In this interview with PSMag, ArchiteXX co-founder and Syracuse University School of Architecture professor Lori Brown talks about the difficulties and rewards of attempting to design while female. She's specifically asked about how an architect attempts to integrate feminist notions of design in a political climate that would prefer women's structural contributions remain limited to conducting barefoot and pregnant installations in the kitchen. Here's a sampling:
What might be different about a feminist design versus a design that doesn’t take feminism into account?
The goal is to consider and incorporate where we are socially, politically, environmentally, and even economically [into designs]. We operate from the position that everyone is valued and everyone should be considered, which requires different ways of operating as a designer [and] thinking about the types of spaces you design, the types of users that would be needing these spaces. It’s not to create autonomous and separate spaces [for women], but to think about the intersections between people who use spaces.
I definitely see a queer and a feminist aesthetic (or aesthetic elements that allude to either a queer or feminist perspective, or both) in furniture/object design. I see it in fashion design. Where is it in Architecture? Pin-Up Magazine does an amazing job of highlighting design work that implies this perspective, but many architects and academics are still too reluctant to really address it in terms of aesthetics.
Why not, it's been happening for past few thousand years? Privileging the male, over the female. So, why can't there exist design, that privileges the female over the male?
All 9 Comments
I definitely see a queer and a feminist aesthetic (or aesthetic elements that allude to either a queer or feminist perspective, or both) in furniture/object design. I see it in fashion design. Where is it in Architecture? Pin-Up Magazine does an amazing job of highlighting design work that implies this perspective, but many architects and academics are still too reluctant to really address it in terms of aesthetics.
Black_Orchid, I think the discussion starts with recognizing how our own perspectives filter into our design work. Obviously this subject is current, which is why its relevant. Culture is changing and becoming more aware of aspects of our experience that were previously ignored, suppressed, even illegal. I'm glad that Archinect is asking these questions.
Black Orchid, I would imagine that there are many different ways to create design work that takes into account feminist theories/values/perspectives.
Is it controversial to say that a designer's perspectives, values, and biases are often embedded in their work? If we can accept that as part of the nature of design practice, then we can start to become more conscious of it and discover ways for it to improve what we do as designers. I feel like I see the touch/perspective of a human being in a sorts of designed things and spaces in my life.
"I just don't know how you can design with a sensibility to all genders without prioritizing one over the other."
There are a lot of questions that we just don't have answers to yet. Personally, I don't need to be "prioritized" over someone else in order to feel welcome or included. In fact, I often enjoy seeing others prioritized. For many, this is central to the idea of hospitality. A designed experience usually has multiple layers of meaning and offers multiples way to access/understand it. As long as a design is in some way accessible to me, I can usually appreciate it on some level.
Reminds me of two books by Aaron Betsky, from 1995 and 1997:
Building Sex: Men, Women, Architecture, and the Construction of Sexuality
Queer Space: Architecture and Same-Sex Desire
Thank you randomized.
Wasn't there a podcast guest or two that made similar suggestions regarding sexuality and the production of space/images?
Doesn't anyone else feel like these trendy discussions are what keeps architecture from talking about things that would improve our profession's standing in the world? No one besides a few members of the design elite care about intersections between genders in designed space. We need to stop reacting to whatever hot issue hits the media circuits and spend time working on things like getting paid maternity leave or setting fixed higher fees for licensed architects?
Architecture doesn't respond fast enough to cultural and political changes (or trends, if you prefer). In my view, that is why Architecture has relinquished its role in our culture to companies that are producing components and products that are truly contemporary. Our architecture isn't actually all that contemporary, but our phones are, for example. Look at how influential technology companies are in our society. And look at how dependent our "architecture" is on a patchwork of systems and product components that are disintegrated from the architecture. Innovators (who probably are not architects) who are working to produce the next app or tool that seamlessly integrates into our lives are working tirelessly to gain insights that allow them to understand who we are. Identity is central to who we are.
Fussy point- "like getting paid maternity leave" is a gender issue.
Well, it should not be, parents should share the responsibility of young children equally.
Also, neither of these are related to design. They are political issues not necessary to be discussed so frequently as architectural issues.
I just don't understand these arbitrary separations. We are often so eager to bring up the topics of office culture, studio culture, work/life balance, or intern pay, and how those issues relate to the profession. How is paid maternity leave not part of all of that? In my office, our design sensibility relates very closely to our office culture, our lifestyles, our travels, how we treat each other, what we eat, the music we listen to, our political ideas etc etc. These things all blur together (respectfully, of course) because we have to design things that make the lives of our clients better. Values, style, sensibilities, and standards of quality all relate very closely to our design work.
Agreed, parenthood should be an equally engaged life changing experience. As such, opportunities to embrace that experience should b universal.
But it's clear that the burden falls on women. Cases in point (which go beyond parental leave) - Architects who felt the need to participate in the day without a woman demonstration.
If we go back specifically to children and caregiving, there is this paper that outlines the wage disparity mothers experience. Or this paper, which has a similar goal, but also is not as old as the 1st. Both are available at the equity by design website, but they're both of enough to suggest that gender issues are not trendy, but part of a long standing pattern.
design for all human beings and that will take care of all subgroups. I feel like many of the social issues being addressed get minimized by thinking they can be ameliorated by design
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.