Starchitect or Servant: What's your "Why"?
"Working on 'how' without rigorous control of 'why' inevitably excludes reality from the planning process. Proposals for the solution of problems necessarily stand between the definition of goals and the evaluation of effects." -- De Carlo
What kinds of answers do you get when you ask architecture students why they are studying architecture? Most of us are interested in designing buildings that "look cool" or "make a difference", but we aren't introduced to the reality early enough that architecture at its core is a public service. If in our proper place, we aren't stars, but servants. Yet this is not how we are taught... by nature, we are also a competitive discipline, and in school, the competition to be the "starchitect" if you will is emphasized much more than being a servant to people. How can we balance the rigor of high craft in design while also maintaining the heart of a servant? I think Clemson's School of Architecture does a decent job of creating an environment that is collaborative over competitive that helps lead to this idea of serving others, but even here, we can grow. I wonder how many people would become architects if we were more upfront with the call to lifelong service rather than a certain "stardom"?
Sydney,
ReplyDeleteI agree that architecture at its core is a public service. There are many excellent architects, but very few people will become star architects. Most architects are just providing a design service for the clients and the public. But this does not mean that the works of star architects are better. As design servants, we can still design some fantastic buildings.
Sydney,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems that some of the more UNsuccessful buildings were built by selfish architects that did it for publicity or to uphold some superficial image they created for themselves. Like you said, buildings should be designed to serve the public. Architects can still use their skills to make the building functional and beautiful, but if the building does not serve the people, what is the point?
Sydney,
ReplyDeleteI think this raises an import question. It reminds me of philosophy of Sam Mockbee and the Rural Studio. It makes me wonder - if we to be good servants, who are we to serve? The client solely? Our bosses? Our companies bottom line? The public good? What if these interests don't align? Do juggling these values define who we are as professionals, and is there a right answer?
Sydney,
ReplyDeleteSharp observation. I completely agree that the current academic environment is still lingering in a fascination with stardom. The CUSoA does a relatively good job at balancing high building craft and servant craft, but it could do more. The collaborative structure of most of our studios does help to tame runaway competition between colleagues that could lead to a toxic environment. But sometimes it feels as if the individual is not pushed enough, or rather, not pushed in the right direction. There's already so many pressures facing us as architects, we should be more prudent with the pressures we direct towards our colleagues.