Post on 09-Oct-2020
transcript
Critical Text Analysis Sexism & the Star System in Architecture
Alistair Powe
Contents
Introduction Women in Work Why do women leave architecture? Symbols of Power – Hierarchies, Guru’s and Idolisation Pritzker Prize Venturi’s Ducks and the Decorated Shed Working with a Civil Partner – Following her heart or Career Conclusion
References & Cited Works
Introduction
Architecture has always and will always be a multi-sex industry
and in recent times it would seem that the ratio of males to
females in the industry is becoming more equal. However, as
Denise Scott Brown’s essay explains, the situation seemed to be
much different forty years ago being a “male-dominated
profession”1. “Following her marriage to and partnership with
Robert Venturi”2 Scott Brown faced years of everyday
discrimination against the joint work with her husband.
This essay shows a detailed examination of the features and
structure of Denise Scott Brown's essay - Sexism and the Star
System in Architecture, with reference to Neil Leach "The Dark
Side of the Domus", Nicos Hadjinicolaou, "A class Performance:
Social Histories of Architecture" and other related works.
Women in Work
When looking at fig.10, a survey conducted
by Bert Maes, it is clear to say that certain
jobs attract a particular kind of person,
although this graph is limited in industries
it does show that women have a tendency
to stick to office based work and science –
very few chose industries such as
engineering and other outdoor hands on
jobs. In nearly all cases the percentage is
below fifty, implying males are dominant in
almost every industry, but why?
Before we dwell on the idea that
architecture as an industry was somewhat
‘sexist’ in 1973, it would seem appropriate
to look at the working market as a whole. It
could be argued that although she did
‘suffer’ from sexist attitudes, it would have
been no different if the same attitudes
occurred in a different trade - looking at
how the view on women has evolved and if
discrimination still occurs in modern day
situations. In which case the problems lies
not in architecture as an industry but
within the era in which Scott Brown lived.
The main reason lies in the fact that the ‘professional’ market
is mostly made up of men, men are more likely to train while
the idea that “a woman's place is in the home”3, to look after
children and run the house in some senses still stands. This
stereotypical view is in no way as popular as it use to be, we
are in “a time when more and more women were defying
convention by pursuing educations and launching careers
instead of relying on husbands for their income and
identity”4. However, since architecture - “a field where men
outnumber women by as much as 4 to 1”5, it’s becomes clear
that this idea still stands and is occurring.
Denise Scott Brown, Robert Venturi and Vladimir Paperny at VSBA offices
Why do Women Leave Architecture?
“Womanliness is made to be whatever would serve the
cause of keeping women in subjection”6
The graph below represents the proportion of female graduates from US architecture schools. When we compare the difference between the 1970’s (when Scott Brown wrote her essay) and modern day, it is clear that the ratio is becoming less diverse. In the UK the current average is very similar at 38%, but the underlying problem still remains, if 40% of graduates are female we would “expect to see something like that ratio reflected in the data for practising or registered architects”9, but we don’t.
While the amount of women that participate in architectural
education remains almost equal to the level of men, it’s after
graduation that the ratios begin to differ. “Female graduates
either never enter practice or leave a few years after
graduation”7, whether this is based on sexist employment
measures within the industry and not due to pregnancy is
debateable. A journal from 2004 in the New York Times
explains how male architects “depend heavily on the support
of their wives as they rise through the ranks”8, whether there
wife is an architect themselves or not. I can’t help but see the
relationship between Scott Brown’s essay – written in 1973 –
and this article written in 2004.
Although there is no one answer to this question, “A number of identifiable problems did however come to light” says Ann de Graft-Johnson of UWE: Low or Unequal pay Extensive and inflexible working hours Sidelining Lengthy commute to work Stressful working conditions Male Saturated Environment Sexism Redundancy or dismissal Inferior or substandard view on work Lack of training Limited Job Satisfaction “There was little evidence that women left because they were incompetent designers”10 or that they wanted to change their career path. While the problems highlighted in Scott Brown’s essay pay more focus on the idea that females were underappreciated and not correctly credited for their work by critics, modern sexist reports tend to show that it’s more based around employer’s discrimination. Female architects find it hard to enter the market; however they produce the same if not better results and any “actions taken to improve the working environment for women will be beneficial to the profession as a whole”.11
Nicos Hadjinicolaou looks at how ‘we’ as a society “interrogate
architecture in terms of social functions and meanings”12, he pays
reference to Judith Butler – an American philosopher, who’s work
revolves around feminism, sexism and ethics. It’s interesting how Butler,
being a woman herself believes “the subjection of women to men is a
universal custom, any departure from it quite naturally appears
unnatural”13, in terms of Scott Brown – the dedication she puts into her
work, should be dually awarded but through her husband. Ourousoff
from the New York Times has very similar views - “the wives ran their
offices, raised their children and loyally bolstered their egos.”14 Being
written seventeen years apart it’s astonishing how these two relate so
greatly.
It becomes clear that the view on women as a working individual is
‘lesser’ than that of a man. We supposedly are in a time when
discrimination is at an all time low, but with views and opinions like this,
it becomes hard to believe.
The Vanna Venturi House, Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Symbols of Power – Hierarchies, Guru’s and Idolisation
“It is virtually impossible to untangle which individual is responsible for what aspect of a particular project”15
As Scott Brown’s text materializes, she pays focus and relates to the
idea of a ‘star-system’ within the architectural work environment –
seeing the “firm as a pyramid with a designer on top”16.
Plans, designs and ideas are “translated and added to by co-
workers”17, creating an outcome this represents the work and effort
of an entire firm. This hierarchy represents each individuals position
within the firm, their position relates directly to their level of
command and control. This idea is nothing out of the ordinary and is
recognised in many other trades outside of architecture. Businesses
are designed to rely on different sectors of the company to produce
a final outcome, whether this is research, development, testing,
sales, accounting, design or many more. However, Scott Brown is
returning with the argument that although she is part of a team,
working to produce a single outcome (a building or deisgn), her
work is unduly perceived and improperly credited. She finds herself
again being forced to second best, as her husband once more is
awarded for her efforts and the effort of their firm. “One’s own
work becomes invisible in the star system that has no place for
women”.18
"Its nice to have a girl around the house"
- Representing the way in which females were
portrayed in the 1970s
As with any trade, becoming an iconic figure is almost impossible at a young age - it’s not until you have
produced a series of outstanding works, recognised by both critics and the public that a name emerges
from the crowd and your reputation grows. “Recognition and high-profile commissions, if they
materialize at all, typically arrive in an architect's 50’s well past the typical age for starting a family”19.
Unless you are running a firm or hold a major role in the company you will never see work credited in
your name, further more with the understanding that “a body of theory and design in architecture
apparently must be associated by architecture critics with an individual"21 it seems to some extent
‘impossible’ to be credited for any work you produce. This is exactly what Scott Brown’s star-system is
trying to convey, although the final outcome is a result of a whole team of architects, designers and
planners, the credit is solely awarded to one person – the designer, sitting comfortably on top. While
she feels this is an act of sexism, it’s possible that it is simply a result of one architect reaching
architectural “fame (though not fortune)”22 before another. The main problem which Scott Brown
faces is that “women who integrate large existing practices gain no affirmation action standing unless
they own 51 per cent of the firm”23, she unfortunately holds an equal share and since Venturi is the
sole founder and designer he takes “final design responsibility.”24
Although this idea is not exactly how firms
tend to work today, we can no doubt see
the similarities. With small business - the
recognition seems to be awarded to the
‘firm’ and not to the architect, or team of
architects, that produce it. A complex
chain of command that makes up a
hierarchy formulates power, control and
supremacy, allowing a single member to
prosper. Scott Brown is in the unfortunate
position whereby her husband stands
directly in front of her in the command of
control, being shadowed by his
increasingly well-known name. Whilst this
hierarchy is focused purely within the
working society, a relation is drawn to the
work of Neil Leach, 'The Dark Side of
Domus', focusing on the "concept of
‘dwelling’ which has become something of
a dominant paradigm"25 in architectural
theory.
The Domus is seen as a dwelling, a
way of existing and the
“megalopolis”26 the opposing means
of living creates two “contrasting
models of existence, two ideals of
living”27. By focusing not on the literal
difference between the two ideals but
on the conditions in which they both
produce he can compare the
“phenomenon of home – with the
more alienated model of city life”28 .
The hierarchy of society see’s a
master and mistress, “the Dominus
and the Domina"29 - representing
Venturi in ‘Venturi Scott Brown
Associates’. In some cases it would
seem Scott Brown is the ‘Domina’ of
the firm (the mistress), but it could
also be argued she is “the ancilla, the
female servant”, to the Dominus.
Pritzker Prize
The Pritzker prize is an annual award founded in
1979 by the Prizker family of Chicago aimed “to
honor living architects whose built work
demonstrates a combination of those qualities of
talent, vision, and commitment, which has
produced consistent and significant contributions
to humanity and the built environment through
the art of architecture.”30 With the idea to “inspire
greater creativity within the architectural
profession”31.
“Prestigious awards such as the Pricker Architecture Prize rarely
go to women”32 - in the thirty-two years the prize has been
awarded only two were to female architects. Once again
whether this is simply due to the fact there were fewer females
within the profession or due to sexism on the jury, we will never
know. Although the Pritzker is rarely awarded to more than one
person it’s not completely unknown, in 2001 Jacques Herzog and
Pierre de Meuron were awarded the hundred-thousand dollar
prize as partners. In 2001 “The Pritzker Prize was granted to
Venturi alone”33 regardless of the fact Scott Brown was a
business partner working closely alongside him in nearly all of his
projects – This discriminative act may have been based on the
fact critics have “formed lasting hostilities”34 against Scott
Brown on the basis of her actions and complaints about the way
her work is credited.
Venturi’s Duck and the Decorated Shed “Architecture is the decoration of shelter”35
The concept behind the ‘duck and the decorated shed’ is the idea of challenging the fact that “modern
urban landscapes need words to convey their meanings”36 . Venturi and Scott brown believe that there
are two “conflicting ways which forms can convey meaning”37 . The duck, relates to a building that
“represents its purpose in its appearance”38 , in other words a building that sells duck eggs would be in
the shape of a duck. The second way is the idea of the ‘decorated shed’ - the method of understanding
what purpose the building has is not via the architecture itself, but via a separate sign, thus deeming the
architecture unimportant. For example, a library would simply be a generic building, it’s not until your
explore the building itself or see the ‘sign’ you understand its purpose. If a building is classed under this
‘decorated shed’ category, “the same building could be a church or a casino, it depends only on the
sign”39
As appose to paying focus to the concepts themselves, we are more interested in how and why these
concepts are so widely used in the architectural trade. Whilst we understand that the idea is a joint
effort between partners, in her essay she states “I invented the duck”40 , implying she desires all the
credit. Surely being business associates, working so closely together and being recognised under the
same name she would respect the fact it was the idea of their company? Even she said it becomes
almost impossible to “tease our contributions apart”41, and in some lights I feel it wouldn’t be unfair to
say that without the aid of her husband, these terms would probably never have become so popular.
Working with a Civil Partner – Following her heart or Career “women architects don't often receive headline-grabbing commissions like the World Trade Center buildings”42
In 1967 Scott Brown “married a colleague
and joined professional lives”43 , her
husband Robert Venturi at this time was
well on his way to architectural fame as his
company expanded. During the same year
Scott Brown “joined her husband's
architecture firm, and soon after began
directing the firm's planning, urban design,
and architectural programming work".44
Whether this decision was beneficial to her
career is debatable. The new business
‘Venturi Scott Brown Associates’ helped
transform the status of Venturi into an
architectural guru “on the basis of their
joint work and the work of their firm”45 ,
although at the cost of Scott Brown’s
reputation.
On one hand it could be argued that since
Scott Brown joined her husband’s existing
company she would clearly have a lesser role
in the company, and she did - focusing her
efforts on the planning, urban design, and
architectural programming. However it comes
across that she feel opposite – firstly the name
of their company, ‘Venturi Scott Brown
Associates’, indicating that their role within
the business is equal. Secondly she has
“collaborated in the development of ideas
since 1967”46 with Venturi, making it
somewhat impossible to “tease their
contributions apart”47 , yet the “work and
ideas were attributed to him alone”.48
Conclusion "I have managed to do my own work and, despite some sliding, to achive my own self-respect"49
One of the most unnerving aspects of this text is the fact that it could have been written five years ago and it wouldn’t seem out of place. However, being written in the 1970s it’s shocking to realise some of the ideas could relate to modern day circumstances – perhaps not to the same severity but a relation nevertheless. “Scott Brown didn’t publish the article at the time, fearing professional retribution, but circulated it among friends and colleagues”50 , the text was later published in 1989 when she felt her opinion would no longer affect the view on her work. Scott Brown was so concerned that her opinion, which she was fully entitled to, would compromise her position within the industry and be given false recognition based on her as a person not on her work. The problem she faced was that critics began to realise she wasn’t happy in the way they acknowledged her work, acting furthermore against her - in the end, architects “cannot afford hostile critics.”51 Scott Brown spent years being trampled by the wake of her husbands
growing success but she rapidly became an iconic figure, though not for her
architectural work - although that made up some of her reputation, but
through her theory.
Conclusion
Bibliography
Allen Memorial Art Museum. Robert Venturi. 2010.
http://oberlin.edu/amam/documents/AMAMVenturiBuilding_TeacherResourcePacket.pdf (accessed December 23rd, 2011).
Arnold, Dana. Reading Architectural History. Abingdon: Routledge, 2002.
Brown, Deinise Scott. "Sexism and the Star System." In Reading Arhcitectural History, by Dana Arnold, 206. Oslo:
Routledge, 2002.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. London: Routledge, 1990.
Compton's NewMedia. Womens History in America. 1995. http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm (accessed December 27th, 2011).
Craven, Jackie. "Where are the Women Architects?" About. 2011.
http://architecture.about.com/cs/architectsmasters/a/womenarchitects.htm (accessed December 27th, 2011).
Graft-Johnson, Ann de. "Why do Women Leave Architecture?" University of West England. Bristol, 2003. 5/55.
Hadjinicolaou, Nicos. "Reading Architectural History." In Reading Architectural History, by Dana Arnold, 129. Abingdon: Routledge, 2002.
HSU, CHARLOTTE. "Exploring women’s role in architecture." Buffalo. March 17th, 2010.
http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/2010_03_17/profile (accessed December 27th, 2011).
Bibliography
Larson, Magali Sarfatti. Behind the Postmodern Facade. California : Edward Brothers, 2002.
Leach, Neil. "What is Architecturre." In What is Architecture?, 153. England: Routledge, 2001.
Mark A. Hewitt . distinguished women of past and present. 1995. http://www.distinguishedwomen.com/biographies/scottbro.html (accessed December 18th, 2011).
Ourousoff, Nicolai. "New York Times." 2007.
P. Schwab. Cultural Landscape Bibliography. 1977. http://www.amst.umd.edu/Research/cultland/annotations/Venturi1.html (accessed December 30th, 2011).
Palumbo, Lord. Jury Citation. 2011. http://www.pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2010/jury.html (accessed December 21st,
2011).
Sideshare. Venturi. 2010. http://www.slideshare.net/jdankoff/43-postmodernism-ii-the-decorated-shed (accessed December 30th, 2011).
Stevens, Garry. Women in Architecture. Febuary 2001-2011. http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/ArchWomen.html
(accessed December 16th, 2011).
Venturi, Robert. Slide Share. 2010. http://www.slideshare.net/jdankoff/43-postmodernism-ii-the-decorated-shed (accessed December 30th, 2011).
Hyatt Foundation. Purpose. 2011. http://www.pritzkerprize.com/about/purpose.html (accessed December 23rd, 2011).
Lamster, Mark. The Guru Track . 2006-2011. http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=13288 accessed December 23
Endnotes
1.(Craven 2011) 2.(Lamster 2006-2011) 3.(Compton's NewMedia 1995) 4.(HSU 2010) 5. (HSU 2010) (Butler 1990) 6.(Stevens 2001-2011) 7.(Ourousoff 2007) 8.(Stevens 2001-2011) 9.(Graft-Johnson 2003) 10.(Graft-Johnson 2003) 12.(Graft-Johnson 2003) 13.(Hadjinicolaou 2002) 14. (Butler 1990) 15.(Ourousoff 2007) 16.(Palumbo 2011) 17.(Brown 2002) 18.(Brown 2002) 19.(Larson 2002) 20.(Ourousoff 2007) 21.(Arnold 2002) 22.(Arnold 2002) 23.(Arnold 2002) 24.(Arnold 2002) 25.(Leach 2001) 26.(Leach 2001)
27.(Leach 2001) 28.(Leach 2001) 29.(Leach 2001) 30.(Hyatt Foundation 2011) 31.(Hyatt Foundation 2011) 32.(Craven 2011)33.(Lamster 2006-2011) 34.(Arnold 2002) 35.(Venturi 2010) 36.(Sideshare 2010) 37.(P. Schwab 1977) 38.(Allen Memorial Art Museum 2010) 39.(Sideshare 2010) 40.(Arnold 2002) 41.(Arnold 2002) 42.(Craven 2011) 43.(Arnold 2002) 44.(Mark A. Hewitt 1995) 45.(Arnold 2002) 46.(Arnold 2002) 47.(Arnold 2002) 48.(Arnold 2002) 49.(Arnold 2002) 50.(Lamster 2006-2011) 51.(Arnold 2002)
Cited Works
Allen Memorial Art Museum. Robert Venturi. 2010.
http://oberlin.edu/amam/documents/AMAMVenturiBuilding_TeacherResourcePacket.pdf (accessed December
23rd, 2011).
Arnold, Dana. Reading Architectural History. Abingdon: Routledge, 2002.
Brown, Deinise Scott. "Sexism and the Star System." In Reading Arhcitectural History, by Dana Arnold, 206. Oslo:
Routledge, 2002.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. London: Routledge, 1990.
Compton's NewMedia. Womens History in America. 1995. http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm (accessed
December 27th, 2011).
Graft-Johnson, Ann de. "Why do Women Leave Architecture?" University of West England. Bristol, 2003. 5/55.
Hadjinicolaou, Nicos. "Reading Architectural History." In Reading Architectural History, by Dana Arnold, 129.
Abingdon: Routledge, 2002.
HSU, CHARLOTTE. "Exploring women’s role in architecture." Buffalo. March 17th, 2010.
http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/2010_03_17/profile (accessed December 27th, 2011).
Hyatt Foundation. Purpose. 2011. http://www.pritzkerprize.com/about/purpose.html (accessed December 23rd,
2011).
Cited Works
t/jdankoff/43-postmodernism-ii-the-decorated-shed (accessed December 30th, 2011).
Lamster, Mark. The Guru Track . 2006-2011. http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=13288
(accessed December 23rd, 2011).
Larson, Magali Sarfatti. Behind the Postmodern Facade. California : Edward Brothers, 2002.
Leach, Neil. "What is Architecturre." In What is Architecture?, 153. England: Routledge, 2001.
Mark A. Hewitt . distinguished women of past and present. 1995.
http://www.distinguishedwomen.com/biographies/scottbro.html (accessed December 18th, 2011).
Ourousoff, Nicolai. "New York Times." 2007.
P. Schwab. Cultural Landscape Bibliography. 1977.
http://www.amst.umd.edu/Research/cultland/annotations/Venturi1.html (accessed December 30th, 2011).
Palumbo, Lord. Jury Citation. 2011. http://www.pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2010/jury.html (accessed December
21st, 2011).
Sideshare. Venturi. 2010. http://www.slideshare.net/jdankoff/43-postmodernism-ii-the-decorated-shed (accessed
December 30th, 2011).
Stevens, Garry. Women in Architecture. Febuary 2001-2011. http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/ArchWomen.html
(accessed December 16th, 2011).
Venturi, Robert. Slide Share. 2010. http://www.slideshare.ne