66. Seven ways to [verb] the Starchitect System

While doing research for one of my posts, I came across this very interesting synopsis of the starchitect system, made by a commenter on archinet. I thought it was a particularly insightful observation and could not resist posting it here.

Th starchitect system [a working and evolving description]:

1. Architect makes a new form and discovers innovative way to build it
   
2. The form-building gets press
   
3. The architect becomes a pseudo-celebrity and the building becomes a "style"
   
4. The architect starts using the same bag of (increasingly superficial) formal tricks in all consequent projects.
   
5. The press (including architectural) give up really engaging criticism and if said architect does anything, it is celebrated as the coming of the messiah for a city, building type, etc...
   
6. The public come to think of that "style" as architecture
   
7. Lesser known architects follow the public's new tastes
   
8. "Architecture" loses yet another battle.

While the above description is of one person's definition of the starchitecture system, below is a few responses on how to engage it (or apply a verb to it). The comments are from the same archinet thread reacting to Phillip Nobel's article in Metropolis Magazine "Anti-Starchitecture Chic". The original thread has a lot of interesting moments but all in all a chaotic stream of chatter that was difficult to follow. So I have tried to categorize them into some common themes and consensuses, while trying to keep the flavor and flow of the conversation. The assembled responses below has been selected not necessarily because I agree with them but because they are provocative and interesting within themselves. I enjoyed the candidness and [for better or for worse] it is an interesting demonstration of the logic of the collective.

1.FLIP THE SYSTEM - FUCK THE SYSTEM

-I am tired of media hype being the primary goal of starchitects. I rather have social and environmental guru's or genius's like Bill McDonough, Cameron Sinclair, or Ed Mazria getting all the attention, since they are creating the future for our planet. Rem, Gehry and their like won't save the earth or create a better society, but there are architects and designers who will. Lets celebrate them instead.

until then: 'fuck Frank Gehry' and while I'm at it, fuck Zaha

- completely agree, but I also feel like these "gurus" should be built into the code of the profession not the anomalies. The current system would not allow that

-Well, then fuck the system. The only truly credible course may be to reject the very idea of using yourself as a brand, (and) to work and work well...to me that's integrity.

2. DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THE SYSTEM

-Isn’t it too easy to say that it doesn’t matter? For example Ghery can write contracts unlike most architects out there. The result is that you and I will never be able to compete with him in control of a project, etc... And at what point does the drive for fame (to be able to write contracts and make money like Ghery) turn into the superficial drive for the next cool form? When is it gimmicky?

I am using Ghery as an example I could say Zaha, Libeskind, OMA,

-Just to mix things up a little, we should also remember that since the Bilbao effect, the marketing and exposure that comes with a "starchitect" translates directly into $$$ to clients and the area. It goes beyond architect/starchitect worship...it's also public/event worship...also, I like to admire talented architects...both starchitects and local unknown architects...I think it's a natural process in our profession.

-The 'average person' is not the average client for a major architectural project. Most corporations, museums, libraries, etc are looking for star power these days.... Chipperfield and Holl's recent museum projects are good examples, as are projects at major universities (Vincent James at Tulane, Rem at IIT, Holl in Iowa) and most of the Asian projects that we hear about over here. You can bet that none of these clients is simply taking proposals and picking the ones they think will be best for the job. They're looking for recognition by association.

-...In general, I think we're painting this picture with a fairly broad brush, basically assuming that clients are lamely saying, "I want a Gehry" or "I want a Meier." On the contrary, most clients are quite savvy about the architect they are selecting. The client that chose Meier for the high-end condos in Chelsea chose him because he knew he could market that name to architecturally-conversant wealthy home buyers. Could he have done the same with Gehry? A museum that selects Holl, let's say Chiasma, knows that Holl will provide a design of a significant quality that will potentially complement the art displayed. moreover, let's be honest, the starchitect 99% of the time is flat-out a better designer than Joe Blow architect. It is more than a name these clients are buying, but clearly the name doesn't hurt either.

3. INFILTRATE THE SYSTEM

-We also must acknowledge that there's often a separation between the fame and the actual design being created by some of these architects we're alluding to.

What I'm getting at is that, for example, the first thing Karim Rashid (Asymptote's Hani Rashid's industrial designer brother) did after graduating school was to hire a PR manager. PR is the name of the game....

...I don't care either way for 'starchitects.' If somebody's doing good work, whether they're a media darling or not, I'm interested. It's easy to criticize those who've risen to fame.... that's the way the game is played right now, and it's not going to change for a little while yet....

-Media and marketing is everywhere today...architects choosing to ignore opportunities for public exposure for a sense of "integritry" just reflects our profession's inability to function in today's world...the starving mysterious missunderstood eccentric artists.

...and except for maybe Phillip Johnson, I doubt any architect or starchitect " seeks fame for fame's sake", they seek fame so they can get commissions with less restrictions than we do. ...

why can't we improve and educate, but also Dazzle!?

-Being an architect, I assume you need to find ways to get your ideas built... star/non starchitect system, whichever ways works for you, I do not see any evil beings in either of the systems. I always think is more efficient to have a PR or agent works for you, so you have more spare time to work on design rather than socialising with the press.

4. ACCEPT THE SYSTEM

- I have no problem with the whole "starchitect" system. We live in an age where media is king. The majority of our thoughts and opinions are based from this. I would rather hear about a designer in the media than another vapid story on Hollywood celebrity. The "starchitecture" system has always filled that media gap no matter if it is sensationalist or not. "No press is bad press" What would Metropolis rather write about?

You need a human face behind the buildings.

5. BEWARE THE DANGERS OF THE SYSTEM

...this is my greatest fear, and Libeskind is a great example of (it): innovation turned to kitsch. Seems like the question that arises is: What is worse for the profession; not playing the PR game, or becoming kitschy?

6. BLAME THE MESSENGERS IN THE SYSTEM

-Architecture business unlike others like fashion designer/hair dresser, mostly clients do not come back for more... therefore exposure is part of the survival tactic to expand the network... some become more "loud or stylistic" in the market and become labeled as star... I wouldn't blame the market nor someone being a star for producing work which I do not like... that's reality!

Its not the architects its the coverage of the architects. Its the misdirected hero worship of the architects. These are not fucking rock stars okay. They are very talented people running businesses that require exposure to be successful. Don't blame them. blame the ridiculous media and the namedropping starfuckers

-Has Rem not worked hard? You think Zaha didn't pay her dues?

-...the burdens may be different. Maybe they don't have to hunt down the work, but they have to pick the projects that will keep them going, maintaining the reputation. They have to make each project measure up to the previous work and the expectations that work has created...

7. DECENTRALIZE THE SYSTEM

...I am proposing that one has to go out there and work with others. Connect in ways that were not possible before, and in that way define how we work. However, I am not advocating for a communal ideal either. What I can see happening is a series of “free agents” coming together for projects with other “free agents” placing the importance on the individual project itself, then moving on and doing other projects. How you would get projects and answer RFP’s, not sure....

-...Exactly! the media as process and method of working, not as glossy images and name dropping.

...But still, it is nice to hold hands and sing kumbaya we are the future, but what are the problems; who signs the drawings? Will there be drawings to sign? Copyrights and intellectual property?as Nobel mentions the starchitect system also works because clients want it, how do you change that economic reality?...

-I agree that the future model of architectural practice lies within open source collaboration, especially within the context of new media technology and building information modeling, but even within this model, I don't think old hierarchies and star-architects will go away unless you look at and address the incentives that perpetuate this system whether economic or the simple desire for fame.

What is the first step? To do away with the pritzker prize?

-Perhaps, but who would turn down the pritzker?

Celebrity isn't going anywhere. In fact it will likely only become more extreme with increased accessibility to media

65.What is Architecture? (Part 2)

In the previous post in this series What is architecture? we looked at 7 famous architects' take on the subject. In your famous or non famous career as an architect you will have to define what architecture means to you. If you are an architect, you probably have your own definition of it already. If you are any good it will change several times over the course of your career. We continue this series with 7 more ...


Architecture is a pursuit that ought to be seen in a more responsible light than it is. And I think that architects ought to be responsible to society in a number of ways and they need to do that for two reasons: number one is that they’re—presumably—human beings, and secondly, if we don’t do it, who the hell is going to?
-Stanley Tigerman

I like to think of architecture as a very precise discipline. Very different from design and very different from sculpture. At the very basic level you have to deal with developing something with an exterior and an interior. Sculpture does not have that problem. I think that is enabling for architects because it gives us something with a very specific disciplinary rigor that we are required to address. So a lot of our work focus on the relationship between the exterior and the interior and how to create openings between them.
-Gage Clemenceau


Architecture is the mother of the arts, it is the thing that makes all other arts possible like wall paintings and things like that; they have to be in an architectural setting all day.
-Philip Johnson


Architecture as an idea is a little bit like writing as an idea: There are writers that are journalists, there are writers that write business letters, there are writers that write fiction,and there are writers that write great works of literature.
-Jeffrey Kipnis

The way I experience architecture, [is the way] we all experience architecture. How it feels as an atmosphere. The atmosphere we know is composed by light, by shadow, by sound, by tactile qualities. All material qualities, material presence. Nothing new! All the old things, you know! It’s like, all the spaces from our childhood we like, they were like that, if we experience a nice architectural atmosphere, it’s all of that. And some of these sense are maybe, more in foreground, and others, maybe like the sound of the space is more in the background; but nevertheless it’s maybe very important for your absorption of the atmosphere. So I think I’m trying to look, what are the elements, which make my spatial composition rich? I think it’s very normal. At least, everybody experiences architecture like that. There’s no other way. So I think forms are over-rated in talking about architecture, not in experiencing architecture. Forms, are over-rated.
-Peter Zumtor

For me (architecture) is any impact in the built envionment. Its not just a house or a sturcture; its the fabric that you are creating that we as the human spceie live in. So as architects, we have a responsibility not just to the client, but to the community as a whole when we do these projects.

Its not a new practice it is a return to an old practice. Arcitects actually had a lot more respect in years gone by in the centries ago, because we were about growing communitees in ways that improved the livelyhoods, the health, the education of communites. We built structures that improved lives, it doesnt matter if it were a civic structure like a museum or a church...
Now in the last 10-15 years architecture has shifted towards more of a symbolic building. It is more about the form and the structure. We have gone through this incredible computer revolution where we can build anything now. When you get to this point, what is the purpose that we have, if we can push all the boundaries? I think the only boudry that we have is what is the architect's and professon's effect on the community as a whole.

-Cameron Sinclair

Our feellings can be influenced by the form of building - whether or not it looks beautiful, or appropriate, or exciting - whether it seems solid and dependible or flashy and insincere. We can applaud or object to the kinds of things it seems to imply about its place in the world, and our place in the world, and whether it does what we want it to do, or seems to trap and frustrate us. Dwellings are caught up with our lives, and shelter our most intimate moments...

In comparison with the problems set by physicists or logicians, architecture is always complex, with many interesting forces at work on it. The problems posed in architecture can not be solved technically, because there are simply too many interdependent variables, and in practice - since the problems must be solved more or less immediately, are well enough for the time being - various factors are either neglected or else they are taken care of by drawing on the experience offered by tradition and precident. When our ways of doing things are properly engrained, they become habitual and we call them 'common sense'.

-Andrew Ballantyne

64. What is important in STARchitecture school (part 2)

---

From: Anonymous
To: architect.journal[at]gmail.com
Sent: Wed, October 28, 2009 6:42:33 AM
Subject: [NOTES ON BECOMING A FAMOUS ARCHITECT] New comment on 63. What is important in STARchitecture school.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "63. What is important in STARchitecture school":

I think that it should be made clear that most Bartlett students can do all the rudimentary tasks that you speak of "architects" doing. They are not difficult. Rather than writing an intelligent comparison or analysis, you seem to have only written an article illustrating, perhaps, the mild inferiority you feel. I have not even studied at the Bartlett, and I can clearly see that. Perhaps you should just accept that architecture schools do things differently. Some are creative, others not. Why is the creativity of the Bartlett such a problem for you, you dont have to go and study there. What I find interesting however is that you never find Bartlett or other "creative" students attacking the more plain and normal design schools. I'd be suprised if you even allow this to be shown on your blog, as i know you have to approve this.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.


Posted by Anonymous to NOTES ON BECOMING A FAMOUS ARCHITECT at October 28, 2009 6:42 AM

---

Dear Anonymous-defender-of-the-Bartlett-who-have-never-ever-even-attended-there-ever-really,

First of all, take a breather and put a nice little smile on your face.
Have you done that?
good.
I am smiling too.

Let me just explain one thing which I think you might have misinterpreted. The article was not directed at the Bartlett School per-say. I threw a banana cream pie at Starchitecture schools in general and the Bartlett was the closest one in the cross hairs. I have friends who have attended the Bartlett (how do you think I know all this stuff) and I am just poking fun at them and the rest of the Bartlett as well.

Okay, lets get down to business, so where should we start? How about where we agree?

"I think that it should be made clear that most Bartlett students can do all the rudimentary tasks that you speak of "architects" doing. They are not difficult."

I know, I know, there are lots of Bartlett people who go out and do the "rudamentary" tasks of an architect and more. But between you and I though, did you really have to let the whole freeking world know how easy an architect's job is? There are non-architects reading this blog too you know. Gaad damn you!... I mean, have you ever heard of a magician telling the whole world how easy it is to pull a rabbit out of a hat? That really ticks me off. If I am ever in a dark alley and see an Anonymous-defender-of-the-Bartlett-who-have-never-ever-even-attended-there-ever-really, I am going to take out my pocket knife and cut its little tale off.

"I'd be suprised if you even allow this to be shown on your blog, as i know you have to approve this."

I am surprised too. I thought these Jedi reverse-psychology mind tricks thingies only worked on weak minded people. I really am surprised at how weak minded I am. I am setting up a meditation session with Yoda next week. Use the force Conrad...use the force...


Anyway, where were we....yes!, I am glad we could agree on those two points.
I do however, have some serious disagreements with you though:

Where I disagree with you most is that you somehow think that the inferiority that I feel is mild. Let me tell you, it is vast and it runs deep. Heavens man! I wrote a whole article about this. You don't do this unless you have some serious issues.

You also made the assumption that alternative to writing this article I could have written "an intelligent comparison or analysis". This stipulates that I am capable of writing something intelligent in the first place. ......How little do you know....

You were saying something about the creativity of the Bartlett teaching?...
Fist off, I don't think creativity is something you can teach. Most people are born with it; either you have it or you don't. Some schools nurture this, some schools don't. I think the Bartlett is one that does not....Calm the hell down, let me explain....
First see the definition below:

CREATIVITY: the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.;

The operative word here being meaningful. Creativity thrives within constraints; its about finding novel and thoughtful solutions especially when you have to work around complexities. MacGyver is creative, the team of Apollo 13 was creative (have you seen the movie? check it out it's a nice one), and yes architects working under real world constraints like gravity for instance, contracts, limited budgets, being responsible to society, construction methods etc. A creative person can look at all these constraints and pressures as a challenge and come up with a thoughtful rigorous solution that transcend traditional rules, patterns, etc.

Starchitecture schools by and large removes the constraints of the real world; if your project is too expensive, just imagine that you have unlimited budget, if it cant withstand gravity, just pretend there was less of it, if the forms you come up with doesn't work for human beings just say its a space for cyborgs.
What the Bartlett faculty nurtures is fantasy & imagination. The Random House dictionary defines imagination as follows:

IMAGINATION: the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature,
the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.

I don't have a problem with a school nurturing imagination we need more of it. Remember it was Einstein who said "Imagination is more important than knowledge", but it is not a substitute for creativity. Just wanted to clarify that, if we are going to be clear on things, lets be clear.

"Why is the creativity of the Bartlett such a problem for you, you dont have to go and study there. What I find interesting however is that you never find Bartlett or other "creative" students attacking the more plain and normal design schools."

Frank Murray who commented before you [see his comment above yours] pointed out an interesting little article written by a Bartlett graduate and made a comment at the bottom. I paste it here, perhaps it might answer some of your questions:

I do think schools like the Bartlett which I think was labeled by Conrad Newel on NOBAFA as Starchitecture schools offer interesting perspectives on architecture and other fields as well. I do however think they have a confused agenda. They seem to want to be an architecture school and a school of alternate visual media culture at the same time. More often than not these agendas work against each other. The discipline of architecture is vast and there is much to learn, so is the research in visual culture. They should make a choice and be clear about it. Are you training students to be architects or something else that has to do with architecture? What should a student expect to learn when they finish school? What are you being prepared for. If bartlett graduates go on to become film-makers, and video game designers, and such, maybe its a good idea to say it is not an architecture school and say it is a school of visual media. Then you will attract students with that goal in mind. It has a lot to do with openness. I believe what frustrates professors such as Patrick Lynch is that he holds his profession very dear and when someone comes along and do something very different and calls it the same thing then it devalues what he does.

Consider, if a school opens up and starts teaching alternative medicine (acupuncture, aromatherapy, Atkins diet, chiropractic medicine, herbalism, breathing meditation, yoga,etc), gives its graduates medical degrees and sent them off to hospitals and emergency rooms to perform surgery, a lot of people would have a problem with that. This is, in effect, what the architectural profession is doing when it allows schools like the Bartlett to give architecture degrees. The medical profession will not allow it but the architectural profession does.

I couldn't have said it better myself. When you do something else and call it architecture, not only do you devalue the profession, you are making a direct attack on its integrity. So when you say that you find it interesting that you never find the Bartlett " attacking the more plain and normal design schools." I say what the hell are you talking about! If they called it the Bartlett School of Alternate Visual Media no one would have a problem.

Get one thing clear, I don't defend mediocrity or the status-quo in architecture. Saying no to blown up post-industrial apocalyptic fantasies is not saying yes to mediocrity. There is a vast world between the two. This is a common fallacy that comes up when Bartlett professors defend their antics. "Oh the only alternative to what we do is plain, normal, boring stuff". Boy they must have some hell of an ego!

---

From: Anonymous
To: architect.journal[at]gmail.com
Sent: Wed, October 28, 2009 7:39:07 PM
Subject: [NOTES ON BECOMING A FAMOUS ARCHITECT] New comment on 63. What is important in STARchitecture school.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "63. What is important in STARchitecture school":

You know, not everyone from the Bartlett can be so easily categorized. It really just comes across as a little bigoted. There really are some who know how to design great buildings, which are not only attractive but also truly function, because they know how to do the typical Bartlett beautiful shit but combine it with intelligent design, merging all the things you claim only "architects" can do. I think its those guys that your mediocrity should be afraid of.



Posted by Anonymous to NOTES ON BECOMING A FAMOUS ARCHITECT at October 28, 2009 6:25 AM

---

Dear Other-Anonymous-defender-of-the-Bartlett

Here we go again with the its-either-Bartlett-or-it's-mediocrity argument. If I had any hair left on my head I would be pulling it out right now!
Pleeeease..... stop it! The arrogance is killing me.
If you continue with this I would be inclined to think that when you said "intelligent design" you really meant it.
Take a look at the last paragraph of my reply above.

If you think I try to categorize Bartlett students or students from any Starchitecture school, read my article again and you will come to the same conclusion as I did; it is a figment of your highly developed imagination. I do not categorize students. I think architecture students, whether they are from the Bartlett or not, come in all different colors, shapes, and sizes.; some smart, some dull, some rich, some poor, some talented some not so talented. Starchitecture School faculty however ...are categorically predictable. They come in one color; BLACK! Black shirts, black pants, black frame glasses, black souls; and I am not talking about shoe parts (which are also black by the way).

The students of these schools are the victims. Get it straight! I draw a line when I throw banana cream pies. I have come to admire architecture students very much. They are the hardest working, most resilient beings I know. Cockroaches have noting on them in a competition of resiliency.

Consider this, a typical student at any starchitecture school will have to put up with a lot of stupid and demeaning shit from faculty members while they are in school. I described this in the article. They come with earnest minds and accounts burdened with student loans. The come to learn architecture, and instead they are demeaned by their starchitecture professors, insulted, stepped on, slighted, compared to monkeys by others etc. (some think this is a right-of-passage, I think it is a-right-of-bullshit) Students are used as guinea-pigs to test and push their professor's agendas. I have even heard that Batrlett students and units are encouraged to compete against each other because they believe "competition is healthy". The result? you have students getting caught between ego wars among professors, you get an ethical and social malaise were students are pitted against each other. The only thing that thrives in this environment is the graphics and presentation in your projects, because this is how the apparent winner is determined. My dear Other-Anonymous-defender-of-the-Bartlett, the measure of an education is not by how pretty your presentation and graphics are. When you do that your project, the process and the research around it (the substance of your education) is held hostage to the tyranny of the graphical presentation. I will say this, a little competition is healthy in academia, but the level of competition that goes on there is destructive and it is ultimately your education that suffers. In reality Architecture is a team sport equivalent to football, not a bloody kill or be killed sport like dog or cock fighting (if you want to call that a sport).

Students are pushed out into the world with very little skills to practice architecture beyond a great imagination and some computer graphics skills. This is why a lot of them don't even bother to peruse a career in architecture after they graduate; they go into the video game industry, they become film makers, animators, etc. That makes sense that they would do that, doesn't it? When you find a graduate from a starciteture school like the Bartlett combining his/her two-dimensional education with the rigor of the architectural world to make great architecture, know this; The didn't learn the bulk of what they are using in starchitecture school. They are thrown out into the world and left to fend for them selves and they still do it. That inspires respect not belittlement. I belittle the professors not the students. Note the difference.

The few that do become the chosen one; the starchitect's prodigy who takes on and defend the position of their dark overlords and mentors, I can empathize with. They are like young Anakin Skywalker slowly being swallowed up by the dark side of the force. They are waiting to become the next Peter Eisenman or Norman Foster. But fair warning, if they use themselves to protect and shield my target, I will not be responsible for any banana cream pie that they may find themselves licking off their faces.