Arts & Entertainment
A Gag Order on Race in Architecture
Talking about culture instead of experience
April 20, 2009 - 11:00pmRace is a painfully awkward topic in architecture, while culture remains the go-to book for, uh, copying. David Adjaye, the Ghanian architect born in Tanzania, said in an interview with New York Magazine in 2007, “If a Japanese architect talks about Shintoism, everyone goes, ‘Wow.’ If an African architect talks about an African village, it is somehow weird in the Western context. I find that hilarious. What’s the difference?” Adjaye, a prodigiously talented architect who last week won the Smithsonian commission to design the National Museum of African American History and Culture, is unfortunately a good example of how uncomfortable the architectural discourse is with race.
This past week at a third year review, I got into a fight with a professor about a student’s building. Situated on the border between Mexico and the United States, this student’s proposal was a Meier-esque home-cum-crematorium. Excuse me — dwelling-cum-mechanistic conveyer belt, per the discussion. His presentation, including a photo of an anonymous decayed corpse rotting in an unidentified desert: the proposal featured an American couple with a fascination with death who would give honorable ends to the bodies of Mexicans who passed away in the arduous border crossing. No joke.
After he finished presenting, I asked what the student thought were the consequences of having designed a machine/building that is distinctly “white” to process the bodies of minorities. “White” in this context means: literally white in color, which encompasses a long tradition of the “Whites” (Richard Meier ’56 et al. who built in stark mono-tones, all of whom were Caucasian males), and “white” as in race, as his building used a specific vocabulary invented and propagated by white men. I have no issue with this formalism; in fact, the student in question executed the design beautifully. However, his refusal to acknowledge the larger issues of race in his highly charged projected marred the oh-so-unornamented façade.
His professor argued, “No, no, you’ve got it wrong — the building recalls Legorreta & Legorreta, the Mexican firm who also did some stuff with intersecting planes.” That was paraphrased. For the record: No, Ricardo Legoretta built colorful, open courtyard houses rich in color, light, warmth and outdoor pools. However, the point to be noted here is that ultimately, the professor refused to discuss race — the elephant in the room — in favor of another “cultural” reference.
Now in the wider world of architecture, everyone’s buzzing with the news that David Adjaye was chosen to lead a team of three firms to build the National Museum of African American History and Culture — a highly anticipated building that was originally sited on the National Mall in D.C. Most of the buzz is normal architecture buzz: pornographically large renderings of a beautiful lobby, sparkling elevations of this golden-hued building.
But there’s something notably missing from all those glossy photos: the controversy. Before Adjaye’s win, some minority architects criticized the panel for the fact that most of the final firms were predominantly white (the special six were: Foster + Partners, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, Moody Nolan, Moshe Safdie and Associates and Adjaye’s team.) Adjaye, after building the Stephen Lawrence Centre, which commemorates a murdered black architecture student, was accused of having won the competition because he too was black. Both controversies, however, remained mostly in the blogosphere; The New York Times did not mention it, and The Architect’s Newspaper relegated race controversy to a puny last paragraph.
Why the silence? Why is it OK to talk about what age-old African architecture influenced the new Museum (“Yoruban” columns) but it’s not OK to talk about how David Adjaye’s experiences as a black Brit influences his work? The advisory council for the building, including black leaders such as Oprah Winfrey and the founder of Black Entertainment Television, Robert L. Johnson spoke clearly and profoundly about the hopes the black community had for this building and its influence it would have. Yet architectural community stays mum, preferring to discuss it’s “stone plinth” forms than the background of the architect which no doubt influences, if not saturates, his design sensibility.
It has already become reasonably in vogue to hire Jewish American architects to design Holocaust museums and memorials; it is understood that their backgrounds and their experiences, as well as the stories and legacies of their families, inform these designers’ work. But still modern architectural discourse shies away from personal experience, from race and identity, in favor of weaker references to alien cultures — like water for chocolate, we draw the works of ancient builders instead of speaking about the stories that mean the most to us.
Tell me your own story — not Meier’s, or Legoretta’s. I want to hear about being white, or black, about whatever race you are. I want to hear about how you’re from San Francisco or Paris, from Dakar or Salt Lake City, and what it feels like to have grown up in your skin, touched what you touched, while looking through your eyes — tell me what you’ve experienced. Experience is what architecture is about, after all.
Re: A gag order on Race in Architecture
Brilliant and provocative discourse. It is fear that inhibits true progress in this realm and it's about time we grow up and celebrate our various lens on life. It makes the world a better place, and in the end, it shows far better the commonalities of people rather than the differences.
As a consultant in the creation of major cultural projects, I encourage my clients to seek architects who embrace themselves first, thereby showing their promise to do what we ask. Sadly, it is a very short list from which to work.
cp
gag order on architecture
As a recent graduate in Architecture i can say that the Crits were always targeting the reasons for a design, the propriety of the design in context with its neighborhood and of course the quality of the solution. The solution and planning was based on neighborhood meaning infrastructure not social issues.
The question arises should we as architects be race neutral regardless of our own backgrounds? Yes a jewish architect " may have some advantages and insights" in a Synagogue project but a highly qualified and motivated architect of any background should be able to design any house of worship.
Architects should" in an ideal world" be chosen by merit not by color or race. A jewish architect does not necessarily design a better synagogue, a black architect does not necessarily design a better Museum of African American History.
The background and history that we each bring to the table are only two of the many ingredients necessary to pull together a logical and well though out solution to a design problem. We can and should discuss our backgrounds when it may help to explain some of our ideas and design decisions but it should not be considered a faux pas for not choosing to do so.
George M.
I am an Indian-American
I am an Indian-American architecture student, born in New York. I am definitely influenced by living in and spending time in India, as simply being raised by people born in India.
This quote is ridiculous:
"This article assumes that members of an ethnic group share values and influences and I find this similar to stereotypical thinking, which should be vigilantly eschewed."
Of course ethnic groups share values and influences. Get over it. Don't be scared. There are differences between us. It appalls me that there are very few black/Indian/Asian well-known architects. It is only a matter of time....
love the writing and pointed
love the writing and pointed critique! i would warn against posing shintoism as some "alien culture," though. while asian cultures may be foreign to some people, these people do not represent all americans.
adamantly disagree
Architecture should be about the work. Adjaye is a great architect and his background is very interesting as well, but that is a different subject. The work is the product of many factors but the Idea is the main thing and one needs no experience to have a great idea. When you experience the work you do not need a biography on the author to influence your reading of that built document but, as literary critic Stanley Fish would say: a phenomenological approach to reading . Like a poem, a work speaks for and defines itself. Race and gender can inform Idea conscioulsy or unconsciously but detract, in my opinion, from the main story. This article assumes that members of an ethnic group share values and influences and I find this similar to stereotypical thinking, which should be vigilantly eschewed.
Situated vs. Phenomenological
In Gender Studies we talk about, and value, situated knowledge-knowledge derived from a particular socio-ethnic-gendered, etc. point of view. True, assuming all members of any group automatically share all traits and experiences is simplistic, but similarly pretending that we are not socially conditioned and understood is equally silly. A phenomenological approach is valuable, but even a phenomenologist such as Rasmussen was interested in context and fit--things outside of 'the work'. A hermeneutic inquiry such as Ms. Lui was hinting at, would have provided a clearer, deeper understanding. Architects like Jack Travis and Doug Cardinal talk openly and passionately about how their particular cultural affinities weave through and enrich their work. Who we are can't help but influence our work, and further, should affect our work. The work exists in a time, place and represents the author and the culture within which it was generated and more. Formalism is as Ms. Lui indicated, not universal, but situated. That the third year student did not deal with that aspect of the work is fine--one cannot address all problems in a school project. However, for the professor to have brushed off the question instead of engaging in thoughtful dialogue with the class was a lost opportunity.
[sigh]
Sometimes things are relevant and sometimes they are not. How ridiculously small-minded it is to assume that his work is more or less interesting simply because of his skin tone and where he was born. This is the most insidious racism there is--the kind that insists on compartmentalizing an individual and viewing them through the lens of how YOU see them (i.e., "black" architect). And, for the record, how could his experiences as a Ghanian man born in Tanzania and trained in the UK possibly inform him culturally with respect to a building dedicated to African-American history? Preposterous.
thought
I have mixed feelings on this, being a mixed race (Afro-Caucasian) architecture graduate (and the only architecture student of black African descent in my uni at the time). I have met Adjaye (crits) and am not particularly struck by him being different in his 'cultural approach' or 'outlook' or whatever it may be called, than any other British architect I have met. In an ideal world, race should not matter.
However the truth is that many people will identify with this new building, when it is finished, through the identity of the architect. The art world in the West is still very white-biased - this is changing very slowly, but is ultimately a class thing I think, at least in the UK, as art courses of any kind are expensive business and so unfortunately they still create their own glass ceiling for many. So in a way, I would not be surprised if the choice of Adjaye as architect is at least as much to do with the future visitors, and the people this Museum is actually dedicated to and intended to address, as with Adjaye's own ability and identity. In the way that Obama's race has been a factor for millions of people in their embrace of him as America's president (Hillary Clinton would arguably have done as good a job, but people identify with Obama on a wider scale), Adjaye's race here is not a reason to hire him in and of itself, but it probably really helps. For better or for worse, we humans see colour and even if we don't think we are 'reacting' to what we see, we always are in some way. This article and the thread of responses testifies to that.
I am very intrigued to see the final outcome of the project...
Richard Meier is
Richard Meier is colour-blind.
re..
I think ultimately one has to be able to marry his or her personal experiences with those influences that he or she finds to be inspirational or relevant, and some of the greatest "white" architects of our time have been profoundly influenced by architecture from other cultures, and have studied them to much greater extents than perhaps architects of those local regions. Would it be less appropriate for Frank Lloyd Wright to talk about Japanese architecture than Tadao Ando? Of course not. As others have said, race or religion, place of birth or upbringing are only small parts in the development of an architect. What is important is broadening one's experience while locating one's principles which will hopefully produce good work, and that has nothing to do with race.
Re: A Gag Order on Race in Architecture
As a member of one of the participating firms in the competition, I am flabbergasted by your assessment of Moody Nolan as a "white" firm. Moody Nolan is the largest African American firm in the U.S., and was the lead firm as well as architect of record for the project. We used Antoine Predock as a design consultant, a firm we have been allied with on several projects in the past, and our involvement in the development of the design was fully collaborative. The premises of our design dealt with issues of race in a direct and poetic way, and we did not sidestep or ignore the African origins of our culture. I think that this article has made some sweeping generalizations in order to support a thesis which is utterly erroneous.
You need to meet us......
Reading your article still pains me to think this dialogue in architecture will go on for a while. As an African-American architect of Caribbean descent I have always seen stresses and tension within my own culture. This recent selection of this design team for a building of our history on the "MALL", not some tucked away part of DC, is almost as big as Obama being elected President. I however extend an invitation for you to meet many of us in one place in St. Louis MO in early October. The organization is N.O.M.A. I think if you do that you can write a very compelling article.
Obsolete Discourse
Ms. Lui's article is ironic. While it attempts a more progressive understanding of race and architecture, it continues historical misinformation. She is correct to acknowledge "cultural copying", but she conflates prolonged historical copying with invention.
Check this out: "...his building used a specific vocabulary invented and propagated by white men. I have no issue with this formalism; in fact, the student in question executed the design beautifully. However, his refusal to acknowledge the larger issues of race in his highly charged projected marred the oh-so-unornamented façade."
The idea that formalism was invented by white men is absurd. Like modernism, the origins of formalism are black. Avoiding this truth is the real order of the gag. The beauty, the poetic justice of Adjaye's selection is that his practice/designs return modernity to its rightful place.
This is not to say that modern formalism requires "black" exclusivity. Meier, Diller/Scofidio, Rem Koolhaas, Frank Gehry, etc. have all "executed" their work through the concealment of black formal practices. It's not for me to say whether this concealment is self-conscious. But this difference—now placed alongside Adjaye's—is what makes their work truly interesting.
The tragedy here is that race is only understood as some authentic socio-cultural experience or political agenda. We stop far short of thinking it can produce anything beautiful.