actually I was *supposed* to be writing mine. Credit where credit is due. Both Kate Stohr and I wrote it together (today was a work day and we procrastinated a tad too much)
I agree with all of the above (except Cameron's comment, there is no such thing as procrastinating too much). I was wondering, any response from the NYT?
Both sides are biased and also correct in their own way. There are people who thinks that architecture should be pragmatic and solving problems of the world, and there are those who thinks that architecture should allow rooms for expression and manifests metaphysical qualities rather than just being a shelter. I feel like I am just reading the clash of two polar opposites.
Quite many of the 'first-rate' architects are not famous for building unsustainable spectacle bull-crap - a lot of them are famous for being able to solve these big problems within a very limited budget yet being able to not cheap out on unsustainable materials or methods of construction, while still being able to attain a certain sense of cultural awareness.
The problem lies within that a lot of such talents were wasted in building luxury apartments or buildings that serve the cream 2% of humanity - and the NYT was right to point that out. Public housing, or lower/middle-class housing, seems to be neglected by the general public, government policies, and the ever-rising land value. These factors are not controllable by architects - hey, many of us want to design green, sustainable, cheap housing for everyone in New York City (or any big cities), too - but how?
Some of them are not Hummer designers, but F-1 racing car designers. And those know how to build a fuel-efficient car - and still look good.
I think Cameron completely nails the issue. I've always felt it has been far too easy to praise starchitects than actually criticize them. There is too many architects, who in their "conservative" mindset come to believe that the status quo is acceptable and that the starchitect gimmick is all we should seek to attain. At some point we have to make sense to the broader public or we can just sit around talking to ourselves. Reigning in the startchitect nonsense would be a good first step
kudos, cameron. great response to that article.
and although i do feel that many of the best architects out there are F-1 racing car designers, not Hummer designers...within academic and critic circles these designs typically are reduced to a simplistic shell of their initial conception similar to that which occurred in the transformation of the hummer from a military use vehicle designed to perform in specific parameters to a daily commuter vehicle for soccer moms.
Could this be a move towards the evaluation of architecture within a larger system of performance criteria that moves beyond the glossy image to rigorous evaluation of the larger environment of the project? in a way, i think that is what cameron and kate's response is about and i feel that is what oroussoff's editorial misses as something that is already occurring and that the current cadre of critics has failed to see, or is just now beginning to realize.
2008 the end of the isolated object or decision-making system.
2009 the beginning of a full environmental awareness or network savvy understanding of decision-making.
This is not the last time this will be worth pointing out, but:
Schadefreude over the collapse of formalism and starchitecture is unbecoming.
We've seen some fantastic, genuinely new things in architecture over the past two decades. Things that would not have been possible in any other time in history. Just because we're interested in different stuff now, that doesn't mean it's okay to throw all that out the window.
The biggest favor that spectacular unsustainable and politically suspect formal architecture has done to the field is to raise it's profile and awareness and impact (which the original Nicolai article points out), so lets build on that, not scrap it.
Pak-Kei is right on. It is a little disturbing to me to pigeonhole architecture's problems into issues of sustainability in the construction industry. In my opinion, the kind of small scale engagement mentioned in the article unfortunately has even a lower inpact then the 2 percent of starchiteture mentioned. And I do have to tell you that many of those starchitect projects, given their more generous budgets and ambitious set of consultants actually do push the envelope in terms of sustainable technologies and their applications into building industry.There are major discrepancies in the construction industry that very limited community based initiatives will almost always fail to effectively address.
Some people seem to confuse architecture with construction, and I would argue that architecture is a discipline that not only includes the act of building and all its pragmatics but the ideas, theories and new technologies that effect it. Retrofitting a green roof on an existing dumpy building is not architecture, it certainly is a good thing to do, and we should keep doing it, but we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that it is "art of building"...
I agree with Pak-Kei but just as not all first-rate architects are star architects, not all star architects are first rate.
The main argument is not that these pedestal dweller couldn't do this work, it is just they are ill equipped. Those who have spent a decade in the trenches from the Single Speeds to the Sergio Palleroni to the Mockbee graduates deserve this work as much, if not more, than those who ride the 'form follows fashion' wave. This is not cut and dry, Renzo Piano for instance is seen by some as a celebrity architect but his work has been decades of research of pushing the boundaries of material and energy use.
This is a street fight over the relevance of the profession and the last thing we need is a set of designers wearing kid gloves. You have got to earn your shot in the ring, not be anointed by the ring side commentator.
Cheers C.
ps. The examples we gave were small scale to give tangible alternatives but there are thousands of architects currently doing this work. (my letter is too long for inclusion in the NYT and no I haven't got a response).
Go Architects, Pak-kei and sevensixfive, i think that your comments are valid....you are all right on. starchitects and formal experimentation are valid, and the advancements of the industry should not be discounted...but i definitely feel that cameron's comments are not about relegating architecture to being a subset of construction practices, but to continue the trajectory of incorporation of a larger research agenda as the fuel for these formal engagements....in a way, what i think his letter did, and what i latch onto, is the gap between the way architecture is discussed in public and the way it is discussed in process. can architecture begin to talk about these more process oriented logics that drive design beyond purely formal or stylistic embellishments and become more of a part of the common lexicon of society and what part do commentators such as ourroussoff have in forming this...what is their responsibility in this process and how can their view towards the work being produced and their understanding of the public's acceptance of information become informative toward a more inclusive dialogue.....versus a soundbite for the sculpture gallery.
wow, comments that nearly everyone can agree on, has the new year happened already?
yes the starchitects push the envelope on the materials front, much like NASA; their "name" and the scale of their projects do manage to have a trickle-down when it comes use of technologies and materials by smaller architects/firms.
yes, the starchitects will become the proverbial albatross around our professions neck, if we don't change the business of doing business. what is change? how about not buying their books anymore? we all know Eisenman makes great books, i think Derrida told us that, but the shear genius of being PE or Rem is that we subsidize their livelihoods by consuming material only meant to inflate extend a myth. what's next? now the Hadids, Rems, and Maynes, Eisenmans, etc, will all go back to doing what they did before - if they stopped at all - teaching the myth in architecture schools. perhaps the new student body politik in architecture schools will take a cue from the New School students, and stage a sit-in?
Cameron, i enjoyed the response and glad you two sent it in to the Times.
Maybe this might be a little irrelevant and slightly less academic, but I believe that it's a mistake to engage the problem on a personal level. Yes we have starchitects because we live in a society of celebrities and icons. I get so tired to seeing pictures of Zaha Hadid with Karl Lagerfeld in NYT week after week, but hey, sorry to break it down to some of you but the lady's got mad talent and a level of eccentricity that attracts media attention. And afterall, I beieve that there are 2 kinds of architect out there, the ones that define themselves as artists and the ones that define themselves as professionals. Many fall between the two of course but comparing Mockbee to Hadid and the likes is like comparing apples and oranges. I'm sure if scoring an international museum project with a fancy, experimental facade work was in Mockbee's agenda he would have gone for it, but he didn't, and why is that? Is he not a good boxer? I highly doubt it.
note I said Mockbee graduates. While he would have been a good boxer he is no longer with us...
On one level you can put Hadid and Mockbee in the same category (we are in the business of realizing built work) but each takes his own path - there are dozens of 'types of architects' but all share a common goal. If we are debating the validity over who should be involved in more pragmatic buildings I wouldn't pick the architect with award winning car parks and leaking fire stations.
It's not about getting media attention, it is about the New York Times having the audacity to pimp the plastic surgeons of design to work in the emergency room.
----
vs.
I'd put my money on the country boy. KO in the 1st round.
I put my money on neither of them. I disagree that all architects share the same common goal. And I also diasagree with the notion that built work is the only objective of architecture. It's unfortunate that you would choose to put Liebeskind there, that's almost like comparing Paris Hilton to Mother Teresa. (and in boxing that would be punching below the waist...) Then lets talk about what building leaks and what building doesn't and judge their cultural relevance and contribution to an entire discipline (please note I didnt say "profession") accordingly.
Mockbee was still alive early 2000s wasnt he? (was it 2001) I think. Little known fact: the bilbao guggenheim opened in 97.
Go,
The liberskind link was a subtle one but it was mostly a cheap gag - Heavyweight vs. Flyweight.
Rule 1 in being an architect, have a healthy sense of humor.
As for the argument about the spectrum of our profession. The world knows who mother Teresa was and Paris Hilton is. They don't know the difference between any of us. Rather than continue to be a niche profession we need to take ownership over the idea and ideals of being an architect. (that's my biased view)
I need to be tickled in order to find architecture amusing nowadays.
I would say that I'm on occasion annoyed with the starchitect mafia monopoly but all I'm saying is that undermining their contribution, which I argue is in a different catgory then yours, is probably not gonna help the cause, the cause that is architecture.
i don't think cameron is trying to undermine the starchitects in order to improve his own position.
rather i think the point is that it is downright odd how m. Ouroussoff seems to assume the starchitects are the correct people to take on the problems he worries about, and even implies that the problems will not really be addressed until they are addressed by the starchitects...
which means probably the guy ain't really well informed about his subject.
the small scale engagements cameron talks about, done on a massive scale, by many, many more architects and designers, in their own ways and places, is what we need.
i take issue with this idea about the larger budgets and consultants pushing the sustainability envelope. it would be great if that were the case, but seems to me that for the vast majority of the starchitecture projects fancy consultants and technologies do not stand a chance to break even with the increased energy footprint of such buildings. if there is no net reduction in energy and CO2 footprint there is little to get excited about.
It's a great discussion here.
It reveals some fundamental challenges with sustainability and nature of architecture.
‘Architecture’ distinguishes itself from ‘building’ by its qualitative aspirations. It belongs to the qualitative aspects of life such as art, music, film, literature, fine dining, etc.
It's what we 'live for' not what we 'need to live'.
Though these qualitative aspects of life are immeasurable and subjective, its relevance is self evident and can be seen as key driver of life.
But here's the dilemma.
Qualitative aspirations are 'unnecessary' in context of sustainability.
Projects that architects work on are typically for qualitative aspirations, far above basic needs:- Corporate identity, greater public amenity, holiday homes, large residence relative to its occupancy, etc. This isn't limited to the 'starchitect's work' but majority are your everyday middle class architectural projects.
When the other half in the world need to accommodate a new family member, they simply sleep in the same room. (The footprint of an average middle class citizen is several times that of world average. And world average is approx 1.5 times greater than carrying capacity. Try putting your annual income here for an indication of relative consumption. More fun then footprint calculators. http://www.globalrichlist.com/)
Many design decisions pit sustainability issues against qualitative aspirations of a project.
High ceiling versus heating needs, views to south (north for northern hemisphere friends) versus heat loss through glass, convenience of an ensuite versus reducing ....., etc.
How do we deal with these dilemma?
(I've seen Mockbee do some cool tall spaces :-))
Are these questions any different to ethical questions about cultural value vs basic needs? eg How can we build projects such as art galleries when that money could goto building hospitals that save lives, etc.
Bringing this ramble back to the start, the most difficult dilemma is how we (as architects) deal with 'Desire'.
A client engages Architect A for a eco 400 sqm holiday house. Construction of which requires the felling of trees (even if only two), some material from a mine, the clearing of land, all of which add load to the ecosystem. To get to this paradise one of course must drive, regardless of the efficiency of the eco-car it still has to be built, shipped, maintained etc etc. Once built, it's profiled in archi-blog A, picked up by few design mags, and wins an Industry Award or two. Someone picks up an archi mag, sees the shot of the rainwater fed, solar powered, microbe cleaned, feather edge lap pool (world's first) and is mesmerised. She suddenly has a yearning for a rural holiday house and an eco lap pool, and engages Architect B...... On and on.
GO, i tend to agree with your point of view on the star vs. altruist, if framed this way; the vortex created by the Rems, Libeskinds, and Gehrys allow for the more talented and innovative professionals to take up design AND sustainability in a creative fashion, and they are more able to avoid the dilemma that pochi cites.
This is wholly unrelated, but echoes this conversation in a way.
From a professor at Yeshiva University in NYC, discussing how his institution lost $110M because of Bernard Madoff:
“In elevating to a level of demiworship people with big bucks, we have been destroying the values of our future generation,” he said. “We need a total rethinking of who the heroes are, who the role models are, who we should be honoring.”
Let me say first that I completely agree with Cameron and Kate's letter. There has been WAY too much attention to the celebrity architects and a lot of nonsensical "architecture" that is built to shock or amaze. I am frequently embarassed to have to acknowledge that these designers are technically in the same profession I am.
But why is all the congratulatory commentary here directed ONLY to Cameron? The letter was signed by BOTH Cameron and Kate. I am sure that Kate made significant contributions to the letter, if in fact she wasn't the primarly author. I'll say that I am not a female, an ardent feminist, nor do I know either Cameron or Kate. But really, people, recogize them both!
SGL
Jan 1, 09 3:27 pm ·
·
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.
27 Comments
well played, sir.
cameron, you just wrote my archinect predictions for this year!
damn!
actually I was *supposed* to be writing mine. Credit where credit is due. Both Kate Stohr and I wrote it together (today was a work day and we procrastinated a tad too much)
well said. i had a similar reaction when reading the article... thank you for responding back to an article the very much deserved opposition.
kudos!
I agree with all of the above (except Cameron's comment, there is no such thing as procrastinating too much). I was wondering, any response from the NYT?
Both sides are biased and also correct in their own way. There are people who thinks that architecture should be pragmatic and solving problems of the world, and there are those who thinks that architecture should allow rooms for expression and manifests metaphysical qualities rather than just being a shelter. I feel like I am just reading the clash of two polar opposites.
Quite many of the 'first-rate' architects are not famous for building unsustainable spectacle bull-crap - a lot of them are famous for being able to solve these big problems within a very limited budget yet being able to not cheap out on unsustainable materials or methods of construction, while still being able to attain a certain sense of cultural awareness.
The problem lies within that a lot of such talents were wasted in building luxury apartments or buildings that serve the cream 2% of humanity - and the NYT was right to point that out. Public housing, or lower/middle-class housing, seems to be neglected by the general public, government policies, and the ever-rising land value. These factors are not controllable by architects - hey, many of us want to design green, sustainable, cheap housing for everyone in New York City (or any big cities), too - but how?
Some of them are not Hummer designers, but F-1 racing car designers. And those know how to build a fuel-efficient car - and still look good.
I think Cameron completely nails the issue. I've always felt it has been far too easy to praise starchitects than actually criticize them. There is too many architects, who in their "conservative" mindset come to believe that the status quo is acceptable and that the starchitect gimmick is all we should seek to attain. At some point we have to make sense to the broader public or we can just sit around talking to ourselves. Reigning in the startchitect nonsense would be a good first step
kudos, cameron. great response to that article.
and although i do feel that many of the best architects out there are F-1 racing car designers, not Hummer designers...within academic and critic circles these designs typically are reduced to a simplistic shell of their initial conception similar to that which occurred in the transformation of the hummer from a military use vehicle designed to perform in specific parameters to a daily commuter vehicle for soccer moms.
Could this be a move towards the evaluation of architecture within a larger system of performance criteria that moves beyond the glossy image to rigorous evaluation of the larger environment of the project? in a way, i think that is what cameron and kate's response is about and i feel that is what oroussoff's editorial misses as something that is already occurring and that the current cadre of critics has failed to see, or is just now beginning to realize.
2008 the end of the isolated object or decision-making system.
2009 the beginning of a full environmental awareness or network savvy understanding of decision-making.
This is not the last time this will be worth pointing out, but:
Schadefreude over the collapse of formalism and starchitecture is unbecoming.
We've seen some fantastic, genuinely new things in architecture over the past two decades. Things that would not have been possible in any other time in history. Just because we're interested in different stuff now, that doesn't mean it's okay to throw all that out the window.
The biggest favor that spectacular unsustainable and politically suspect formal architecture has done to the field is to raise it's profile and awareness and impact (which the original Nicolai article points out), so lets build on that, not scrap it.
Pak-Kei is right on. It is a little disturbing to me to pigeonhole architecture's problems into issues of sustainability in the construction industry. In my opinion, the kind of small scale engagement mentioned in the article unfortunately has even a lower inpact then the 2 percent of starchiteture mentioned. And I do have to tell you that many of those starchitect projects, given their more generous budgets and ambitious set of consultants actually do push the envelope in terms of sustainable technologies and their applications into building industry.There are major discrepancies in the construction industry that very limited community based initiatives will almost always fail to effectively address.
Some people seem to confuse architecture with construction, and I would argue that architecture is a discipline that not only includes the act of building and all its pragmatics but the ideas, theories and new technologies that effect it. Retrofitting a green roof on an existing dumpy building is not architecture, it certainly is a good thing to do, and we should keep doing it, but we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that it is "art of building"...
I agree with Pak-Kei but just as not all first-rate architects are star architects, not all star architects are first rate.
The main argument is not that these pedestal dweller couldn't do this work, it is just they are ill equipped. Those who have spent a decade in the trenches from the Single Speeds to the Sergio Palleroni to the Mockbee graduates deserve this work as much, if not more, than those who ride the 'form follows fashion' wave. This is not cut and dry, Renzo Piano for instance is seen by some as a celebrity architect but his work has been decades of research of pushing the boundaries of material and energy use.
This is a street fight over the relevance of the profession and the last thing we need is a set of designers wearing kid gloves. You have got to earn your shot in the ring, not be anointed by the ring side commentator.
Cheers C.
ps. The examples we gave were small scale to give tangible alternatives but there are thousands of architects currently doing this work. (my letter is too long for inclusion in the NYT and no I haven't got a response).
Go Architects, Pak-kei and sevensixfive, i think that your comments are valid....you are all right on. starchitects and formal experimentation are valid, and the advancements of the industry should not be discounted...but i definitely feel that cameron's comments are not about relegating architecture to being a subset of construction practices, but to continue the trajectory of incorporation of a larger research agenda as the fuel for these formal engagements....in a way, what i think his letter did, and what i latch onto, is the gap between the way architecture is discussed in public and the way it is discussed in process. can architecture begin to talk about these more process oriented logics that drive design beyond purely formal or stylistic embellishments and become more of a part of the common lexicon of society and what part do commentators such as ourroussoff have in forming this...what is their responsibility in this process and how can their view towards the work being produced and their understanding of the public's acceptance of information become informative toward a more inclusive dialogue.....versus a soundbite for the sculpture gallery.
wow, comments that nearly everyone can agree on, has the new year happened already?
yes the starchitects push the envelope on the materials front, much like NASA; their "name" and the scale of their projects do manage to have a trickle-down when it comes use of technologies and materials by smaller architects/firms.
yes, the starchitects will become the proverbial albatross around our professions neck, if we don't change the business of doing business. what is change? how about not buying their books anymore? we all know Eisenman makes great books, i think Derrida told us that, but the shear genius of being PE or Rem is that we subsidize their livelihoods by consuming material only meant to inflate extend a myth. what's next? now the Hadids, Rems, and Maynes, Eisenmans, etc, will all go back to doing what they did before - if they stopped at all - teaching the myth in architecture schools. perhaps the new student body politik in architecture schools will take a cue from the New School students, and stage a sit-in?
Cameron, i enjoyed the response and glad you two sent it in to the Times.
Maybe this might be a little irrelevant and slightly less academic, but I believe that it's a mistake to engage the problem on a personal level. Yes we have starchitects because we live in a society of celebrities and icons. I get so tired to seeing pictures of Zaha Hadid with Karl Lagerfeld in NYT week after week, but hey, sorry to break it down to some of you but the lady's got mad talent and a level of eccentricity that attracts media attention. And afterall, I beieve that there are 2 kinds of architect out there, the ones that define themselves as artists and the ones that define themselves as professionals. Many fall between the two of course but comparing Mockbee to Hadid and the likes is like comparing apples and oranges. I'm sure if scoring an international museum project with a fancy, experimental facade work was in Mockbee's agenda he would have gone for it, but he didn't, and why is that? Is he not a good boxer? I highly doubt it.
note I said Mockbee graduates. While he would have been a good boxer he is no longer with us...
On one level you can put Hadid and Mockbee in the same category (we are in the business of realizing built work) but each takes his own path - there are dozens of 'types of architects' but all share a common goal. If we are debating the validity over who should be involved in more pragmatic buildings I wouldn't pick the architect with award winning car parks and leaking fire stations.
It's not about getting media attention, it is about the New York Times having the audacity to pimp the plastic surgeons of design to work in the emergency room.
----
vs.
I'd put my money on the country boy. KO in the 1st round.
I put my money on neither of them. I disagree that all architects share the same common goal. And I also diasagree with the notion that built work is the only objective of architecture. It's unfortunate that you would choose to put Liebeskind there, that's almost like comparing Paris Hilton to Mother Teresa. (and in boxing that would be punching below the waist...) Then lets talk about what building leaks and what building doesn't and judge their cultural relevance and contribution to an entire discipline (please note I didnt say "profession") accordingly.
Mockbee was still alive early 2000s wasnt he? (was it 2001) I think. Little known fact: the bilbao guggenheim opened in 97.
Go,
The liberskind link was a subtle one but it was mostly a cheap gag - Heavyweight vs. Flyweight.
Rule 1 in being an architect, have a healthy sense of humor.
As for the argument about the spectrum of our profession. The world knows who mother Teresa was and Paris Hilton is. They don't know the difference between any of us. Rather than continue to be a niche profession we need to take ownership over the idea and ideals of being an architect. (that's my biased view)
I need to be tickled in order to find architecture amusing nowadays.
I would say that I'm on occasion annoyed with the starchitect mafia monopoly but all I'm saying is that undermining their contribution, which I argue is in a different catgory then yours, is probably not gonna help the cause, the cause that is architecture.
i don't think cameron is trying to undermine the starchitects in order to improve his own position.
rather i think the point is that it is downright odd how m. Ouroussoff seems to assume the starchitects are the correct people to take on the problems he worries about, and even implies that the problems will not really be addressed until they are addressed by the starchitects...
which means probably the guy ain't really well informed about his subject.
the small scale engagements cameron talks about, done on a massive scale, by many, many more architects and designers, in their own ways and places, is what we need.
i take issue with this idea about the larger budgets and consultants pushing the sustainability envelope. it would be great if that were the case, but seems to me that for the vast majority of the starchitecture projects fancy consultants and technologies do not stand a chance to break even with the increased energy footprint of such buildings. if there is no net reduction in energy and CO2 footprint there is little to get excited about.
It's a great discussion here.
It reveals some fundamental challenges with sustainability and nature of architecture.
‘Architecture’ distinguishes itself from ‘building’ by its qualitative aspirations. It belongs to the qualitative aspects of life such as art, music, film, literature, fine dining, etc.
It's what we 'live for' not what we 'need to live'.
Though these qualitative aspects of life are immeasurable and subjective, its relevance is self evident and can be seen as key driver of life.
But here's the dilemma.
Qualitative aspirations are 'unnecessary' in context of sustainability.
Projects that architects work on are typically for qualitative aspirations, far above basic needs:- Corporate identity, greater public amenity, holiday homes, large residence relative to its occupancy, etc. This isn't limited to the 'starchitect's work' but majority are your everyday middle class architectural projects.
When the other half in the world need to accommodate a new family member, they simply sleep in the same room. (The footprint of an average middle class citizen is several times that of world average. And world average is approx 1.5 times greater than carrying capacity. Try putting your annual income here for an indication of relative consumption. More fun then footprint calculators. http://www.globalrichlist.com/)
Many design decisions pit sustainability issues against qualitative aspirations of a project.
High ceiling versus heating needs, views to south (north for northern hemisphere friends) versus heat loss through glass, convenience of an ensuite versus reducing ....., etc.
How do we deal with these dilemma?
(I've seen Mockbee do some cool tall spaces :-))
Are these questions any different to ethical questions about cultural value vs basic needs? eg How can we build projects such as art galleries when that money could goto building hospitals that save lives, etc.
Bringing this ramble back to the start, the most difficult dilemma is how we (as architects) deal with 'Desire'.
A client engages Architect A for a eco 400 sqm holiday house. Construction of which requires the felling of trees (even if only two), some material from a mine, the clearing of land, all of which add load to the ecosystem. To get to this paradise one of course must drive, regardless of the efficiency of the eco-car it still has to be built, shipped, maintained etc etc. Once built, it's profiled in archi-blog A, picked up by few design mags, and wins an Industry Award or two. Someone picks up an archi mag, sees the shot of the rainwater fed, solar powered, microbe cleaned, feather edge lap pool (world's first) and is mesmerised. She suddenly has a yearning for a rural holiday house and an eco lap pool, and engages Architect B...... On and on.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
GO, i tend to agree with your point of view on the star vs. altruist, if framed this way; the vortex created by the Rems, Libeskinds, and Gehrys allow for the more talented and innovative professionals to take up design AND sustainability in a creative fashion, and they are more able to avoid the dilemma that pochi cites.
This is wholly unrelated, but echoes this conversation in a way.
From a professor at Yeshiva University in NYC, discussing how his institution lost $110M because of Bernard Madoff:
“In elevating to a level of demiworship people with big bucks, we have been destroying the values of our future generation,” he said. “We need a total rethinking of who the heroes are, who the role models are, who we should be honoring.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/nyregion/23yeshiva.html
My (or rather, his) $.02.
not in the least, i think fame has been punked!
Let me say first that I completely agree with Cameron and Kate's letter. There has been WAY too much attention to the celebrity architects and a lot of nonsensical "architecture" that is built to shock or amaze. I am frequently embarassed to have to acknowledge that these designers are technically in the same profession I am.
But why is all the congratulatory commentary here directed ONLY to Cameron? The letter was signed by BOTH Cameron and Kate. I am sure that Kate made significant contributions to the letter, if in fact she wasn't the primarly author. I'll say that I am not a female, an ardent feminist, nor do I know either Cameron or Kate. But really, people, recogize them both!
SGL
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.