The past month or so has seen the publication of a series of startling, apocalyptic Op-Eds, causing quite a stir amongst architects and critics alike, and with President Obama’s State of the Union address this evening, we feel compelled to take stock of the debate in our domain. In mid-December, The New York Times kicked off the debate with an opinion piece by critics Steven Bingler and Martin Pedersen, who told us ‘How To Rebuild Architecture,’ presenting the hyperbolic thesis that the industry is currently lying in ruins. According to them, our profession has ironically imploded in the face of our ballooning egos, and a longstanding inability to listen to those who must ultimately live with our designs: the humble public.
In a sharp-toothed retort, the renowned curator and critic Aaron Betsky laid siege to Bingler and Pedersen in Architect, the official magazine of the AIA. He inferred that their demands for greater collaboration with the public — and a more democratic design process — would result in architecture that is “a dull affirmation of what we have,” devoid of the experimentation and innovation that is crucial for progress… or, at least, Betsky’s personal definition of progress.
All this comes in the wake of a year peppered with cries of discontent from high profile figures from the world of architecture, none louder than Frank Gehry, who claimed that “98% of everything built and designed today is pure sh*t. There’s no sense of design, no respect for humanity or for anything else.” The AJ’s Paul Finch agreed. With rumblings of dissatisfaction echoing around the industry, the question looms large for architects and non-architects alike: is our profession experiencing a crisis like never before?
Gehry’s Retort. Via The Guardian
While his response to criticism was cantankerous in the extreme, Gehry is surely right to point out that vast swaths of mediocre architecture currently fly under the radar of an increasingly starry-eyed media. However, Bingler and Martin argue that starchitects like Gehry — and all of us who aspire to become like him — are at the root of this very problem.
The duo laments our continued preoccupation with creating “signature pieces, glorious one-offs,” neglecting to create “artful, harmonious work that resonates with a broad swath of the general population.” In doing so, they claim, we have “ceded the rest of the built environment to hacks, with sprawl and dreck rolling out all around us.”
Betsky objects, insisting that architects must not pander to laypeople but continue to experiment and innovate in pursuit of their highest ideal, to “startle and shock.” He assures us that the opinion of the general population should never be a priority: “The truth is that architecture is not made by or for ‘a wide spectrum of the population.’ It is made for those who have the means to commission it, and reflects their values and priorities.” In other words, architects must listen to those who really matter: the ones with the deepest pockets.
Aaron Betsky. Via The Holcim Foundation
With such dismissive words, Betsky ignores an inconvenient truth: in most cases, directly or indirectly, the public is the client. Residential developers must ultimately sell their houses to buyers, the owners of a gallery or museum must attract visitors through their doors, commercial developers must attract tenants to their offices, ministers must attract their congregation. Collectively, these third parties — the public, in its many guises — hold sway over the true value of the architecture we design, and also the purpose of our industry. Betsky disregards them at his peril.
A commenter on his essay, James Wilson, sums it up: “experiencing architecture should not require a ‘trained eye.’” Whether Betsky likes it or not, 99.99% of the public are not architects or architectural critics, but are subjected to the physical and psychological effects of the built environment nonetheless.
The view of this esteemed columnist only serves to reinforce the stigma of elitism that has led to our profession’s increasingly poor image in the eyes of the general populace. At worst, it could be viewed as a right wing rant, staunchly in favor of those fortunate enough to move in the uppermost economic circles — comprising both the starchitects, with their conveyor belt of budget-busting instant icons, and the clients who commission them.
Bingler and Pedersen’s piece does not, as Betsky fears, call for the stifling of innovation in order to produce ‘safe, predictable’ architecture from some bygone era. Their call for greater collaboration with the public need not result in an ocean of pastiche compromises. Betsky’s argument reads as a battle between modernism and traditional architecture, like a sequel to Ayn Rand’s ‘The Fountainhead‘ — but this debate should not be about style, it should be about quality. If we can increase the architectural quality and workmanship of our built environment, we may stand a better chance of convincing the general public that our designs our worthy — no matter how ‘shocking’ or ‘startling’ they may be.
The Fountainhead. Via Classic Film
With the two opposing viewpoints clearly laid out before us, we can see that the solution surely lies somewhere between them. We must establish better ways to engage with the public, not only listening to them but also reassuring them that their input will not fall on deaf ears. Their pragmatic demands and conservative opinions may disappoint Betsky, but as any good architect knows, these constraints do not have to dilute the designer’s ambition, or his or her sense of adventure. The marriage between an architect’s trained eyes and his or her open ears should lead to a building that satisfies the critics and the public alike.
Despite their differences, Bingler, Pedersen and Betsky all appear to agree that the industry has lost its way. However, they are in stark disagreement as to where it all went wrong, and what should be done about it. The good news, though, is that the discussion is well and truly under way, – and with so many high profile figures weighing in, the debate has the potential — to borrow our own Marc Kushner’s words — break out of the echo chamber of architectural discourse and make its way to the mainstream. I, for one, welcome this prospect.
The answer to the question we posed at the outset — about whether architecture is experiencing a crisis — might well be “YES.” However, if questioning yourself and the state of your discipline amounts to a crisis, then it is an incredibly healthy one. Like any industry worth working in, ours is in a constant state of flux, and the questions posed by these critics have been asked since the industrial era began in the 1800s. The only difference now is that when someone has a strong opinion on the issue, he or she is empowered by online media to broadcast it to a much wider audience than was previously possible. This can be no bad thing, and the more voices that are added to the mix, the better.
Yours Critically,
The Angry Architect
Top image via Studio E
