Speaking at the V&A last week, the former Foreign Office Architects partner said that she was "dubious" about volunteers who see working in these places as an "easy option". — Architectural Record
Moussavi, who teaches at Harvard and runs her own practice in London, said: "It's quite telling that Harvard students, when they want to be activists, have to go to these areas of the world. It's tougher to be an activist in America.
32 Comments
What about those who "volunteer" in the high-needs field of "unpaid internship for a world famous firm?"
Cynicism aside - her commentary that it is tougher to be an activist in America is pretty insightful. It highlights the need for initiatives that allow people to volunteer in the wide swathes of the USA that are geographically and/or culturally part of the "Other 90%" of the world. And I hope that's what she meant.
white liberal guilt certainly doesn't breed talent, and that's what she's referring to...
I even logged in to my seldom used archinect account to make the comment that arkhive is already made. If FOA took volunteer workers during their existence (which I'd be willing to be thousands on) she has no right to make any criticism of what others do with their time. Lets solve labor abuse inside our profession before we start deciding what is the best use of our efforts...
I wonder if anyone else remembers this in school? The less-than excellent students signed up for the studios deemed heavy on activism as they were seen as being easier to get in.
But more importantly, Moussavi seems to be pointing out a trend of what b3tadine[sutures] points out - activism as a non-local exercise in empiricism. Or why they want to go abroad to help, rather than stay in the USA.
Unfortunately, the polar opposite will most likely come up regarding formal design - that it is superfluous, commerce-driven evil.
I also came here to say what arkhive said first and Given seconded.
But I'd also point out that whenever I've had the good fortune to hear Cameron Sinclair speak, he has made the point that "third world" conditions are extremely easy to find in the US. Go to any tiny Kentucky or Alabama town and you'll find squalor that rivals other nations, just slightly more dispersed.
Something tells me that the headline of this article and the content are out of alignment. Or maybe we are not seeing the full picture. Perhaps we should consider the event itself which championed outstanding architecture projects in the developing world- i don't know...But just taking on the little bit that the article has to say and agreeing with many of the comments above- I think that Ms. Moussavi raises a good point. I am not one to say that we need to solve all of our own problems before we can help others, but some equal weight needs to be considered for places like Gary, Indiana and South Central LA as well as far reaching countries in the developing world. I think that there is in fact too little activism by American architects and students working in their own back yard. Take a really hard look at our inner cites- areas that have been eviscerated by years of institutional and cultural neglect desperately need volunteer help. And as a thinking architect it’s hard for me to subscribe to Habitat for Humanity! I am not saying that there are not groups out there doing this already- definitely Architecture for Humanity and Collaborative Design Center in Detroit are two that I know of- but the scale of the problem is so vast that much more of this type of work is needed…
but to pretend like there isn't any 'archi-vism' in places like gary, IN or south LA isn't accurate, either, as it ignores the thousands of man-hours archi-students, faculty and grads have put into these communities...
activists in america? why don't GSD students start by being activists in Boston?
Having not posted in quite some time, I'm a bit rusty....but as much as many would want to pan Farshid for dissing on humanitarian work (and I saw a post from Cameron at AFH doing just that)....and even with the caveat that I myself have been involved in this type of work. I feel that students too often leap into "proposing solutions" for these dire situations that minimize the complex systems of despair that surround them. They are not yet adept at translating their ideas into these environments, the formal gesture overtakes real interaction. And they have more they can actually offer to solve problems at home than abroad.
@arkhive @given @donna - interesting point... A friend also said that the GSD and OMA is not necessarily the 'hard' way up...
@b3tadine[sutures] you seem to think all architects are 'white'... or feel guilty... perhaps this new interest is coupled with design's (very slowly) changing demographics?
@jobjob, that is a shame... although I often wonder what makes an architecture student 'talented', nowadays it seems like that means that they are good cad (rhino, maya, grasshopper) monkeys.
I think this is starting a great conversation. We should, however be careful to move beyond this debate: http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm
time to move beyond 'culture war' arguments.
a big issue to take when representing some students as good/talented/strong vs those who are less so is that those students who are not strong in the academic environment - possibly not interested in formalist exercises, digital manipulation, or concept-driven problems - may actually find their passion and BECOME better designers when they have something that engages them more fully. do they go to an impoverished environment because it's easier, or do they go and find something about which they can really care and in which they can believe? it's not hard to understand that the high-powered design studio environment is not where everyone will find their place to thrive.
q, i certainly don't think ALL architects are white just most of them.
this from harvard gsd: The GSD has a little over 700 students. About half of our students are women; one-quarter are minority; and one-third are international.
perhaps my comment most reflects this thought; privilege, western privilege, gives those entitled elites from design schools - by this i mean, those able to take on 100k debt and still volunteer - the ability to trot around the world and try to solve problems that the west is mostly responsible for creating, instead of solving those that exist in the west. now, given that Farshid is Iranian and a woman, it's easy to see her problem in the light of what's currently going on in the middle east, and see how that might rankle her feathers a bit; because after all, none of this would have been necessary if the west - CIA - didn't meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations to begin with.
the other thing to consider is that Farshid might - when referring to "easy" - be suggesting the "romanticism" and "sexiness" of working in other parts of the world, where there is tremendous need, and a feeling that "I" can alter the outcome, is the driving force.
students should ask themselves this simple question; am i in this to facilitate change, or am i doing this for myself? if the answer is to facilitate change, then perhaps they should ask those that are immersed in the local environment; is my coming here going to benefit you or not, if it won't help, how can i help?
i asked my girlfriend about this topic this morning and her thought is that all too often westerners want to parachute into situations, whether they were asked to or not, and try to bring their good intentions to solve real issues, and then they spend most of their time getting in the way, or becoming too needy - because of their accustomed western comforts - and become more of problem. but if they were to ask the locals, well, what do YOU need, the answer they're most likely to find is not westerners with solutions, but financial solutions - whether it be in the form of debt forgiveness, micro-grants, or financial aid.
so when i mean white liberal guilt, perhaps it's more correct to say Western Elite Liberal Guilt, because after all, what the hell do we know about fixing things, we're too damn busy fucking it up.
OR,
Farshid could be pissed off, that people are tired of "volunteering" for her firms, and are actually going to places where, even if they don't get paid, they can actually see the fruits of their labor, in real time.
and to add another point, one might actually trace the current moment's fascination with work in developing countries or disaster relief to Shigeru Ban. His most famous experiment that worked in this respect was designed for temporary housing after a Japanese earthquake. The unspoken part of his ouevre is that the applications of this system to other cultures, i.e. India, were not accepted or used...therefore becoming a waste of resources, energy, and effort. The knowledge of a culture is something that is too often glossed over in our current age of digital smoothness of information transfer. We, as a profession, would be well served to learn the processes for understanding the limitations of information transfer in the physical realm or the framework and logistics necessary for the implementation of elements from our own culture.
@b3tadine[sutures] I agree, very interesting points.
Farshid's comments are also somewhat inside baseball, and I think her point is similar to yours. This is the reason I cannot dismiss her comments, although she clumsily uses a broad brush to talk about a lot of work and practices. I think she does have a point, but the argument should be for a more robust critique of 'social' work, not a simple dismissal.
Bruce Nassbaum made a similar comment in Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?, yet it seemed weirdly personal.
q, totally agree.
about a year ago lebbeus woods wrote about favelas in brazil, and his approach to solutions, struck me as rather western, and lacking in a very simple stepping back from the western perceived "problem" and asking ones self; "does the "solution" solve a view through a westerners lens, when what might be needed is a solution through a south american lens, if a solution is needed at all?"
what always struck me about the favelas - and again, i accept that this might be a western, romantic vision of the "primitive", is that favelas straddle an almost libertarian attitude to creation; institutional codes, state rules - fuck that, we'll build what we need, and how we need, because the STATE will jam it's regulatory will down our throats and force us into ghettos of THEIR=[STATE] making, and we - the people living favelas - would rather make our world in our way.
perhaps another topic for another day...
GSD students are conspicuously absent from school-supported research projects in the Boston area. You see BAC, MIT, Northeatern, and Wentworth architecture students out volunteering and initiating projects locally, Tufts students leading urban planning studies out in in Boston neighborhoods, and even other departments within Harvard doing work and research within the city. I understand the international reach (and funding sources) of the program, but there's a lot the collective talent at the GSD could be doing and learning LOCALLY that can also be applied internationally.
However - I have a feeling that this fear of doing "activist" work locally means confronting their own hubris and privilege (which is not "culture war") - this is something they will eventually have to face to a certain extent later on anyway. it's easier going to an "other" place - where people are so different that you can stay somewhat aloof.
I have a more severe example, from way back in the late 60's, the time of BillyJack and other such counter-culture sentiments.
http://www.swaraj.org/illich_hell.htm
As I said above I don't think good designers are servants of greed (cad monkeys, ouch), nor are bad ones humanitarians - it's a null argument. However relief work intrinsically does not start or require design as the only solution. There's no good hospital or school that doesn't work with its community's local conditions.
@jobjob - my favorite line from that address:
If you insist on working with the poor, if this is your vocation, then at least work among the poor who can tell you to go to hell. It is incredibly unfair for you to impose yourselves on a village where you are so linguistically deaf and dumb that you don't even understand what you are doing, or what people think of you. And it is profoundly damaging to yourselves when you define something that you want to do as "good," a "sacrifice" and "help."
@jobjob, GREAT piece! thanks for the link.
@jobjob, I like that piece... I agree with a lot of it.
Yet, I think he is fighting against the paternalistic attitude that can come with this work. I am afraid that there is some of that happening as this type of work reemerges. In LatinAmerica this has a complex history. For example, Richard Neutra's work in rural Puerto Rico has come under scrutiny as it was seen as part of a larger political strategy.
Yet, there are real conditions in poor areas around the world (including the U.S., western Europe, and Asia) that need some real rethinking and reworking. Local architects and community groups should be doing a lot of work. The question, to me, is how the 'west' (which has some advantages such as world-class universities, technologies, etc...) can be involved without patronizing. Or should it be involved? Although, I think it is too easy to say that it should not.
Also, the 'west' is now a multi-cultural place. Although not the majority, the top schools have students from all over the world, including impoverished areas. Does that complicate this question?
Finally someone speaks out about this. I have to admit she raises a really important point. I do think attacking gap year students is a bit unfair seeing that they are usually only 17 or 18. But architecture that has this "good intentions" approach is seriously missing rigorous criticism.
I agree with Quilian that some of the questions that need to be raised are: How can this type of work not be patronizing? Should the west be involved? To what extent? I mean having some students and profs. from Ivy League schools getting published because they are doing work in the most poorest nations will inevitably look patronizing.
Farshid may have been better situated to make the comment that it is easier to be an activist in emergent and/or third-world countries than it is to be a traditional architect in the US. But of course "easier" is a rather broad stroke. As Bryan Bell points out it is doubtful that Farshid understands the various intricacies involved in activist architecture in America and I am equally naive in american activism and so would not comment on THAT.
It may be fairer to say that this foreign activist work is easier to secure than traditional practice in the US. In the states a long lineage of experience and completed work is almost always necessary to secure significant work. Whereas with foreign activist projects an architect can capitalize on the good will and interest of certain societies in order to fund the architect's work. This good will, by its very nature, is less concerned with experience and more taken by passion, drive and immediate availability.
It is entirely unfair to say that those people pursuing foreign activist work are any less qualified in any sense, it may even be true that these people are quite intelligent in the recognition of a system that will support them in the pursuit of their desires... that is to be an architect in some sense or not.
However, let me recuse myself a bit in saying that though I AM implicating some I am not condemning them for their choice of trajectory. I am also not dismissing the possibility that there are those out there sincerely interested ONLY in the work that they are performing and NOT in the potential benefits to their own future. But many of these people ARE GSD grads and I doubt there is a single one of them not interested in what comes next... why shouldn't they be?
Here is some data form a survey of GSD students last year:
What are your top three reasons for entering the architectural profession?
Putting creative abilities to practical use: 63% gave this as #1 reason; 16% gave this as #2 reason.
Improving quality of life in communities: 26% gave as #1 reason; 46% gave as #2 reason.
For survey protocol, you have to separate these reasons. But these reasons are not exclusive of each other. One could desire "to put creative abilities to practical use to improve quality of life in communities."
In another question, 55% said that their interest to put creative abilities to practical use to improve quality of life in communities had increased somewhat or greatly since entering school.
A conclusion from this data would be that the students who pursue social activism do so because they are motivated to do so, not because they don't know how to succeed in other ways.
yes but volunteer work in the poorest nations is a great and probably the easiest way to get publicity without facing heavy criticism....i mean how can you argue against that, or offer valid criticism without looking like a jerk?
@archinet - that is the key! A robust critical culture can only help this work ACTUALLY be used by intended populations.
I think partly there is the jerk issue -- Nassbaum looked like one going so intensely at a specific person. But I also think that the fact is that design critique itself has to change. Good intentions in themselves are not enough.
That means that aesthetics will only be one (but an important one) among many other issues that should be discussed when looking at work. This should be seen as an opportunity to broaden the conversation of what an architect and designer is and does.
Anyway, a group of us have been thinking about this for a while and brought those questions forward on a City Sessions event a few months ago: http://city-sessions.tumblr.com/
One major issue is that the perception here is about wants or not wants.
Many people living in poverty abroad didn't necessarily choose their life. It was a condition brought on by war, genocide, occupation, imperialism, social changes, industrialization and many other reasons. Someone, say, in Sudan, South Africa or India might be willing to try something completely new because it's a new choice that they haven't had before. They have little to lose because it can't possibly get any worse, right?
In the US, poverty is difficult to understand. Some argue it's personal choices and a lack of responsibility. Others say it's a condition of the urban environment— access to transportation, nearby central business districts, adequate housing. But all of these conditions are cause by laws, codes and ordinances. And changing any of those challenges the status quo, the 80% of the rest of the US that isn't starving, homeless, jobless or otherwise hampered by condition.
Look how hard it is to legitimize bicycling in the U.S. as a practical transportation choice.
I know a lot of people, from school and elsewhere, who have tried to get dialogue about master planning, about expanding transportation, about eliminating single-use zoning and many other things that would help economic development. And many of those people simply have just given up hope about changing anything in their own communities and have moved to communities that do embrace changes to the human environment as necessary and practical.
It is not hard to offer criticism of international projects without "looking like a jerk." It might not be the type of criticism you are used to. The recent MoMA show sets a great example of what a project can accomplish, in Africa, the US or anywhere. Was the architect committed to the community or did he/she just fly in for the photo op? Is the form appropriate or culturally alien? Was the community involved in decisions about goals, program, operating? Unfortunately it looks like the next MoMA show with a different curator could be an example of what NOT to do: random formal visions dumped on communities. Teddy Cruz walked out on it. Boycott?
J James, "war, genocide, occupation, imperialism, social changes, industrialization" in a different country which language one doesn't understand and a culture one doesn't agree with is a much, MUCH more difficult condition to understand.
It's so great to see someone bring out Illich's article. Fantastic.
quilian - historically the architect's role in community activism is usually as an enabler - we help guide groups in defining, visualizing, and implementing their vision, but we typically don't just parachute into communities with our own ideas without being invited. If you want to do this sort of work you need to embed yourselves first. this is not something new - architects have been doing this for decades, but those of us who have been around know that the process of gaining trust is extremely slow - and often it's better to align yourself with existing organizations - especially because they know way more than we do about what has worked and what hasn't.
if you are truly committed to this sort of work you have to be prepared to do many smaller "tactical interventions" over an extremely long period in order to achieve a bigger goal - and you may not see it happen within your lifetime. I like that more people in our profession are interested in this sort of work, but I think often the desire to build makes us impatient.
@toasteroven - completely agree with you. Community work is about em bedding yourselves in communities and their issues. While traveling in Colombia I remember meeting an architecture professor who has been doing that in some of the most dangerous areas in the country for the past 20 years.
However, research for my thesis made me begin to question this. For example, globalism and technology have changed even the poorest communities. In the slums of Tijuana where I was working no one is 'Tijuanan', people are Nicaraguans, Hondurans, Southern Mexicans. People in these areas where always talking about going home, or going to the US, or to simply follow jobs. This story of mobile and somewhat technologically savvy populations repeats in very impoverished areas I have visited in Colombia, Nicaragua, etc... The constant local condition seems to be one of flux.
All I am saying is that the conditions in these areas are very complex and ever changing. Small tactical projects are important, but the work in Medellin's comunas also point towards large-scale (yet sensitive) solutions.
There is probably not a silver bullet to tackle this work. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the hyper-localism that some 'social' practitioners argue for is a bad idea and can stunt a community's natural flow.
q - right - it's hard to get involvement from transient populations. no one really feels committed to changing a place if they don't plan on being there for very long. that's the problem in many communities in the states as well... for these people the incentive needs to be framed as primarily financial instead of social if you want to get them involved. they still do gain social benefits, but if people can see a way of making money, building networks to make money, or getting training to get a better job someplace else to make more money then I think that might be a better tactic.
btw - Boston has an extremely large transient population...
toaster - boston, or cambridge?
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.