SCI-Arc has announced its Spring 2017 lecture series. And not a single female architect was included in the list. Really, SCI-Arc?
Granted, the roster includes historian and theorist Sylvia Lavin as well as the artist Amalia Ulman—but the lack of a single practicing female architect is pretty striking. In recent years, criticism has been waged at institutions for privileging men when it comes to lecture series, as well as panels, faculty, exhibitions, firms, commissions, wages, and interpersonal relations.
It’s not exactly like there’s a paucity of exceptionally talented women in the field. The Feminist Wall of Shame also took note and posted on the omission.
124 Comments
"Hi guys, What do you think about Buffalo Grad School? Is it Good choice to do a Master at UB?
They offer a dual program MArch/MUP and I thought It would be interesting to go there but could not find anything about ranking.
if anything, can one transfer from any UB Grad school to some another one?
I am from Europe, have come in USA 3 years ago and have been considering to apply for a Grad school but not sure which one for.
Only thing I hear in NYC is that all state school sucks (?) only MIT and Columbia are good ones. I know there are great but cost too much. unless one gets a scholarship.
So what your opinion about Buffalo MArch?
Thank you in advance.
Max"
No, hardly, but I would kick your cunty ass.
So? What's your point?
I had left, did my undergrad over there and came back. I never said I was born here.
I thought you lefties liked immigrants. And yes, I am from EU. I am sorry that I am not from Mexico.
No, hardly
oh, sorry.. you are not like them right?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating/
I would kick your cunty ass
I doubt it.
yeah. um, i got you nancy. eu fuck. perhaps you should saunter back over, we got enough white trash here.
The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.
I'm late to the party, but in the 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey, the largest known research study conducted on the subject with 8664 responses, provides the data background to the topics being debated in this section. If you are going to talk about representation in the profession - highly recommended that you learn more before speaking from a point of bias. - ie., meritocracy being the standard bearer of who gets picked for lectures and panels.
Further research highlights a creativity bias that draws into some common threads with leadership and advancement bias as well.
http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/news_events/news-releases/aaron-kay-creativity/#.WHwDCbYrJR0
white trash
This shows who you really are.
All this "progressive" things you are blithering about is just a cover of your true nature.
Here are your people of nature... worry about them.
Milo, glad you could hit us up here at archinect.
We could trade faces that represent irrational and unacceptable hate like baseball cards (my Dylann Roof is worth more than your Chicago four collection) all day. But in the end, the topic is gender in the profession and Rosa has calmly reminded the room that there is data out there...
I'd advise everyone see Hidden Figures, sometimes it helps to remember where we were, and why being here now, seems so much like we're running in place.
For the record, when EU Nationalists start posting images of with the words "Faggot Of The Year", all the knives come out.
Now, when do the changes to the forum occur?
"We see lots of white architects talking, so then we think that only white guys are architects, so then it never occurs to anyone that there might be architects who aren't white guys, so no one on lecture committees goes looking for architects who aren't white guys because it seems status quo that there aren't any. And the cycle repeats, and architects of other color or gender never get to break in."
I actually believe they do a kind of "reverse image search" when looking for speakers or lecturers. It's the work, the buildings, the publications, the manifestos that people produce that make them show up on the radar of institutes and schools, not their gender or skin colour. Personally, I sometimes don't even know the gender or skin colour of certain architects and would walk right past them without realising, but I do know their work intimately.
b3ta, aren't EU Nationalists a contradictio in terminis?
EU Nationalists
EU - descriptor regarding fact of the situation
Nationalists - what they are at their core, as a people.
The Spanish
The Germans
The French
All have a rising tide of nationalism, racism, and fanaticism burping to the surface.
randomised, in other words, you "don't see color"?
That kind of statement is exactly the problem. Did you listen to the podcast this week? to make sure you're being exposed to viewpoints different than the status quo you have to actually go seek them out. It's like exercising. You have to commit to doing it.
But still, they willingly participate in it's machinations, participating in EU parliamentary elections, thereby giving the EU a kind of democratic legitimation but claiming to be anti-EU while thriving on its existence nonetheless, that for me is the contradictory aspect, they need the EU more than the EU needs them. It's just schizophrenic to me.
Donna, of course I see colour or gender, but as I explained I often only find out the gender or colour of the architect after the fact, after I've been exposed to the work, making gender or colour irrelevant for the appreciation of the architecture because that already happened. I just don't care about gender with regards to architecture, maybe that's because where I live it is totally normal and nothing special for women to be on top of their game with regards to architecture and/or academia with women like Ellen van Loon(OMA), Francine Houben(Mecanoo) or Nathalie de Vries(MVRDV) around. If I would be paying top-dollar tuition fees for my education I would just want the best speakers at my lectures, I wouldn't want my educators to go seek out special needs speakers just to make a political point.
Indeed I do quondam..., if it matters more to people what the gender is of the architect, more than the quality of the architecture, that's just the definition of sexism. I don't think anybody is going to those lectures to see a bunch of old white men discussing quality architecture, I think they go to see architects discussing quality architecture.
It's not about making a political point, it's about making an educational point. Diversity of views is important if one wants a well-rounded education. You may have heard that word "bubble" being tossed around lately?
Specifically going out and looking for good work being done by diverse kinds of people is the charge of any school trying to educate their students well. That SCi-Arc didn't bother to do so speaks poorly of whatever committee put together this lecture series.
randomized, if there are indeed no American women architects worth learning from, what would that indicate? That thy were just never born? Never educated or employed? Maybe they were born and educated but they all just suck? Maybe they don't suck, maybe they don't get credit for their work? Maybe when someone sees a woman doing architecture she is automatically deemed less creative and talented for the same work like the research Rosa linked to? Or What? What is it? Enlighten, please.
Looking for diversity in architectural points of views has nothing to do with looking for biological diversity among speakers.
"randomized, if there are indeed no American women architects worth learning from, what would that indicate?"
Who says that there are no American female architects worth learning from? Nobody says that here, that's not the issue.
"That thy were just never born? Never educated or employed? Maybe they were born and educated but they all just suck? Maybe they don't suck, maybe they don't get credit for their work? Maybe when someone sees a woman doing architecture she is automatically deemed less creative and talented for the same work like the research Rosa linked to? Or What? What is it? "
That's a lot of question marks, maybe's and assumptions, would a simple "no" suffice?
They are called rhetorical questions, questions that make a point. Here's another: Were they all unavailable?
You don't need to explain rhetorical questions to me but maybe(!) you should simply ask Sci-Arc.
Lots of people have asked and answered those questions before. Again, referencing the link above. Answer, people are biased. Should I call Sci-Arc and ask if they are aware of bias?
randomized, a few posts above you characterized women architects and architects of color as "special needs", which is a way of saying they aren't any good, by your standards.
You are deeply embedded in a bubble. We're trying to break through it to get to you, but you're very resistant.
I don't describe them as special needs per se but they are treated here as special needs, so that's where the wording comes from, as if Sci-Arc should maintain a kind of handicapped parking space/time slot in all their lecture series for women or minorities just to not upset people. I think it's just ridiculous to make gender or race into an issue here, although my pushing back also makes it into an issue obviously :-) It shouldn't matter if the entire lecture series was filled with only female architects, with only black architects or only older white men for that matter, as long as the level of the discourse is on par, that's all that should matter, the rest is just window dressing.
But what you've described above, has never, ever happened at Sci-Arc. So it would be worth talking about, if it did happen.
I have an experience of the built world that is wildly different than yours because I am a woman and you are not.
That's not "window dressing" FFS.
I've spent 50 years in a Western culture that has required me to understand the world as writ through the white male experience. I've learned a lot about how to be a human through learning via the perspective of an other. I'm not alone in finding value in learning about things that don't come directly from my personal experience.
But you clearly already know everything you need to randomised. No need to stretch your pretty little brain to learn anything new.
1- While Zaha reconciled herself and her work with the need for representation in the field (see quote earlier),I think some of the discussion now gets back to the other quote I posted (I'm an architect first). This is a far older quote far earlier in the 20th century, is quite the opposite- dealing with a willingness to suppress identity to gain recognition. This was not because they were being noble for the cause, but because gender was (is) being used as a reason to exclude talented individuals from the discourse.
2- Furthermore, much of the concerns are not about not making sure that the presence of underrepresented segments don't disappear, but that they don't disappear again. Meaning it has happened in the past , and recently.
3- The suggestion that diverse view has nothing to do with diverse pools of people is simply false. "We've done our homework and 'looked at' group x, so now we as the informed can present a solution," versus allowing engagement, participation and enabling leadership. Or that those voices, will be marginalized and/or suppressed and their contributions to will only be recognized as something of the past, robbing people of the opportunity to engage with and actively learn from in the present.
Diversity of ideas is of primary importance in an academic setting. It is counterproductive to assume that race or sex is the root of intellectual diversity. By assuming that, you are pigeonholing the minority groups and the majority group and undermining their independent thought. Creating a false Dicotomy that ideas/ideologies can be categorized along racial and sexual lines. And sure, while there may be general trends, this is still a form of stereotyping that creates an expectation of what someone is thinking based on what they look like. From my experience, its not as neat as that. People are primarily individuals with thoughts that are unique to their personal experiances and interests. I reject the idea that diversity can be determined from a collection of head shots.
That said,I am also 100% convinced that the meat grinder of the architecture profession favors privilage. The end result is a demomgraphic that aligns with the general demographic of economic and social privilege - white males. And yes, same happens in academia because the academics are mostly from very posh schools and have connections.
If you are not in favor of destroying the centralized structure that gives power to prejudice, then racial and sexual diversity is unlikely to change. Decentralize the system and empower the individual to have greater control over their own progress. Not by making it easier, but by making it more attainable
"People are primarily individuals with thoughts that are unique to their personal experiences and interests."
Exactly, This has nothing to do with making race or sex is the root of intellectual diversity- but a broader base of perspective- an inclusive approach- does increase it.
In addition- Jla, you advocate for more access. 1- With approximately 100 programs in United States, how would you expand access? 2- Given the impact of Design Intelligence and the Gourman report before it, how would this address this issues of marginalization?
By assuming that, you are pigeonholing the minority groups and the majority group and undermining their independent thought. Creating a false Dicotomy that ideas/ideologies can be categorized along racial and sexual lines.
To echo my last comment, this is a statement I often hear white people offer on behalf of minorities, but that I've never once heard said by a person of color.
Minorities have a harder time getting employed. School is less accessible for poor people. idp is less accessible for poor people. corporate ladders are harder to climb for women and minorities for a variety of reasons unrelated to their skill . Etc
If any of those statements are true, then my assertion that the system itself is responsible is also true.
1. I would remove the requirement for naab accredited schools and school in general.
2. I would remove idp or any other program that gives hierarchy/power over anothers career.
3. I would create a system of licensure that relies 100% on the individuals merit. A hard Test, portfolio of work, mock cd set, etc. judged anonymously and based completely in the individuals ability to do the work.
Increase autonomy
While it may be true that licensure is not required for success, it also undoubtably provides autonomy, authority, and mobility. Other than that, I think inner city kids need More exposure to the profession from a young age. A youth outreach program geard towards promoting the profession to elementary school kids would be cool. Many people develop their "dream" early on. Architecture and design in general is something that kids (especially poor/working class kids) have little exposure to.
Tduds, probably don't talk to many minorities then. Ive heard it often.
The fake liberals (aka dems) dont want a nation of empowered individual thinkers. They want monolithic groups that they corral.
And the repubs are even worse.
Thanks for the thorough response.
1. Does that risk making architecture another trade or does that even matter then?
Actually, does that run the risk of making a two-tiered system? Those who attend some fancy intellectual salon (perhaps for free), based on who they know and who likes them and the rest of us? Serious question here.
2. I always thought that was one of the ways to manage one's development in a clear path, reducing the burdens of your proposal for #3. This makes a burdensome process more transparent.
3. 100% on the individuals merit = the "old system." Added to that we're back to who and how to regulate the test logistically- not to mention a portfolio subjectively.
Those summer program programs do exist btw(this to bring it back to women). Also look at Jen Massengarb's work in Chicago. And architecture in some respects is a "discovery" career, hence the number of masters programs out there (pre-institution education market capture and gouge).
Marc, I think it already is a trade in practice. Unfortunatly maybe, but it is.
Again, I think the profession is already "2 tier". There are a few academic and boutique architects and a bunch of regular ones. Perhaps another way to look at it is how diversity would affect what we consider the "regular" stuff. The bulk of the built environment. Having more people with stake in underserved markets and demographics practicing for instance.
To you point in #2, idp basically grants the "biased" employers authority and control over the development/career progress/licensure of another. Thats what I mean by giving power to prejudice. Not saying that all employers are prejudice, but if one where, even one, that would ve one less opportunity for person y and one more for person x. It institutionalizes the systemic biases that we agree exist.
As for the technicalities of creating a unbiased barrier to entry...It would take alot of design and thought to create such a system, but it is doable.
Perhaps another way to look at it is how diversity would affect what we consider the "regular" stuff. Having more people with stake in underserved markets and demographics practicing for instance.
Agreed.
But it's also learning from those individual/groups as well, hence the need to expand exposure to women in academic settings. "They" don't see the world like "you," and "you" could benefit from "their" perspective.
And it's not just the regular stuff, it's the fancy stuff and said histories too.
Actually, this brings up another interesting point with respect to your trade model. How would you ensure exposure to a diverse set of perspectives and solutions?
"I have an experience of the built world that is wildly different than yours because I am a woman and you are not."
So what, we are all individuals and that's why it's the work that counts not the ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality etc. of the producer of the work.
"That's not "window dressing" FFS."
It would be window dressing if the gender or any other characteristic of the architect becomes more important than the work itself, the work should always be more important in architecture, that's true equality.
"I've spent 50 years in a Western culture that has required me to understand the world as writ through the white male experience. I've learned a lot about how to be a human through learning via the perspective of an other. I'm not alone in finding value in learning about things that don't come directly from my personal experience."
Same here.
"But you clearly already know everything you need to randomised. No need to stretch your pretty little brain to learn anything new."
That's a weird conclusion for me not jumping through your hoops. We have a difference of opinion, that's all. I think an architecture lecture series shouldn't be made into a debate about gender, race, etc. unless that's the topic of said lecture series of course. But you clearly do and that's okay. For me it should be about the architecture and the gender of the creator is totally irrelevant in establishing its merits. I don't care if I'm attending a lecture by a female architect or a male one because that would be sexist, I only care about the quality of the lecture, but you apparently do put more value in the gender of the architect over the architecture itself, which of course, to me, is sexist in a way.
To paraphrase MLK, I look to a day when architects will not be judged by their gender, but by the content of their architecture.
To paraphrase MLK, I look to a day when architects will not be judged by their gender, but by the content of their architecture.
Wondering who was you Mahalia when you wrote this...
To paraphrase MLK, I look to a day when architects will not be judged by their gender, but by the content of their architecture.
So what you're saying is there are no good women architects out there who are worthy of being included in this lecture series. Got it.
I already asked him that, he said no. He is confused, young, not experienced with thinking. Not worth discussing with.
"Wondering who was you Mahalia when you wrote this..."
I don't need any Mahalia's to screw up a MLK-quote.
"So what you're saying is there are no good women architects out there who are worthy of being included in this lecture series. Got it."
I'm not the one here judging architecture or a lecture series by the gender of the architect ;-)
"I already asked him that, he said no. He is confused, young, not experienced with thinking. Not worth discussing with."
So, you take your lessons in rhetoric from your president-elect(?)
WRONG.
Some people you just give em some rope and they hang themselves. Nice one, Marc.
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.