evaluate the {post} and locate what are the inconsistencies
{post} It's important that I write this,
and bring the attention of #media and #communications professionals in the #ACEDsector. That stands for #architecture , #construction , #engineering and #design.
Feb 27
The topic is a simple phenomenon that originates from an extremely complex set of market, economic and professional psychological parameters governing the #DesignMedia industry today.
About 8 years back, when I was the editor-in-chief of The Indian Arch '16, the annual magazine of National Association of Students of Architecture, India, I was lucky enough to interview Madhav Raman, Principal at Anagram Architects, New Delhi. It was a beautiful, candid conversation, but one thing rings my head till date is his response to my question.
I had asked - What is the one thing that you hate the most in the architecture industry?
He was candid, he didn't take a moment to respond. He said two words. His response was: Hero Worship.
#HeroWorship happens to be a pestering problem. Atleast, In India, it is. And we are seeing it live. A world renowned architect, a Pritzker Lauriete is touring India now. He, I believe was flown in to be the key face of a high profile design event in Delhi, that recently got over. And boy, oh boy, has the industry lost its shit! What am I seeing?
I am seeing events selling tickets at disproportionately high prices by banking on the name. Or, maybe the top few names.
I am seeing architectural media platforms trying to grab their piece of the cake. Posts about the gentleman, rush to get selfies, this that and what not.
I am seeing even Indian Starchitects rushing in to get a selfie. WOW.
In 2021, when I was publishing Season 1 of The Better Architecture Podcast titled "Diversify Please", I had an episode named "Pritzker Trap". In that episode, I remember having mentioned clearly - The media houses don't give a damn about who or what you are. They will use your face for posters to mint revenue. They aren't concerned about much, save how to capitalise on the fame.
And, yes. India just capitalised the Pritzker fame. Thank you to the architectural media and communications domain for proving me right. Thank you for reinforcing my thought, the thought that goes on the lines of 'how fast are we degrading as a profession that we now need to bank on professionals to pull the crowd'.
Don't get me wrong. I know how revenue generation works. I know why media houses do this. I know what market forces 'compel' the media houses to do this. I know how this works. And, also why this works.
What I don't understand, and can't come to terms with is this. Aren't our works enough? Isn't architecture enough in itself, isn't design enough by itself that we now need to bank on Architects.
Cover Architecture. Cover Design. And not Architects. Move beyond the person folks.
In the pursuit of heroes, we maimed the common people. :)
Let me know your thoughts and comments below. This needs discussion and thorough deliberation.
Here are some inconsistencies I noticed in the provided post:
1. The post criticizes "Hero Worship" in architecture and the tendencies to have a celebrity focus, yet the post itself spends a lot of time discussing and bringing attention to the "world renowned architect, a Pritzker Laureate" touring India. This seems a bit contradictory.
2. The post argues media platforms and events shouldn't just bank on big names to draw attention and that the focus should be on the architecture itself. Yet phrases like "Oh boy has the industry lost its shit" and speaking of everyone trying to get selfies seems to indulge in the very hero drama being criticized.
3. The post acknowledges an understanding of the market forces and realities that compel media groups to leverage celebrity architects to generate revenue. Yet ultimately argues "Aren't our works enough?" This expectation seems idealistic or disconnected from commercial aspects driving media.
4. The line "In the pursuit of heroes, we maimed the common people" seems rather hyperbolic and extreme compared to the actual issues being discussed around media tactics.
In summary, while the post makes some fair critiques, there are moments that embody some of the same hero worship tendencies being highlighted as problems. And arguments waver between acknowledging marketing realities yet making moralistic appeals against the status quo. A more consistent line of reasoning could strengthen the position. But raising the issue provokes valuable dialogue.
continue
Here are some additional inconsistencies I noticed:
5. The post calls out architectural media for trying to "grab their piece of the cake" and capitalize on celebrity architects to gain attention, yet the post itself is generating discussion by focusing heavily on the presence of this Pritzker winner. It's contributing to the issue being highlighted.
6. There is discussion of expensive event ticket prices and rushing for selfies, indicating disapproval, but no actual prices are given to contextualize if the prices were unreasonable. And terms like "rushing in" are subjective.
7. The post asks "Aren't our works enough?" in terms of needing to rely on famous names, but provides no examples of works that should be able to standalone without celebrity associations. This makes the argument difficult to assess.
8. There is criticism that media "don't give a damn about who or what you are" and just use faces to "mint revenue." But from a business perspective, this is arguably what media companies should prioritize - revenue and sustainability. Demonizing them distracts from systemic issues.
9. The closing line analogizes the situation to "maiming common people" which seems hugely disconnected from architects getting attention at events. This comes across as self-important exaggeration vs meaningful social commentary.
In summary, while the post raises worthy discussion about over-reliance on starchitects, much of the language utilizes subjective arguments, lacks evidentiary support for assertions, and indulges in inconsistent hero-bashing even as it calls out hero worship. A more nuanced analysis could clarify the legitimate issues without these logical gaps. But it offers a conversational springboard.
is there anything else that needs to be mentioned?
Here are a couple additional potential inconsistencies in the post worth mentioning:
1. The reference to "Diversify Please" and the "Pritzker Trap" episode implies that having Pritzker Laureates receive disproportionate attention hinders diversity in the architecture field. But the post doesn't clarify how focusing less on celebrity architects would actually translate to increased diversity. The connection is unclear.
2. While arguing that the focus should be more on promoting architectural works rather than famous individuals, the post fails to recognize famous architects tend to produce acclaimed works that warrant attention. Promoting the work necessitates highlighting its creator in many instances.
3. Statements like media houses "just use your face for posters to mint revenue" simplify complex business decisions around event marketing and PR strategies. This dichotomy ignores nuances in balancing business revenue, public engagement, and celebrating talent.
Overall, in its passion, the post drifts into sweeping generalizations and dualistic arguments of good/bad. But opening this dialogue allows room for additional perspectives and balancing considerations to emerge. Continuing to flesh out issues around ethics, diversity, business necessities linked to "hero culture" architecture merits ongoing discussion.
what are the differences between a master architect, star architect, woman architect and a hero architect?
There are a few key differences between these types of architects:
- Master architect - Typically refers to an architect who is considered highly accomplished, influential, and has created many iconic buildings over a long career. They have mastered architectural design at the highest level. Examples would include Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid.
- Star architect - An architect who has become something of a celebrity known not just within the architecture world but more broadly in popular culture. They have a "starchitect" status because of their iconic cutting-edge designs, ability to win major commissions, and flair for self-promotion at times. Examples include Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas, Santiago Calatrava.
- Woman architect - Refers simply to a female architect. This terminology is sometimes used to highlight accomplished women in the traditionally male-dominated field of architecture. Some examples include Zaha Hadid, Kazuyo Sejima, Jeanne Gang.
- Hero architect - Doesn't have a commonly understood definition, but could refer to an architect viewed as a heroic or inspirational figure because of their pioneering designs and buildings, overcoming adversity, or humanitarian contributions beyond just architecture. One example would be Samuel Mockbee, founder of the Rural Studio that designs for impoverished communities in Alabama.
In summary, "master" refers more to the level of skill and accomplishment, "star" refers to fame and notoriety, "woman" refers to gender, and "hero" implies inspirational or humanitarian impact in some way. But there can be overlap between these types of architects as well.
is it accurate to state that the status of the architect as a master who would teach through practice has disintegrated in time when, instead of focusing on architecture, the architect becomes the centre of attention?
Yes, that is generally an accurate characterization of how the status of architects has evolved over time. A few key points about that:
- Historically, master architects like Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, Palladio were very focused on architectural practice - designing and executing buildings. They oversaw the entire process and trained other architects through actual construction projects in a kind of apprenticeship model.
- As architecture became more specialized in the modern era, the role of "starchitects" emerged - prestigious architects who create avant-garde designs and conceptualize major projects as a creative act but are less focused on the nitty gritty construction details.
- Starchitects attain a celebrity status through headline-grabbing forms, aesthetics and landing high-profile commissions. The cultivation of their personal brand and notoriety often overshadows a devotion to architectural craft for its own sake.
- So while past architectural masters were teachers through practice itself, contemporary star architects derive their fame and status in the profession through conceptual designs that bring personal recognition and for which detailing/supervision is delegated to teams below them.
So in essence, you could say the architect's status as teacher through practice has faded over time as celebrity architects focusing more narrowly on innovation, ideology or aesthetics have become media figures in their own right beyond just architecture. The craft is somewhat secondary now to the branding in architecture's highest circles.
#note: posted for reference and discussion. #indian #architecture #policy #claude #GeneratedWithAi