's also awarded out of Notre Dame, in my state). And I'm not angry, I'm making a suggestion. As Marc says, and as you say immediately above, there is a lot of interesting work that could be considered within the limits of a prize for Classical architecture. With Krier and Porphyrios on the jury you're not likely to make deep inroads into a far more interesting conversation, IMO.
Think there's a larger conversation, but that's not really the point of this award. That is to reward a certain kind of building... and I'm not sure they would be open to jurors that are ambivalent about it. Though I think humanistic architecture is universal...
I liked the interview, although I might have to listen again to fully understand the Human Nature bit, granted I was working...
on awards, to compare
Beauty, harmony, and context are hallmarks of classical architecture, thus fostering communities, enhancing the quality of our shared environment, and developing sustainable solutions through traditional materials.
To honor a living architect or architects whose built work demonstrates a combination of those qualities of talent, vision, and commitment, which has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture.
Form is all the media CAN understand and relay to the public, anything beyond that takes interest and understanding, and enough to care about what we're actually talking about.
But the media does not administer the competition, and some members of that jury remember the media when it was called "Rizzoli."
Maybe "White Male Architects" should take their cue from GRINGPO, and stop designing architecture?
I'm endlessly fascinated by the notion that "maybe" black people, or POC don't get recognized for creative works, because they either don't do good works, or just don't occupy an area filled with white guys.
It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, when your laces are withheld from you, by classists and racists.
Marc can you say a little more about the use of the word "traditional"? I know traditional is applied to Classical, but I (maybe due to being raised and educated in Arizona) think of traditional as vernacular. When *I* read Olaf's posting of the Driehaus mission statement, I feel like vernacular architecture could absolutely be included, and in fact can be better-representative of those goals than can misplaced copies of Classicism.
Great interview Thought provoking.
Donna,
To your point, I'd agree- vernaculars are traditional, and by definition exemplify the defining characteristics or processes valued by a group. Vernaculars should be considered as part of the competition. When I think of "traditional," or hear the phrase applied to something, I can always hear the follow-up, "because we've always done things that way." The problem is that-
1. That isn't the way we've always done things. These representations of culture have evolved with technology and available materials, borrowing- at times shamelessly- from contexts that had no relevance early on (reference the small disagreement around the origin of porches as part of a houses in the United States). Furthermore, look at architecture and urbanism in the NE vs. South. Those are two really different traditions that don't point to one tradition.
2. There's a huge range marginalized- erased or destroyed - work that represents that method of how "we've always done things," that is not considered traditional- not to mention the current work.
I'm sorry to wax poetic, but I just keep thinking of Walker Evans documenting the efforts of people to build with with their hands and slight optimism or defiance. In some respects, I think that is the last period we really saw how we always build.
As a point of disclosure, I do like some of Scott Merrill's work, and some t I find to be a little too much for my liking. I appreciate the attention to detail universally. But it's not the architect I question, its how the phrases are used.
Traditional architecture means architecture influenced by, or descending from, great architectural traditions. I think that Traditional Architecture includes both the Vernacular and the Classical .
I see vernacular architecture as locally-tuned architecture that's usually simple, humble and often designed and built by people other than highly-trained architects. It sits at the opposite end of a spectrum from the High Classical, which is usually reserved for the most important, most celebrated buildings. There are many gradations in between these two poles.
Thanks Eke.
What a great interview, and kudos to Archinect for allowing Mr. Merrill to speak openly about his motivations. I happen to share his view that architecture should be about serving our human nature and also that we shouldn't circumscribe the formal approach to any one language. I also love how politically intelligent his answers where like how he described architecture school or how he uses formal language instead of "style". Then again that is probably why he is so successful. Either way, it was a pleasure to hear his eminently humane approach articulated so thoughtfully. I hope to learn from him. And before I forget, congratulations to him for outstanding work.
As to vernacular, stylistically it's thought of as being traditional because that's how it's been studied historically, but literally, there's contemporary vernacular, it's just so bad that only Venturi has been able to give it some legitimacy. Obviously modern materials have something a lot do with it and the fact that modern architects haven't been trained in traditional styles, but regardless of style, only builders do true vernacular. For an architect who's studied the styles, it will always be a conscious interpretation of a simplified style.
What is human nature? Is human nature the same here, as it is in China?
yes.
Human Nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics which humans share, and tend to have naturally, independently of the influence of culture. Innate characteristics, as opposed to learned characteristics.
Finally listened to this - really thoughtful interview. Great job, Amelia.
I especially liked hearing Scott's talk about his belief that we should be putting the lives of people at the center of what we do, instead of focusing on formal preoccupations as architects. Bravo.
Thanks EKE, I was really glad to catch some time with Scott after the Prize was announced. It'd be interesting to have him on again in conversation with, say, a Zaha Hadid- or Greg Lynn-styled architect.
That would be terrific!
I loved the part about how he was notified that he ad won, and how he expressed such gratitude about the way the jury personally reached out to him.
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.