Acronyms of the Long Since Dead

Acronyms of the long since dead.

“Rembrandt Painting May Be Fake” screamed a BBC headline last October. Yet another work attributed to Rembrandt had been cast in doubt by speculation that it was executed by one of his pupils. Hardly a new story to the art world, where works reassigned to a master’s pupils are labeled FAKE. No one critiques this designation as too harsh, but if architecture also considers itself an artistic field, then when was the last time someone labeled an SOM building not envisioned by the founders Skidmore, Owens or Merrill a fake?

Is it just a petty distinction? After all, what is in a name?

Looking over the missions of the half a dozen firms I have worked for in search of clues to the mission statement of the future, the only thing left today are the echoes of a past generation of founders whose legacy is signified by those seemingly innocent initials. Today these same names are no longer signatures for the original artist but symptoms of architecture’s larger problem. How can architects continue from the achievements of the past without becoming merely imitative? How does architecture remain vital in a world of flux?

Perhaps architecture’s problem on a macro-scale does not lie in the specific flaws of any particular mission but in the loss of original artistic passion by clinging in vain to the missions of elders, whose names hang over the door. More than just a naming convention, it is indicative of the lethargic corporate model whose inertia is hindering the evolution of practice. Firms should abandon the mission statement of the business world for a vision that evolves with creative endeavors. Even the most wisely worded missions are hollow without passionate individuals who both create and fulfill their sentiment. In an ever changing environment the firm of the future is born and sustained by a strong vision, and should dismantle itself should the leadership or passion of the firm change thus freeing up its pool of talent to regroup with fresh ideas and purpose. Young architects, who initaly learn from those with experience, should also take a cue from the Native American tradition of assigned, inherited names of youth being replaced by the earned name of an adult. Pablo Picasso reportedly once said “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” Great visions can be passed on we just need the guts to steal them thus appropriating them instead of letting them bind us in imitation and derivation. I am not advocating reinventing the wheel, but perhaps a cycle of re-creation will keep architecture from falling asleep at that wheel.

On this journey to becoming an architect I have had experience both with established famous three letter firms and also with the next generation who left these firms. The passion of individuals who were driven to create a firm for their artistic vision has been inspiring to work under, even when they were the aging founders of large firms. Not so, however, in my experience with the motley crew such founders leave behind to carry these firms into perpetuity. These second generation of partners did not lack talent, just clarity of purpose and chemistry with each other – a vision of their own. There was nothing inadequate with the original artistic, intellectual and humanitarian visions, but they did not translate. It was disheartening for me to watch one partner struggle to speak a retired mentors artistic tongue, but in the end only be able. In another more disillusioning experience I worked in a community design firm. A remnant of a more hopeful era I found it lost to the bitterness of the current principal who did not act from the heart but saw suffering someone else’s humanitarian vision as a ticket to grace. In all these cases the architecture was unexceptional at best and my learning experience was shortchanged. Sometimes I wish I’d made this all up or that my experience was unique. However, ignoring this problem and falling back in line, only allows me to hand forward the sputtering torch another generation.

This is by no means a unique problem for the world over professions, governments and communities are attempting to strike the delicate balance between authority and experience with the enthusiasm of front-line knowledge found in the rank and file. Let us not forget the passion and power of the grassroots efforts that work bottom up for evocative solutions in politics, neighborhoods and business. Let us not become complacent with the status quo and forget the chill of Alfred Lord Tennyson lines, “Their’s not to reason why, Their’s but to do and die.*” where he asked us to question if those whose authority comes from inheritance really know best, or are (excuse the dramatics) killing all of us.

One could argue that a sea of fresh-faced, idealistic firms is all well and good but without established, trusting clientele what can they achieve? I found this answer while studying abroad in Copenhagen where I came in contact with many newly established design firms who had profited from Scandinavia’s long-standing history of open competition for construction projects. What better way than competition to coalesce a group of similarly impassioned individuals and give collaboration a whirl? If it works out, the door prize may just be architecture in the flesh with which to assuage the fears of more hesitant clients. So how do we as architects convince clients to take a risk on an unknown firm in our own capitalism driven country? Look no further than the stock markets own credo that the greatest reward lies in the greatest risk. Just as architects must reconnect with their artistic vision, architecture’s patrons must be reminded that architecture is not a detergent for it is impossible to be sure you got the brand name you paid for and the day it is distilled to a formula it will cease to be architecture.

A return to artistic integrity is not advocating narcissism devoid of collaboration and moments of compromise. Simply stated architectural parleys will be more effective if those who step up to the table are not proxies but speak for themselves.

Just as the missions of architects of the last century cannot be passed on wholesale to our generation, neither should one vision be assigned to all future firms. This is a warning that passion will not be policed. I am afraid that anyone dictating the one true plan for the future will engender just as much disconnect as we currently have with the diluted aspirations we inherited. I will not charge my fellow future leaders with what to think and feel. However, they should think and feel for themselves, and do it with the open mind that allows the diverse torrent of ideas to feed on itself.

Despite my opening call for an artistic integrity I realize not all architects are advocates for architecture as “high” art, but we came to this profession and fought through countless all nighters for our own deep-rooted passion. Pitfalls to be avoided are homogenous missions, or a vision so encompassing of all collaborations, technologies and target audiences that it is ineffectual. Focused visions are more powerful and diversity is the strength of a species. Renaissance men are dead. In the broad modern landscape, individual architects can no longer take on everything that architecture encompasses. Rather we are all diverse and creative enough that if we develop unique strengths and share them as firms dismantle and reassemble, as a collective architecture has a chance to explore the multitude of potentials and responsibilities.

With this proposal that seeks diversity, architectural education and research institutions face a critical challenge. Academia is a tool for teaching not dictating. Gone are the concepts of universal theories of architecture. Only by staying individually focused and diverse as a group can institutions offer the comprehensive range of options to inspire the next generation of academics and students. This inspiration needs to reach beyond those who are currently enrolling as students. It is clear from any class photo that most institutions need to recruit and support a more diverse student body. Outreach programs are needed that help those from underrepresented communities find the passion for architecture within themselves. One architect cannot serve all people. Instead each designer should be an expert at speaking for their own people. Architecture defines communities the same way they define us, reciprocally. I am a member of the next generation of architects and it only takes a quick browsing of these very arch-voices essays to know that talent, vision, compassion, and ambition are in no short supply. Let us not allow the varied forms of these noble aspirations to divide us, simply differentiate us from past generations and one another. Find your inspiration whether it be architecture’s own rich history, comic books, butterflies, submarines, or a child asleep on the streets – find that passion, create collectives with those who share that passion, empower them with a name, and sign them to your architecture proudly.

Make it unique. Make it your own.

*Lord Tennyson, Alfred; “Charge of the Light Brigade” 1854. A poem memorializing an ill advised charge by British Cavalry in the Crimean War.