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