Twitter’s signal-to-noise ratio isn’t encouraging—there’s far too much trolling and misinformation, too much impulsivity, and not enough use of the platform for good. That said, its benefits for social organization, tracking areas of interest, and authentic engagement are real. I use Twitter to follow friends, folks involved with architecture or construction, those who tweet about local news here in Eugene, or personalities involved with Oregon Ducks athletics (my guilty pleasure). These users generate an endless stream of focused, quality tweets, more than I can ever hope to consume. They make Twitter endlessly fun and interesting. I also use Twitter to broaden the reach of this blog, as many of my updates announce and link the latest SW Oregon Architect posts.
To mark World Architecture Day(1), which is celebrated on the first Monday of every October, Fixr.com reposted a link to its own blog, which marked last year’s commemoration with a survey of more than 100 American architects. The survey asked participants to choose their favorite architects and buildings of all time. I’m not exactly sure how Fixr selected their “expert contributors,” but they tapped me to be among them.
I reflexively tweeted the Fixr.com link, prompting Nina Briggs (@aninsggirb) to respond:
My initial reaction was curiosity. Fixr’s survey seemed innocuous enough. I asked if she could explain. She promptly replied with the following series of cogent tweets:
@aninsggirb: 1/3 Although everyone has every right to their “favorite” or their opinion as to who is “the best architect of all time,” forming “the foundation of their architectural theories,” these routine rankings (published on a home improvement website) . . .
2/3 . . . truly do illustrate the “understanding of architectural theory and history” through the Eurocentric lens which reproduces idealization of the usual icons, lacking exposure to a broader canon of equal cultural impact. Architectural legacies are complex, as the profession’s pedagogy . . .
3/3 . . . historical narrative, and collective memory ignores those outside the paradigm. Emerging practitioners question this: When Students Challenge the Eurocentric Bias in Architectural Discourse | Blogs | Archinect
Chastened by Nina’s retort, I immediately recognized my complicity with an intransigent state of affairs within the profession:
@sworegonarch: 1/2 I can't disagree at all with your take. There has been without a doubt a Eurocentric bias within the paradigm of architectural education (indoctrination). As a baby boomer who attended architecture school during the late 70s/early 80s, it's what I accepted/absorbed without question.
2/2 Hence my influences decidedly reflect the narrowness of the lens through which I learned about architecture, and the dominance of the hero architect narrative. I've much to learn, and emerging practitioners have much to teach.
Nina is the founding principal of THE FABRIC. She is also an academic, having been a lecturer at Cal Poly Pomona’s College of Environmental Design, among other schools. According to her Cal Poly bio, her “interdisciplinary analysis of architecture and design in the context of culture draws from anthropology, psychology, and human geography, thinking beyond the traditional boundaries of space-making . . . As design becomes increasingly interdisciplinary, she explores how these shifts in paradigms transform design pedagogy and practice.” Additionally, Nina produced Practitioners, a film in which she describes how women in the Los Angeles design community have created their own relevance, by inclination and by necessity.
Nina and I have followed each other on Twitter for some time, but this was the first opportunity for the two of us to engage in a substantive conversation.
Certainly, minority representation in the architectural profession fails to fairly reflect the increasing diversity of the people architects design projects for. There are too few role models for BIPOC youngsters to look to; consequently, too few view the design professions as a path of opportunity.
Nina included a link in her tweets to a blog post by Sean Joyner about the student-run organization ASTERISK at Woodbury University. ASTERISK aims to emphasize the work and lives of non-traditional designers. As Sean notes in his post, Woodbury’s School of Architecture is actively working to reform its curriculum, giving its students an open voice to engage, challenge, and interact with the various modalities within the institution. Within that framework, ASTERISK leads assemblies where students, faculty, and staff gather to engage in discussions around the asterisks of the architectural story. The group has covered figures like Emily Warren Roebling, Rosa Mayreder, Mata Hari, Pedro E. Guerrero, and Norma Sklarek, among many others.
In today’s world, one’s gender, ethnicity, or race shouldn’t necessarily matter when it comes to the creating architecture, but they still do. To be seen as an individual in the overly white cultural space while also being a member of a visible minority should not be an issue, but it remains a challenge. In this respect, the current state of the profession mirrors the persistent societal condition that fails to include and engage the full diversity of our population.
Self-critique is a sign of maturity. The architectural profession and the schools of architecture that turn out its future practitioners will have come of age when an appreciation for diversity, equity, justice, and social well-being are ingrained and institutionalized. In the case of the schools, this means acknowledging and celebrating the important contributions of architects and designers outside the established canon. For the sake of their future relevance, our students deserve nothing less.
No comments:
Post a Comment