Getting progressively tired of Caeron Sinclair's bashing of starchitects. Dude, do what's important to you, let others do what is important to them, and let the people decide. The constant urge to "put'em in their place!" only devalues his impressive contribution of 10 years. And he needs to accept the fact that what he does, and what Zaha and the likes do (and I'm deeply disturbed by lumping everyone else into the same group) are important to "humanity" for different reasons. And probably because of this very reason she's not willing to listen to you yell at her at the Barbicon.
...and I am (or was, until roughly November) getting progressively tired of starchitects' tossing up of yet more egregiously silly shiny-icons-with-a-hole buildings.
As you say yourself, GOARch, there is room for all types in this world. Cameron is able to display a sense of humor about both his goals and his means - if someone can't stand the prodding, they should try to figure out why.
hadid's work is not great. i'll say it so no one else has to. it's kinda awful. or maybe just meaningless. that may be more spot on, with one exception:
There's something really self righteous about his rhetoric, my criticism is not about what he does, or the validity of what he does, but rather how he talks about what he does in relation to what others do in this discipline.
Having been at the debate last night i have to say Cameron’s criticism was highly justified –and the majority of the audience were in agreement. The presentation from fabian hecker from zaha's office was totally woeful.
Particularly when set next to the work of FAT and Winy Maas the masterplanning projects from zaha were depressing and appeared just as a self-indulgent exploration of pretty patterns - grey and meaningless. Winy and Sean gave thought provoking presentations engaging with the topics of the debate - ethics, politics, and society. A typical quote from fabian, with yet another grey model on the screen was 'we varied the heights to make it more interesting'. I was looking forward to an explanation of zaha’s masterplanning work because I have always considered it to be an intellectual exercise that does not interact with the complexity of the urban environment or seem to have any spatial awareness.
And it wasn’t just Cameron who was Zaha bashing: Sean weighed in and Charles Jencks, who said he was setting out to defend her, struggled and ended up sounding at best ambivalent.
I have to agree with GO ARCH. Cameron’s article sounds whiny and entitled.
First, the “architecture of excess” raised awareness of our profession into public consciousness. Our profession benefits immensely from so-called starchitects because they provide a social frame of reference between architects and the greater public. Sure, Zaha’s buildings are expensive and “excessive” (what does this even mean?!?), but she’s globally known as an architect, and that’s a good thing.
In the last decade, globalization and immense financial networks created a ton of money that flew around the world. Starchitecture is but one manifestation of this phenomenon. I, for one, am proud of the creative, amazing architects found a way to market their ideas and expand our profession.
Could Zaha’s buildings be more sustainable and durable? Sure. Could she have used her celebrity to raise awareness of slums? Perhaps, but wouldn’t it come off as condescending anyways (like Angelina adopting third-world children)?
Cameron’s ethical high ground is immature because it consists of shooting the messenger instead of giving a substantive critique. If you want to whine about the excesses of global capitalism, stop baiting starchitects into ego-fests and go protest on Wall Street.
Our profession benefits immensely from so-called starchitects because they provide a social frame of reference between architects and the greater public.
Tell me how? A lot of what I see in the attitude of the general public is that architects are nothing but egomaniacal artistes; that we don't care about the clients needs, budget, or shelter. Sadly, the vast majority of architects truly do care about those things AND can make buildings that feed our cultural souls - yet the high-profile actions of a few are what the "general public" notices.
And as for Cameron's critique being "immature": the substantive critique he is giving is via the real-life work he has done that has impacted thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, around the globe, many of them people who have absolutely no avenues through which to help themselves.
Yes, we love Cameron's tenacity and determination around here. And yes, we love Zaha's flamboyance too.
The more people that can point to a building and say "[Zaha, Norman, Gehry, xyz, you, me, ...] designed this", the better for our profession. It speaks volumes to how tangible and important our individual and collective contributions to society can be.
That Zaha can convince people to entrust her design ideas with millions of dollars raises the bar (and awareness) for our profession. Hopefully, people will see the creativity and imagination of the current crop of architects and expect even more from the next (including ideas of “social responsibility” and whatnot).
And I don't know what Zaha does on a daily basis, but I guarantee she isn't bragging over the internet about how much more ethical she is compared to other architects.
I, too, am certain Zaha isn't bragging to anyone about her ethics, though I'm equally certain she's bragging about other things she does!
That's a good post, sectional, and as you say: raising awareness of architecture to everyone is a good thing for all of us, and there are many different approaches to the field. Getting attention to ALL of them is good - and Cameron's actions are within a tradition of protest, no? And while someone pointing to a building and being able to name who designed it is a goal, perhaps getting people to point to a building and know how it positively impacted the local culture, regardless of who designed it, is also a good goal?
I firmly believe that there is room for everyone, as it seems you do also. (And so you don't think I'm a Zaha hater, the CAC is one of my favorite buildings, though in large part because of how incredibly restrained it is.)
It's funny how most of the criticisms to the piece focus on the 4 lines about Zaha (she was noted given the debate set up by the Barbican and the Architectural Foundation more than 2 months ago). However if you READ the title of the piece it's is called the architects dilemma. In a time of financial tailspin, increased social ills and unemployment in our profession we are at a moment where many are questioning what is next. it's to provoke the idea that it is not either/or but AND.
As mentioned -- The argument was never about starachitect vs. non-starachitect but how we adapt and change as a group of professionals that is dedicated to improving the physical environments that we call life. There is no 'architecture with a big A' there is only architecture and how we practice it matters not just for the state of the world but the survival of the practice.
The critiques went both ways as it was suggested that community led grassroots organizations might seem good now but in hindsight they could turn into the sort of movements that brought the Nazis to power. I was very puzzled by that comment but I think it was in the heat of the moment (I think the person who said that to me mentioned they commented here too - hi!). I certainly went beyond my usual presentation but given I'm flying 24 hrs to basically have a non-debate and it was better to take the initiative and write about the debate BEFORE the design media (and bloggers) ratcheted thing up with a 'david vs. goliath' piece.
There is a huge spectrum within our industry but it is being suggested here that questioning the process and product of this form of architecture is off limits because intellectually more important and therefore seen as bashing.
Stop reading everything as an 'us vs. them' argument. it is NOT about the person, it is about the relevance of the profession as we react to changing climates, populations, financial systems, etc. etc.
The institutions that have been the patrons of the "starchitect" are in such financial retraction that the comissions that have nurtured architectural branding will be few and far between for perhaps a decade. Thrift is the new buzzword and will soon supplant even "green" in the coming post CreditDefaultClusterFuck.
The architect has always faced this dilemma, any designer has. Whether they recognize it is another matter entirely. The rationale(excuses) usually involve...
1. please the client
2. my designs are pretty so they must be improving humanity.
3. i have to meet payroll.
4. i thought it would be a challenge designing a nuclear wastedump/slaughterhouse...
Step back and you'll see that almost every building (certainly almost every building I've ever worked on with absolutely no chance of being mistaken for Starchitecture and some could not even be mistaken for architecture) DO NOT need to be built. Architectural practice is reactive NOT proactive otherwise we would see awards given to projects refused.
I've lived through one cultural shift and it was so quickly coopted by marketing, advertising and commercialism that any new shift will certainly fall victim just as fast.
Apr 12, 09 3:12 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.
15 Comments
Getting progressively tired of Caeron Sinclair's bashing of starchitects. Dude, do what's important to you, let others do what is important to them, and let the people decide. The constant urge to "put'em in their place!" only devalues his impressive contribution of 10 years. And he needs to accept the fact that what he does, and what Zaha and the likes do (and I'm deeply disturbed by lumping everyone else into the same group) are important to "humanity" for different reasons. And probably because of this very reason she's not willing to listen to you yell at her at the Barbicon.
...and I am (or was, until roughly November) getting progressively tired of starchitects' tossing up of yet more egregiously silly shiny-icons-with-a-hole buildings.
As you say yourself, GOARch, there is room for all types in this world. Cameron is able to display a sense of humor about both his goals and his means - if someone can't stand the prodding, they should try to figure out why.
hadid's work is not great. i'll say it so no one else has to. it's kinda awful. or maybe just meaningless. that may be more spot on, with one exception:
width=320
There's something really self righteous about his rhetoric, my criticism is not about what he does, or the validity of what he does, but rather how he talks about what he does in relation to what others do in this discipline.
Having been at the debate last night i have to say Cameron’s criticism was highly justified –and the majority of the audience were in agreement. The presentation from fabian hecker from zaha's office was totally woeful.
Particularly when set next to the work of FAT and Winy Maas the masterplanning projects from zaha were depressing and appeared just as a self-indulgent exploration of pretty patterns - grey and meaningless. Winy and Sean gave thought provoking presentations engaging with the topics of the debate - ethics, politics, and society. A typical quote from fabian, with yet another grey model on the screen was 'we varied the heights to make it more interesting'. I was looking forward to an explanation of zaha’s masterplanning work because I have always considered it to be an intellectual exercise that does not interact with the complexity of the urban environment or seem to have any spatial awareness.
And it wasn’t just Cameron who was Zaha bashing: Sean weighed in and Charles Jencks, who said he was setting out to defend her, struggled and ended up sounding at best ambivalent.
is there video?
I have to agree with GO ARCH. Cameron’s article sounds whiny and entitled.
First, the “architecture of excess” raised awareness of our profession into public consciousness. Our profession benefits immensely from so-called starchitects because they provide a social frame of reference between architects and the greater public. Sure, Zaha’s buildings are expensive and “excessive” (what does this even mean?!?), but she’s globally known as an architect, and that’s a good thing.
In the last decade, globalization and immense financial networks created a ton of money that flew around the world. Starchitecture is but one manifestation of this phenomenon. I, for one, am proud of the creative, amazing architects found a way to market their ideas and expand our profession.
Could Zaha’s buildings be more sustainable and durable? Sure. Could she have used her celebrity to raise awareness of slums? Perhaps, but wouldn’t it come off as condescending anyways (like Angelina adopting third-world children)?
Cameron’s ethical high ground is immature because it consists of shooting the messenger instead of giving a substantive critique. If you want to whine about the excesses of global capitalism, stop baiting starchitects into ego-fests and go protest on Wall Street.
Tell me how? A lot of what I see in the attitude of the general public is that architects are nothing but egomaniacal artistes; that we don't care about the clients needs, budget, or shelter. Sadly, the vast majority of architects truly do care about those things AND can make buildings that feed our cultural souls - yet the high-profile actions of a few are what the "general public" notices.
And as for Cameron's critique being "immature": the substantive critique he is giving is via the real-life work he has done that has impacted thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, around the globe, many of them people who have absolutely no avenues through which to help themselves.
Yes, we love Cameron's tenacity and determination around here. And yes, we love Zaha's flamboyance too.
I only care about me, and so should you.
The more people that can point to a building and say "[Zaha, Norman, Gehry, xyz, you, me, ...] designed this", the better for our profession. It speaks volumes to how tangible and important our individual and collective contributions to society can be.
That Zaha can convince people to entrust her design ideas with millions of dollars raises the bar (and awareness) for our profession. Hopefully, people will see the creativity and imagination of the current crop of architects and expect even more from the next (including ideas of “social responsibility” and whatnot).
And I don't know what Zaha does on a daily basis, but I guarantee she isn't bragging over the internet about how much more ethical she is compared to other architects.
I, too, am certain Zaha isn't bragging to anyone about her ethics, though I'm equally certain she's bragging about other things she does!
That's a good post, sectional, and as you say: raising awareness of architecture to everyone is a good thing for all of us, and there are many different approaches to the field. Getting attention to ALL of them is good - and Cameron's actions are within a tradition of protest, no? And while someone pointing to a building and being able to name who designed it is a goal, perhaps getting people to point to a building and know how it positively impacted the local culture, regardless of who designed it, is also a good goal?
I firmly believe that there is room for everyone, as it seems you do also. (And so you don't think I'm a Zaha hater, the CAC is one of my favorite buildings, though in large part because of how incredibly restrained it is.)
It's funny how most of the criticisms to the piece focus on the 4 lines about Zaha (she was noted given the debate set up by the Barbican and the Architectural Foundation more than 2 months ago). However if you READ the title of the piece it's is called the architects dilemma. In a time of financial tailspin, increased social ills and unemployment in our profession we are at a moment where many are questioning what is next. it's to provoke the idea that it is not either/or but AND.
As mentioned -- The argument was never about starachitect vs. non-starachitect but how we adapt and change as a group of professionals that is dedicated to improving the physical environments that we call life. There is no 'architecture with a big A' there is only architecture and how we practice it matters not just for the state of the world but the survival of the practice.
The critiques went both ways as it was suggested that community led grassroots organizations might seem good now but in hindsight they could turn into the sort of movements that brought the Nazis to power. I was very puzzled by that comment but I think it was in the heat of the moment (I think the person who said that to me mentioned they commented here too - hi!). I certainly went beyond my usual presentation but given I'm flying 24 hrs to basically have a non-debate and it was better to take the initiative and write about the debate BEFORE the design media (and bloggers) ratcheted thing up with a 'david vs. goliath' piece.
There is a huge spectrum within our industry but it is being suggested here that questioning the process and product of this form of architecture is off limits because intellectually more important and therefore seen as bashing.
Stop reading everything as an 'us vs. them' argument. it is NOT about the person, it is about the relevance of the profession as we react to changing climates, populations, financial systems, etc. etc.
Ps. not to far from the ethics debate I got sucked into this piece. just wow.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai_b_183851.html
The institutions that have been the patrons of the "starchitect" are in such financial retraction that the comissions that have nurtured architectural branding will be few and far between for perhaps a decade. Thrift is the new buzzword and will soon supplant even "green" in the coming post CreditDefaultClusterFuck.
The architect has always faced this dilemma, any designer has. Whether they recognize it is another matter entirely. The rationale(excuses) usually involve...
1. please the client
2. my designs are pretty so they must be improving humanity.
3. i have to meet payroll.
4. i thought it would be a challenge designing a nuclear wastedump/slaughterhouse...
Step back and you'll see that almost every building (certainly almost every building I've ever worked on with absolutely no chance of being mistaken for Starchitecture and some could not even be mistaken for architecture) DO NOT need to be built. Architectural practice is reactive NOT proactive otherwise we would see awards given to projects refused.
I've lived through one cultural shift and it was so quickly coopted by marketing, advertising and commercialism that any new shift will certainly fall victim just as fast.
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.