Fight! Architecture, Prince Charles, neo-classicists and modernists.
- Thread starter Balbi
- Start date
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I'm not sure you can take that rhetoric around modernist architecture at face value though. I know it was sold as progressive at the time, but with hindsight surely we can see that it was perpetuated by a bunch of people more interested in their own careers than in building livable buildings. It was always undemocratic, usually uninterested in the opinions of peope who were going to use the buildings, and often completely insensitive to local conditions, ranging from weather through culture. Just another fashion of the elite with a bit of socialist rhetoric thrown to make it seem plausible, but in fact providing cover for building cheap buildings with little merit except their cheapness. The height of the arrogance of it is the 'international' style where it is assumed in an almost totalitarian way that all human beings in all places at all times want the same things from their environment - so they'll bloody well get it, whether they like it or not (and they often don't, but who cares? People are so, y'know, dumb, they can't be trusted to know what they want).
If architects are interested in progressive politics, how come its one of the most elitist industries around, utterly unforgiving towards the women in their ranks, exploitative of the lower parts of the hierarchy, and completely unconcerned with the democratic issues around the development projects they serve?
This isn't a plea for a return to classical or victorian architecture btw. More of a plea for some actual progressive politics in architecture - which as far as I can tell was about as progressive as Stalinism for most of the 20th Century and hasn't improved much recently.
I always lose these arguments here but I'm going to keep on trying
teuchter
je suis teuchter
These are some rather sweeping generalisations if you don't mind my saying.
To start with - the fact you say "industry" suggests you are mixing up the architectural profession with the building industry. You do realise that it's not architects who commission, pay for and ultimately profit from development? Architects have very little control over the political decisions involved in development projects. The developer is their client and he who pays the piper calls the tune. The best that architects can do is try to influence some of the decision making process - try to persuade developers that they should spend some money on improving public spaces around the building instead of focussing entirely on cramming as many square meters in as possible, for example. But if the client says no, there is not much an architect can do - other than resign from the job and let someone else with even less of a social conscience take over.
As for elitist - well, there is a problem in architecture that it is difficult for those with less financial support from family etc to study and get started. Partly because of the length of the period of study, partly because of the fact that they are often expected to work for very little during the early part of their career and during the compulsory periods of work experience which lead up to qualification. Why the culture of low pay? Because most architects do the job because they enjoy it rather than as a money-spinning career, which means they are easily bidded down by clients who for the most part put little financial value on good design. Architects are one of the lowest paid professions within the building industry (a junior architect will be paid quite a bit less than most of the skilled trades on site too) and are paid substantially less than professions with comparable lengths of study like law or medicine. The situation is similar to the film industry in many regards, where there is a culture of low (or no) pay particularly amongst the lower ranks. This is undoubtedly unfair to those trying to start out with little financial support. How to address this problem? What do you suggest? The architectural profession would like to hear your ideas because there is endless debate about it.
Finally - "utterly unforgiving towards the women in their ranks" - what do you mean by that? You will find that there are approximately equal numbers of male/female amongst architecture students these days I think. Less women carry on to take it up as a job beyond university but the proportion is steadily increasing and you will find that many younger practices have a substantial proportion (perhaps even a majority) of women in their staff. In any case, my understanding is that relative to the rest of the very male dominated building industry, women are well represented amongst architects.
When you say "utterly unconcerned around the democratic issues around the development projects they serve" - can you be a bit more specific? Are you clear about the roles of planning policy, local authorities, speculators and landowners in development projects, and how these are different to the role of the architect? What precisely do you want to happen differently, that is within the ability of architects to change?
Also - to state the obvious, there are lots of architects and they will have a wide range of political viewpoints as with any other bunch of people. I'm not sure if I can provide evidence but it is often remarked that compared to most other "professionals", architects are actually quite left-ish on the whole.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Not really. Prince Charles has influence because of an accident of birth. Richard Rogers has influence because he's fashionable and chummy with those in power. Neither is remotely "democratic".
If anything, Prince Charles has a better defence due his constitutional position. What constitutional position does Lord Rogers hold?
Similar threads
