A lecture at MIT that was to be given by the Japanese architect Junya Ishigami has been cancelled following revelations that Ishigami's Tokyo-based studio was relying on unpaid interns—a controversy that has prompted wide discussion and raised questions over the value of labor in architecture.
Students and faculty at MIT were hoping his lecture could become an opportunity to engage with these issues, asking his office if they could host a separate discussion on labor practices during his visit. However, the firm declined to participate while also requesting a guarantee for no Q&A and a restriction of discussion on the issue.
After news that the 44-year-old was selected to design the 2019 Serpentine Pavilion, an email from Junya Ishigami+Associates listing conditions for an intern was made public by Adam Nathaniel Furman. Causing an uproar, the terms set out in the e-mail showed that the firm expected young architects to work 13-hour days, six days a week for free; supply their own computers and software; and for overseas applicants, procure their own visas.
In response, the Serpentine Gallery ordered the firm to pay anyone working directly on his Serpentine project, which is expected to bring a mysterious cloud of grey slate to Kensington Gardens this summer.
In a tweet announcing the cancellation, the Architecture Lobby noted the swift responses to the online fury. "People in positions to immediately affect architectural discourse are reconsidering their positions on exploitative labor practices," the non-profit dedicated to the politicization of architectural practice and advocacy tweeted.
People in positions to immediately affect architectural discourse are reconsidering their positions on exploitative labor practices.
— The Architecture Lobby (@Arch_Lobby) April 23, 2019
We hope this is long-awaited effort continues, not just in the form of CANCELLING, but also in the form of frank & honest discussions.
They went on to say: "We hope this long-awaited effort continues, not just in the form of CANCELLING, but also in the form of frank & honest discussions. Because exploitative labor practices in architecture aren't just bad business—they keep working class and marginalized people out of the profession. They culturally legitimize systems of privilege within schools and firms. We hope other schools of architecture follow suit."
Architects work all over the world. The problem is in any case not one of Japanese otherness. Its a global issue that should be addressed everywhere.
If you are making money from the work interns do then some amount of payment is the least of the obligations the employer has.
This was not a question decades ago. Just as it was apparently cool to sexually harass and assault women and nobody could summon the interest to say it was not alright, or were afraid to. Times are changing. About time. People in power should not take advantage of that power to do whatever they want to those who are on the other side of the scale. How is this even a question?
If Ishigami thinks it is ok to not pay interns then he should speak up for the practice. The fact that he does not want to is evidence that he feels guilt about it and knows he is in the wrong, no? Fujimoto at least made an argument that it was a win-win practice and not exploitation. There was an article awhile ago where Hani Rashid similarly argued for it as an opportunity. There may be something to that, but why not have the discussion? A place like MIT could arrange for it to not be a shouting match. Maybe they should do that anyway. Letting the question go unanswered because the person who started the debate ran away is not the most courageous play.
you are right about the culture and the master/student relationship. It's a real thing, for certain. I have lived in Japan for nearly 20 years now and run my own practice for about 10 after doing a PhD at U of Tokyo. I've done the long work hours, done the education, take advantage of the health care (which is basically obama-care as far as I can tell). And I am in the system as much as anyone can be. At Keio university where I teach, I joined studios with Sejima and Maki, and sat in on crits with Kuma and cetera at the U of Tokyo. That side of things is great. Everyone should take part in that level of education if they get the opportunity. My office also takes on interns, quite often after they work in one of the unpaid spots with the stars. Since most of the interns end up living in the same share-house word gets around that we pay (not a lot I admit), and so we get to hear the stories. Some of them are familiar. Two of our partners worked as interns with Maki and they get the drill. But in recent years this idea of internship has changed. I can't say it is entirely one-sided but it has been moving more and more in that direction. It is probably fun for a lot of people who go that route. But I would say the standard should be that architects get paid. We can argue about how much, and maybe even argue about whether an unpaid internship is fine just as it is. I'm not dogmatic. I do not think it is cool however for Ishigami to ask for a promise that no discussion about his violation of UK standards of conduct (for a UK project) will take place before he will speak at MIT. Its a rookie move politically, and if he believes in the system why avoid the discussion? He can claim cultural relativism and see how it flies. On a related note, Sou Fujimoto just announced he will no longer do unpaid internships. Seems the savvier choice. I get the feeling this is not over yet.
All 5 Comments
Like no one knew of this before ///
everyone has known for decades that japanese firms don't pay interns. certainly everyone at MIT knew. but adam nathanial furman (or whatever) needed a PR play, so here we are
Can someone explain why unpaid internship is so offensive. Students at schools in the USA for 4-6 years are all paying the institution, they don't even get to work on real projects, don't learn anything that can be immediately applied to professional practice and graduate without a license, etc. Most of the time design offices are not even providing professional architectural services... why should they have to pay some kid who doesn't know anything for the summer? architectural design is a luxury job, not an entitlement. plus what are you expecting ishigami to contribute to the discussion? he's not an ethics professor
It's offensive because it's exploitation. Pay people for their labor, period.
Hi Koww, is your name "Hernan Diaz Alonso"? or "Tom Wiscombe?" or "Peter Eisenman"? or "Mark Foster Gage"? or "Michael Meredith"? or "Marcelo Spina"? etc??? Sounds a little defensive.
nobody twisted their arm
What the fuck is a "luxury job"?
The term "luxury job" is what stuck out to me as well. It's worth spending a few moments with the ramifications of that.
I didn't even get to "luxury job" the first time. That is hilarious. I have to get back to my "luxury job" that I definitely don't need to pay for things like rent or groceries.
if you need a job to pay for your lifestyle, you can easily find a paid internship with billable skills. working at a world-class design office is a luxury, and the components of the deal between the "employee" and employer are more intangible. interns get the experience of being in that special environment, hopefully obtaining some rare knowledge and friendships that can't be find anywhere else... the clients don't have the budget to get the work of architecture that is finally documented in CDs, let alone pay for training interns to achieve their personal goals... now some of these starchitect owners may be filthy rich, but still the intern makes a decision to "work" unpaid
Excuse my frankness, but that's some gatekeeping bullshit.
Yes, the intern makes a decision to work unpaid. However this means the most prestigious positions are only available to those with enough economic privilege to be able to afford that decision.
Koww... what a wanker way to look at things. More reasons to justify tossing aside applicants with unpaid gigs on their CVs.
"That's some gatekeeping bullshit" is my new perfect go-to phrase. Koww: your views may feel fine to you right now but know that you are on the wrong side of history with them. This train is barreling down the tracks.
Who cares what they do in Japan...
Like none of our business...it’s their culture...it’s voluntary...whatever
MIT is in the United States.
You can still call a shitty business model a shitty business model even if it is outside of the precious USA.
I agree, but you have to look at it in the context of their culture.
Not really. There is nothing wrong with taking the moral high-ground here. Encouraging/promoting of exploitation is not something one needs to respect just because it's acceptable in that environment. Fuck context.
Architects work all over the world. The problem is in any case not one of Japanese otherness. Its a global issue that should be addressed everywhere.
If you are making money from the work interns do then some amount of payment is the least of the obligations the employer has.
This was not a question decades ago. Just as it was apparently cool to sexually harass and assault women and nobody could summon the interest to say it was not alright, or were afraid to. Times are changing. About time. People in power should not take advantage of that power to do whatever they want to those who are on the other side of the scale. How is this even a question?
If Ishigami thinks it is ok to not pay interns then he should speak up for the practice. The fact that he does not want to is evidence that he feels guilt about it and knows he is in the wrong, no? Fujimoto at least made an argument that it was a win-win practice and not exploitation. There was an article awhile ago where Hani Rashid similarly argued for it as an opportunity. There may be something to that, but why not have the discussion? A place like MIT could arrange for it to not be a shouting match. Maybe they should do that anyway. Letting the question go unanswered because the person who started the debate ran away is not the most courageous play.
There are a few places where I think your assumptions are faulty, one being that Ishigami doesn't want to have this discussion out of "guilt". But that's irrelevant.
For some reason, this is all that appears of my comment, but it is not all I wrote, and I cannot seem to delete it. Sorry. (?)
What I'd set out to say was that I respectfully disagree with some of your assumptions here, but that the cultural/national context in this case cannot be disregarded. There are three points, with regard to that, that bear mention. First, all Japanese citizens have access to excellent healthcare from birth, for little or no charge, as well as top-level, free, public education. Second, long before it became a topic of discussion in scarcity-driven Western economies (spec. U.S.), multi-generational dwelling into adulthood was the norm in Japan, allowing young people several years to pursue less than entirely lucrative goals and begin to build future financial security. Finally, on a less positive note, the master/disciple relationship in Japan is one that has normatively sanctioned abuses of various sorts from time immemorial, mostly verbal, but frequently corporal, and always in terms of work demands. If Ishigami has what would be regarded as a genial relationship with his crew it already puts him substantially ahead of the curve. The discussion is one that needs to be had, but in my opinion, this is not the exemplary case to put at the center, for the very reason that the subject is Japanese.
Perhaps, then, Ishigami is not an awful person but simply an example of an exploitative cultural norm. I don't see a reason to give the exploitation a pass simply because it's steeped in a long history. Especially when so many of these firms work globally - competing in a worldwide market and benefiting from a worldwide status - it's hard to argue they have any right to maintain a provincial attitude towards their workers. The honest (perhaps cynical) answer is they maintain unpaid labor because it's cheap, and that allows the firm an advantage in competition work.
Not giving it a pass. As I say it's a discussion that "needs to be had". But when, in one environment, the practice may be viable (IOW, unpaid interns can come from a modest background and use the experience to advance themselves), and in another it's BOTH exploitative and has negative repercussions for society as a whole (IOW, only the children of the rich can consider access to the means of their advancement), the framing of the argument has to be taken into account.
you are right about the culture and the master/student relationship. It's a real thing, for certain. I have lived in Japan for nearly 20 years now and run my own practice for about 10 after doing a PhD at U of Tokyo. I've done the long work hours, done the education, take advantage of the health care (which is basically obama-care as far as I can tell). And I am in the system as much as anyone can be. At Keio university where I teach, I joined studios with Sejima and Maki, and sat in on crits with Kuma and cetera at the U of Tokyo. That side of things is great. Everyone should take part in that level of education if they get the opportunity. My office also takes on interns, quite often after they work in one of the unpaid spots with the stars. Since most of the interns end up living in the same share-house word gets around that we pay (not a lot I admit), and so we get to hear the stories. Some of them are familiar. Two of our partners worked as interns with Maki and they get the drill. But in recent years this idea of internship has changed. I can't say it is entirely one-sided but it has been moving more and more in that direction. It is probably fun for a lot of people who go that route. But I would say the standard should be that architects get paid. We can argue about how much, and maybe even argue about whether an unpaid internship is fine just as it is. I'm not dogmatic. I do not think it is cool however for Ishigami to ask for a promise that no discussion about his violation of UK standards of conduct (for a UK project) will take place before he will speak at MIT. Its a rookie move politically, and if he believes in the system why avoid the discussion? He can claim cultural relativism and see how it flies. On a related note, Sou Fujimoto just announced he will no longer do unpaid internships. Seems the savvier choice. I get the feeling this is not over yet.
I hope you're right in practice (on that last point), because you're right in principle. BTW, I WISH Obamacare were similar to the J healthcare system, but it's not, beyond both being multi-payer, and you're fortunate for that. I spend time in both countries but reside in the U.S., and the system is being trounced miserably by the current administration. It's murder to deal with.
"the firm expected young architects to work 13-hour days, six days a week for free; supply their own computers and software"
Yes one needs to put in their dues. and yes schools don't teach as much practical stuff as they should, but this is total and complete bullshit.
This is a product of the starchitecture culture where students are taught to look down their noses at builder architecture where jobs are hanging like fruit for the few coveted places in capital A architecture. Teach to the few and watch them step all over each other for the gold ring. No wonder our profession is as screwed up as the built environment.
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.