You don't suck, and you're not weird. I've never wanted to be famous, who needs it? I want to enjoy life, and for me that *includes* doing architecture as my chosen profession. Fame? Scale the Empire State Building with suction cups.
Seriously,
My objective is not to be famous, but successful. Because fame is a measurement of what other people think, it should really be irrelevant.
Life is easier to live when have a ‘sit down’ with yourself and figure out what you want, each time something on ‘the list’ is fulfilled, that’s a success.
And while both of the above may sound very after-school-special-ish, here’s what else I think about fame:
Not only is fame a measurement of what other people think, those who are usually accredited with making one famous are usually not of the famed one’s peers! I wonder how many actors would have any type an award if it were up to Denzel Washington?
What holds more weight (and still, not everything, but much, much more) in my life is what other good architects will think of my work, what people who I can relate to and admire will think about my work.
How many of you think <insert Starchitect here + ‘s> work was ugly or whose whole line of work is overrated period or whose whole career is the result of people’s admiration of big, shiny things?
I don’t wanna be that guy or girl, even if he or she is famous.
don't tell me you're the guy who knows all the rich people in the world- even the ones who aren't famous!
where'd you get THAT black book?!?
...money and fame are related but still exclusive...
Rich: in possession of valued abundance
Rich: not synonomous with billions and trillions of profit just EXCESS
Your name doesn't hit E! News once you have enough money and investments to not work if you so chose, I mean I didn't think rich came with an anonucement...
Fame is marketing, and don't need to be knocked but it doesn't need to be everyone's sole/most important objective...
I don't think anyone HATES fame...
A New Q:
Even if fame isn't your objective,
Would you reject it?
Is there anyone would just flush their fame down the toilet if they could?!?
Does anyone hate (/not want) fame?
My objective is not to be famous, but successful. Because fame is a measurement of what other people think, it should really be irrelevant.
ME-
Fame is a mesure of how well you have marketed yourself. How well you have made your work and yourself visible to your profession. This is a very valuabe place to be. Here you can have the power to make a bigger impact, get better commission, do more interesting things.
ifYouCanSeeme:-
Life is easier to live when have a ‘sit down’ with yourself and figure out what you want, each time something on ‘the list’ is fulfilled, that’s a success.
ME-
Agreed, but life would be even easier if you show your perspective clients your work from the cover of a magzine than from a louzy black portfolio. This aint irrelevant baby!
ifYouCanSeeme:-
And while both of the above may sound very after-school-special-ish, here’s what else I think about fame:
fame a measurement of what other people think,
ME-
nope it is a measure of how hard you work at putting your name and your work in the media. It is a measure of how many people know about you (what they think of you is a matter of opinion)
ifYouCanSeeme:-
What holds more weight (and still, not everything, but much, much more) in my life is what other good architects will think of my work, what people who I can relate to and admire will think about my work.
ME-
agreed, but how will good architects have an opinion of your work if you are not seen, if you are not famous. ifYouCanSeeme I can't see you! no one can see you.
ifYouCanSeeme:
-How many of you think <insert Starchitect here + ‘s> work was ugly or whose whole line of work is overrated period or whose whole career is the result of people’s admiration of big, shiny things?
I don’t wanna be that guy or girl, even if he or she is famous.
ME-
love em or hate em, bad work or good work, star architects rolled up their sleeves and did the work to make themeselves become famous. Youve got to respect them if for that alone. They are not thinking up some great buildings in thier heads or working in the closet. They put them selvs out there and they get feedback from more people, they get better commisons, they do more interesting things, they have more opportuinity, they develop faster, work harder, and I would imagine have more fun.
I would rather be over rated any day than be invisible.(weather people like my work or not)
hell yeah! I wanna be a famous architect!
it does not mean it is my only objective or that I am a famewhore. It is possible in this world to want to be famous and also want to be succesful and want to be many other things at the same time.
I dont think it is everyones most or sole objective. Not even Paris Hilton.
I've always wanted success and respect. I could take or leave the fame part (I like the respect part of the fame).
I agree, being invisible would be boring. It is invigorating to reach for the next milestone of business, find new ways to make design profitable, etc. Each step gives you a little more respect and success, maybe not fame, but each step does elevate the possibilities.
You would rather be overrated than invisible but proud of yourself? I think that's sad.
And honestly, if FAME is what you are after, there are far easier ways to do it than via architecture. Go on a reality TV show, for example. Write a controversial book. Don't inflict long-lasting built objects on the world whose only purpose is to make YOU famous.
the biggest benefit i see to being a 'famous' architect, or at least a well-known highly respected one, is that skilled people will want to work for me in order to use their skills in the making of good buildings.
everyone, for the most part, can design a decent building.
i'm getting tired of being one of the few in the office that can lead these 'designers' in putting these buildings together and covering all of their butts in the coordination of documents. for one, because i can't succeed 100% of the time, and then i feel i've failed.
if i were famous, i'd have more of a 'pick of the litter' scenario, i'd think.
CRACKED LIBERTY BELL-You would rather be overrated than invisible but proud of yourself? I think that's sad.
ME-hey as long as I believe in what I am doing (and I do). I believe thats what matters first. But if I can be famous on top of that, why not?
If everyone else thinks I am much better than I actually am (ie, over rated ) why not?
If that sceneraio is SAD to you, then let me offer you a handcurchif.
CRACKED LIBERTY BELL-And honestly, if FAME is what you are after, there are far easier ways to do it than via architecture. Go on a reality TV show,
ME- You dont understand I wanna be a famous architect not a famous anything else. Got it? No I dont want crack head fame, I want to be 'Rem Koolhaas Famous' you cant get that from reality TV show.
CRACKED LIBERTY BELL-Write a controversial book. Don't inflict long-lasting built objects on the world whose only purpose is to make YOU famous.
ME- I am not sure if that brick was aimed at me or if you think that most people are so one dimensional, but I will tell you that I am a wee bit more complex than that. I have multiple aims and agenda in my career. Fame is one among many.
and as for that book "How "Genius" Disfigured a Practical Art" thats an oxymoron of a title dont you think? must be wirtten by a moron. Art practiacal? since when was art practical? He cant be refering to architectue because as far as I know architecture history (and I do) it has hardly been a purly practical profession. You should take that book to engineers and have a party with them.
i also don't think architects can be famous without having substance. it takes too much time and effort to become a famous architect to get there just by flashing variegated genitalia...
so reaching for fame in architecture is neither sin nor bad karma even. even people like phillipe starck are still required to pull off design goods. sure he is flamboyant, but that is his personality, not what he is famous for...i would say same of zaha and phillip johnson. they also produce(d) very good things. to be frank i don't think there is any pop-famous but actually-vapid equivalent in architecture....
my own suspicion is that the socialist foundations upon which all architecture school education is based is simply raising its confusing head and conflicting with the superstar culture also promulgated at universitie round the globe...hence disfunctional and smug conceit of some posts above....;-)
Can someone who is overrated and knows it looks themselves in the mirror every day? I can't, and that's speaking from some bit of experience. Obviously this level of, yes, self-reflection isn't true of everyone, and that is sad for all of us indeed.
I'm going to take one more chance that willsimon is not a troll, though I may regret this. I offered up the Genius..Art book as an example of what I think is a sad, shallow way to go about "being famous" - write something controversial, who cares if it is intelligent or considered or well-researched*, as long as it's going to generate attention, it will bring one fame. But a book is an object one can choose or not to live with. A building is something that is definitely going to impact people's lives, and for a long time. It is a significant part of an architect's responsibility to try to improve the environment for all of its users - the client, the tenants of the building, the citizens of the city, etc. If one can do this while also building something attention-grabbing, fine, but it is much harder to do so with a building than with a book.
If you want to be a famous architect, ask yourself this: do you want the respect of other architects, or the adulation of the general public? If the latter, doing something stupid and controversial will get you on the TV news. Doing high-quality, well-designed, visionary projects that further the goals of the discipline (aka do a lot of hard work) will get you the respect of architects, aka the people who know what kind of work commands respect. In that case, the fame is not only fame, it's respect, which is fame of a much higher type.
And, stop calling me names you teenaged piece of shit. ;-)
* I'm obviously slagging the author overmuch here, but it's to make a point. I know he's actually a very smart guy.
OK, I feel bad about calling you a p.o.s., even in jest, willsimon, it was obnoxious of me and was recalling a phrase I heard recently and thought was funny in that other context. It wasn't here. I'm sorry.
But please give me a response that shows you are not a troll.
just following up on the issue of being overrated but famous, it should be noted that (imho) the more i learn about our profession, the more I realize that "perception" is very often as important as "reality"
ps. (unfortunately)
afrdzak...if you don't want to be famous, concentrate on good architecture, smaller scale, locally...it seems to be a good recipe for being a good architect, not "plagued" by the "beauty" of fame!
simples, your last paragraph, advice to afrdzak, is excellent, and it's a relief you kept to topic and steered it back to the original question, which is what I should have done. Why oh why doesn't archinect have a "delete this comment" button for self-editing?!?
(dear all, my post was mostly in jest which is why I posted it in Random Tangent, but obviously a topic of pseudo-serious discussion.)
To add my current philosophy of fame, most of today's fame is combination of many things including publicity, grasping opportunity, and being at the right place at the right time. I would not deny it if fame was at my doorstep, but I would let it in knowing that it's a novelty. This belief, of course, might or might not change in the coming years.
There's also the belief of let your work speak for itself. I have this belief. However, you might have a gem and it could go unnoticed indefinately only to disappear amongst the rest of them. The only way to make is stand out is to polish and have it strategically shown to the world.
Me: "My shit is the bomb!"
Passer by: "oh wow, yeah it is, I'm going to show my friends."
Me: :-)
no harm done, apology accepted if you accept mine as well for calling you cracked. I am not a troll, I am just a little passionate about what I belive in. Truce on the name calling then?
I believe fame and noteriaty is essential in an architects career if he/she wants to make a significant contribution to the profession the way it is today. If you have something important to say your voice must be heard, and if its nonsence, a democratic society will let you know. This is precisely Jump's position when he/she said:
"i also don't think architects can be famous without having substance. it takes too much time and effort to become a famous architect to get there just by flashing variegated genitalia..."
I think that what you are saying is that there are some (maybe all) buildings done by famous architects that you dont like. Furthermore you find it tragic that other people have to look at, and inhabit it for many years to come.
My response it that is this:
1.What people like and dislike is a matter of opinion. You cant please everybody as an architect. You cant cater to everybody otherwise you build nothing. You have to do what you belive is consistent with your principles and your heart. Without knowing who you are, I can easily find 100 people who dislike your work profoundly if I show it to them (this is not a criteaque of you, its just to demonstrate my point)
2.Most ideas are usually rediculed when it is new. This is true for many now famous buildings that are widely accepted by the general public. The pompudeau, the gugenhiem by wright, and the list goes on. I am also sure you can find some buildings that you realy admire that was once considered a scar on the site by the people who lived and worked in or around it when it was first built.
You also seem to meld the idea that desireing fame and building someting cheap, shallow and attention generating are one in the same. I dare you to disassociate the two.
I believe doing attenton grabbing stuff for the sake of getting attention just draws you further away from fame not closer to it.
so to answer your question: do you want the respect of other architects, or the adulation of the general public?
to have both would be nice but that's not my aim. To have the respect of myself is even better. To have my ideas brought forward, realized and responded to in a positive way is supreme. To shape the discourse of the profession and have a significant influene on the world of architecture would be a dream come true for me. Having people like or dislike me or my work is sobordinate to that.
As for being overrated yes, yes, yes, I can look in the mirror and accept myself if someone admires me more than I admire my self.
Wow, willsimon, what a great response. I can't say I disagree in spirit with a single bit of it.
I think we are getting caught up in semantics and misunderstandings over the meaning of "fame". When you say this:
I believe doing attenton grabbing stuff for the sake of getting attention just draws you further away from fame not closer to it.
I think you are talking about the kind of fame I am disparaging here: the desire to have attention paid to one for nothing of any real merit (sort of the Paris Hilton phenomenon).
But when you requote what jump said, which i also completely agree with, I think you're talking about the kind of fame that comes from, as jump and you both imply, working hard, pushing the goals of the profession in ways that may indeed be controversial and unliked at first, but respected later.
So, if we can agree that fame for its own sake isn't the goal, but fame as a result of doing worthy work is - and that includes doing the savvy marketing of one's image that allows one to get the good commissions - then I think we're on the same page, generally.
And yes, your passion is admirable. Thanks for such a considered response.
(I'm glad all that Willisimon business got solved before I replied... I was starting to think Willisimon was a troll too!
"blame it on passion"... LOL, passion is better than a place in the proffession with the "sine ira et studio" percpective... for this I can appreciate Willisimon.
(even if I didn't appreciate Willis, imagine architecture without various perspectives; would the profession exist? Wouldn't we just be "building buildings" or "plumbing" ?(as Richard Serra is said to have reffered to architecture...)
I appreciated reading what Trace, Liberty Bell, Jump and Willisimon had to say)
i'm still curious to know who these undeservedly famous architects are.
there are infamous architects, possibly. but any really bad and famous architects...i just don't think its possible.
even a small house takes a year to design and build, anything bigger tends to the years, 4 or 5 being quite common. not exactly a paparazzi time scale. maye only a student can contemplate this sort of question, someone who doesn't know it takes even zaha years to get out a project, or that a table by starck takes 2 years to conceive and get to production. the idea of fame from architecture just seems odd to me. the timescales are all wrong. i mean really there can't be instant gratification if it takes 10 years of your life just to get noticed and then another 10 to be slightly well known. even young upstarts like david adjaye have been in the game for a decade or more....
I think Brad Pitt would be the first to say he's not an architect. And personally I think he's done good things for both the profession and New Orleans. It’s not everyday that you see the likes of MVRDV, and David Adjaye being mentioned on the NBC nightly news and I don't mind letting an actor dabble in architecture if it means bringing what I love to do into the public eye.
Jump: I'm getting in on this discussion late but in regards to undeservedly famous architects, undeserving might be a poor word, but I think there are various forms of fame in any field and architecture isn't any different.
For instance, I can name some notable architects who have become famous because they've made dramatic contributions to arch. theory, technology, structures, etc. and it seems like the field of architecture is genuinely thankful to these folks in the long run.
But at the same time there have been some people who have perhaps achieved notoriety in the field but didn't necessarily use the benefits that come with fame (i.e. better projects, better clients etc) to further the discourse.
Personally I don't think I’d say these people don’t deserve their fame; nor do I really think fame is something that can be deserved or not-deserved, a glance at pop music and big budget Hollywood flicks shows that plainly enough. But I might say that they were successful because they learned how to employ skills that aren't found within the immediate field of architecture, such as business savvy, networking, and publicity, and this seems to piss some of those deeply trenched archies off sometimes. Perhaps the very worst of them is undeserving of our admiration but not necessarily the fame they’ve garnered.
no, not wierd
the older i get (i'm only 31) the more i realize how many people there are out there battling for the top. it's just not worth it. you need a lot of things to line up to be famous.
who wants fame anyway? architect fame would be better than being stopped on the street or people screaming "i wanna have your baby" while you are on stage. i think it is kinda nice down here under the radar
a lot less pressure and a lot fewer tail-riding scavengers picking at your pockets
the closest brush i had with fame in architecture is with renzo piano. in 2004 i was in genoa, somehow finding myself sitting in the company of some current and future starchitects, chewing fat and being smarty-pants together...michael sorkin was very impressive. ben van berkel looked tired and detached. but renzo was just...well, frankly he was amazing.
the reason he was super cool was that he was first of all humble, then after he opened a show in a new gallery he had remodeled he went on stage to deliver a speech in an opera house by aldo rossi. us young architect people were given free access, and it was seriously impressive. there was renzo, walking on an enormous stage, images of his buildings behind him and he was just talking out into a darkened hall filled with hundreds of architecture lovers...it was basically a lecture, but the ambiance and the setting made it more...finally, the thing that topped it off was when we returned to hotel and on the tv behind the counter was a broadcast of renzo's lecture...the guy was/is clearly more than just a regular working architect. he is famous, even an icon of his culture...
so it was a kool memory. it was also an experience that left an impression. i have had chance to meet with a few japanese starchitects, and seen rem and others give very good lectures, but none so far come close to the kind of fame that renzo's performance represented...and really THAT is the thing that defines architectural fame for me. I don't believe it can be pursued actively as a career path, and only comes from working hard and being good. its about greatness. i find it hard to accept it is a bad thing...
anyway...i am not certain that fame brings with it any responsibility to further any discourses. In fact i think when frank gehry was asked about his discourses, he said he didn't believe in them and anyway he wasn't there when it happened and no one could prove a thing.
It is too difficult, hard, almost impossible, far reaching to become a famous architect therefore:
fame = too much pressure
it is kinda nice down here under the radar
it's just not worth it.
fame is a measurement of what other people think,
fame should really be irrelevant.
I don't wanna be overrated
I am just sooo happy designing boring stuff in the closet
I would rather be successful,
I would rather be respected,
I would rather be this, and I would rather be that
and the best one of all, I really don't want some woman screaming "i wanna have your baby" at me when I walk down the street. (anything but that, oh god no!, pluck my finger nails out, water-board me but not that!)
bla, bla, bla,
I would rather take the 50-Cent approach and "Get FAMOUS or Die Tryin' "
newsflash: architects are not famous. even the famous ones. yes they may be known among their peers, they may be known by the students who crowd the lecture halls to listen to their lectures, they may even be featured in a documentary or grace the cover of the magazine in the sunday paper. this ain't being famous. so get over it.
If you want to be famous become a star athlete....do drugs and you will even become more famous...I could list a few buy I think You
know where I'm headed.
I don't want to become a famous architect...
Am I weird?
Among this group - yeah, you probably are ...
sometimes wishes do come true...
You don't suck, and you're not weird. I've never wanted to be famous, who needs it? I want to enjoy life, and for me that *includes* doing architecture as my chosen profession. Fame? Scale the Empire State Building with suction cups.
man, that DOES sound easier than architecture.
anybody got any suction cups i can borrow? i'm sure i'd only use them once, but you might have to dig them out of a ... mess ... when i finish.
lol.
i think fame is byproduct of something else. is there a paris hilton version of architect out there? famous for being famous but nothing else?
anyway, no not weird.
Wasn't that Zaha 5 years ago? Man, am I glad she never flashed her junk.
Who needs fame if you're rich???
Seriously,
My objective is not to be famous, but successful. Because fame is a measurement of what other people think, it should really be irrelevant.
Life is easier to live when have a ‘sit down’ with yourself and figure out what you want, each time something on ‘the list’ is fulfilled, that’s a success.
And while both of the above may sound very after-school-special-ish, here’s what else I think about fame:
Not only is fame a measurement of what other people think, those who are usually accredited with making one famous are usually not of the famed one’s peers! I wonder how many actors would have any type an award if it were up to Denzel Washington?
What holds more weight (and still, not everything, but much, much more) in my life is what other good architects will think of my work, what people who I can relate to and admire will think about my work.
How many of you think <insert Starchitect here + ‘s> work was ugly or whose whole line of work is overrated period or whose whole career is the result of people’s admiration of big, shiny things?
I don’t wanna be that guy or girl, even if he or she is famous.
"The love me, they really love me!"
no, it's not my blog
If fame gets me clients and money and my projects built, then fuck it, I'm gonna go for it.
ifyouseeme, how many perennially famous people (not something like american idol) do you see that arent rich? not too many i would imagine.
money creates fame - ie trump.
i found it a lot easier to become a famous Archinecteour..
and a lot more rewarding....it got me laid
^ true dat
Then again, old Lou Kahn got laid quite a bit from what I hear.
An inspiration to ugly short men everywhere he is.
Xacto
don't tell me you're the guy who knows all the rich people in the world- even the ones who aren't famous!
where'd you get THAT black book?!?
...money and fame are related but still exclusive...
Rich: in possession of valued abundance
Rich: not synonomous with billions and trillions of profit just EXCESS
Your name doesn't hit E! News once you have enough money and investments to not work if you so chose, I mean I didn't think rich came with an anonucement...
Fame is marketing, and don't need to be knocked but it doesn't need to be everyone's sole/most important objective...
I don't think anyone HATES fame...
A New Q:
Even if fame isn't your objective,
Would you reject it?
Is there anyone would just flush their fame down the toilet if they could?!?
Does anyone hate (/not want) fame?
ifYouCanSeeme:
My objective is not to be famous, but successful. Because fame is a measurement of what other people think, it should really be irrelevant.
ME-
Fame is a mesure of how well you have marketed yourself. How well you have made your work and yourself visible to your profession. This is a very valuabe place to be. Here you can have the power to make a bigger impact, get better commission, do more interesting things.
ifYouCanSeeme:-
Life is easier to live when have a ‘sit down’ with yourself and figure out what you want, each time something on ‘the list’ is fulfilled, that’s a success.
ME-
Agreed, but life would be even easier if you show your perspective clients your work from the cover of a magzine than from a louzy black portfolio. This aint irrelevant baby!
ifYouCanSeeme:-
And while both of the above may sound very after-school-special-ish, here’s what else I think about fame:
fame a measurement of what other people think,
ME-
nope it is a measure of how hard you work at putting your name and your work in the media. It is a measure of how many people know about you (what they think of you is a matter of opinion)
ifYouCanSeeme:-
What holds more weight (and still, not everything, but much, much more) in my life is what other good architects will think of my work, what people who I can relate to and admire will think about my work.
ME-
agreed, but how will good architects have an opinion of your work if you are not seen, if you are not famous. ifYouCanSeeme I can't see you! no one can see you.
ifYouCanSeeme:
-How many of you think <insert Starchitect here + ‘s> work was ugly or whose whole line of work is overrated period or whose whole career is the result of people’s admiration of big, shiny things?
I don’t wanna be that guy or girl, even if he or she is famous.
ME-
love em or hate em, bad work or good work, star architects rolled up their sleeves and did the work to make themeselves become famous. Youve got to respect them if for that alone. They are not thinking up some great buildings in thier heads or working in the closet. They put them selvs out there and they get feedback from more people, they get better commisons, they do more interesting things, they have more opportuinity, they develop faster, work harder, and I would imagine have more fun.
I would rather be over rated any day than be invisible.(weather people like my work or not)
hell yeah! I wanna be a famous architect!
it does not mean it is my only objective or that I am a famewhore. It is possible in this world to want to be famous and also want to be succesful and want to be many other things at the same time.
I dont think it is everyones most or sole objective. Not even Paris Hilton.
I've always wanted success and respect. I could take or leave the fame part (I like the respect part of the fame).
I agree, being invisible would be boring. It is invigorating to reach for the next milestone of business, find new ways to make design profitable, etc. Each step gives you a little more respect and success, maybe not fame, but each step does elevate the possibilities.
You would rather be overrated than invisible but proud of yourself? I think that's sad.
And honestly, if FAME is what you are after, there are far easier ways to do it than via architecture. Go on a reality TV show, for example. Write a controversial book. Don't inflict long-lasting built objects on the world whose only purpose is to make YOU famous.
PS trace I'm invisible and not the elast bit bored.
Philip Johnson is the Paris Hilton of Architecture
the biggest benefit i see to being a 'famous' architect, or at least a well-known highly respected one, is that skilled people will want to work for me in order to use their skills in the making of good buildings.
everyone, for the most part, can design a decent building.
i'm getting tired of being one of the few in the office that can lead these 'designers' in putting these buildings together and covering all of their butts in the coordination of documents. for one, because i can't succeed 100% of the time, and then i feel i've failed.
if i were famous, i'd have more of a 'pick of the litter' scenario, i'd think.
CRACKED LIBERTY BELL-You would rather be overrated than invisible but proud of yourself? I think that's sad.
ME-hey as long as I believe in what I am doing (and I do). I believe thats what matters first. But if I can be famous on top of that, why not?
If everyone else thinks I am much better than I actually am (ie, over rated ) why not?
If that sceneraio is SAD to you, then let me offer you a handcurchif.
CRACKED LIBERTY BELL-And honestly, if FAME is what you are after, there are far easier ways to do it than via architecture. Go on a reality TV show,
ME- You dont understand I wanna be a famous architect not a famous anything else. Got it? No I dont want crack head fame, I want to be 'Rem Koolhaas Famous' you cant get that from reality TV show.
CRACKED LIBERTY BELL-Write a controversial book. Don't inflict long-lasting built objects on the world whose only purpose is to make YOU famous.
ME- I am not sure if that brick was aimed at me or if you think that most people are so one dimensional, but I will tell you that I am a wee bit more complex than that. I have multiple aims and agenda in my career. Fame is one among many.
and as for that book "How "Genius" Disfigured a Practical Art" thats an oxymoron of a title dont you think? must be wirtten by a moron. Art practiacal? since when was art practical? He cant be refering to architectue because as far as I know architecture history (and I do) it has hardly been a purly practical profession. You should take that book to engineers and have a party with them.
i don't think lb was being confrontational.
i also don't think architects can be famous without having substance. it takes too much time and effort to become a famous architect to get there just by flashing variegated genitalia...
so reaching for fame in architecture is neither sin nor bad karma even. even people like phillipe starck are still required to pull off design goods. sure he is flamboyant, but that is his personality, not what he is famous for...i would say same of zaha and phillip johnson. they also produce(d) very good things. to be frank i don't think there is any pop-famous but actually-vapid equivalent in architecture....
my own suspicion is that the socialist foundations upon which all architecture school education is based is simply raising its confusing head and conflicting with the superstar culture also promulgated at universitie round the globe...hence disfunctional and smug conceit of some posts above....;-)
architects are so cute when they are conflicted.
Can someone who is overrated and knows it looks themselves in the mirror every day? I can't, and that's speaking from some bit of experience. Obviously this level of, yes, self-reflection isn't true of everyone, and that is sad for all of us indeed.
I'm going to take one more chance that willsimon is not a troll, though I may regret this. I offered up the Genius..Art book as an example of what I think is a sad, shallow way to go about "being famous" - write something controversial, who cares if it is intelligent or considered or well-researched*, as long as it's going to generate attention, it will bring one fame. But a book is an object one can choose or not to live with. A building is something that is definitely going to impact people's lives, and for a long time. It is a significant part of an architect's responsibility to try to improve the environment for all of its users - the client, the tenants of the building, the citizens of the city, etc. If one can do this while also building something attention-grabbing, fine, but it is much harder to do so with a building than with a book.
If you want to be a famous architect, ask yourself this: do you want the respect of other architects, or the adulation of the general public? If the latter, doing something stupid and controversial will get you on the TV news. Doing high-quality, well-designed, visionary projects that further the goals of the discipline (aka do a lot of hard work) will get you the respect of architects, aka the people who know what kind of work commands respect. In that case, the fame is not only fame, it's respect, which is fame of a much higher type.
And, stop calling me names you teenaged piece of shit. ;-)
* I'm obviously slagging the author overmuch here, but it's to make a point. I know he's actually a very smart guy.
OK, I feel bad about calling you a p.o.s., even in jest, willsimon, it was obnoxious of me and was recalling a phrase I heard recently and thought was funny in that other context. It wasn't here. I'm sorry.
But please give me a response that shows you are not a troll.
your first headline on the way to infamy:
unknown wannabe famous architect bitch slapped on architecture blog by legend.
just following up on the issue of being overrated but famous, it should be noted that (imho) the more i learn about our profession, the more I realize that "perception" is very often as important as "reality"
ps. (unfortunately)
afrdzak...if you don't want to be famous, concentrate on good architecture, smaller scale, locally...it seems to be a good recipe for being a good architect, not "plagued" by the "beauty" of fame!
vado, please stop - I feel badly enough as it is.
simples, your last paragraph, advice to afrdzak, is excellent, and it's a relief you kept to topic and steered it back to the original question, which is what I should have done. Why oh why doesn't archinect have a "delete this comment" button for self-editing?!?
(dear all, my post was mostly in jest which is why I posted it in Random Tangent, but obviously a topic of pseudo-serious discussion.)
To add my current philosophy of fame, most of today's fame is combination of many things including publicity, grasping opportunity, and being at the right place at the right time. I would not deny it if fame was at my doorstep, but I would let it in knowing that it's a novelty. This belief, of course, might or might not change in the coming years.
There's also the belief of let your work speak for itself. I have this belief. However, you might have a gem and it could go unnoticed indefinately only to disappear amongst the rest of them. The only way to make is stand out is to polish and have it strategically shown to the world.
Me: "My shit is the bomb!"
Passer by: "oh wow, yeah it is, I'm going to show my friends."
Me: :-)
What do you think?
btw, I liked the first three responses the best. ;-)
no harm done, apology accepted if you accept mine as well for calling you cracked. I am not a troll, I am just a little passionate about what I belive in. Truce on the name calling then?
I believe fame and noteriaty is essential in an architects career if he/she wants to make a significant contribution to the profession the way it is today. If you have something important to say your voice must be heard, and if its nonsence, a democratic society will let you know. This is precisely Jump's position when he/she said:
"i also don't think architects can be famous without having substance. it takes too much time and effort to become a famous architect to get there just by flashing variegated genitalia..."
I think that what you are saying is that there are some (maybe all) buildings done by famous architects that you dont like. Furthermore you find it tragic that other people have to look at, and inhabit it for many years to come.
My response it that is this:
1.What people like and dislike is a matter of opinion. You cant please everybody as an architect. You cant cater to everybody otherwise you build nothing. You have to do what you belive is consistent with your principles and your heart. Without knowing who you are, I can easily find 100 people who dislike your work profoundly if I show it to them (this is not a criteaque of you, its just to demonstrate my point)
2.Most ideas are usually rediculed when it is new. This is true for many now famous buildings that are widely accepted by the general public. The pompudeau, the gugenhiem by wright, and the list goes on. I am also sure you can find some buildings that you realy admire that was once considered a scar on the site by the people who lived and worked in or around it when it was first built.
You also seem to meld the idea that desireing fame and building someting cheap, shallow and attention generating are one in the same. I dare you to disassociate the two.
I believe doing attenton grabbing stuff for the sake of getting attention just draws you further away from fame not closer to it.
so to answer your question: do you want the respect of other architects, or the adulation of the general public?
to have both would be nice but that's not my aim. To have the respect of myself is even better. To have my ideas brought forward, realized and responded to in a positive way is supreme. To shape the discourse of the profession and have a significant influene on the world of architecture would be a dream come true for me. Having people like or dislike me or my work is sobordinate to that.
As for being overrated yes, yes, yes, I can look in the mirror and accept myself if someone admires me more than I admire my self.
blame it on passion...
Wow, willsimon, what a great response. I can't say I disagree in spirit with a single bit of it.
I think we are getting caught up in semantics and misunderstandings over the meaning of "fame". When you say this:
I believe doing attenton grabbing stuff for the sake of getting attention just draws you further away from fame not closer to it.
I think you are talking about the kind of fame I am disparaging here: the desire to have attention paid to one for nothing of any real merit (sort of the Paris Hilton phenomenon).
But when you requote what jump said, which i also completely agree with, I think you're talking about the kind of fame that comes from, as jump and you both imply, working hard, pushing the goals of the profession in ways that may indeed be controversial and unliked at first, but respected later.
So, if we can agree that fame for its own sake isn't the goal, but fame as a result of doing worthy work is - and that includes doing the savvy marketing of one's image that allows one to get the good commissions - then I think we're on the same page, generally.
And yes, your passion is admirable. Thanks for such a considered response.
As Bruce Goff practiced his Architecture, "Design for the Continuous Present"
This is fame: http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/no_place_like_home/
(I'm glad all that Willisimon business got solved before I replied... I was starting to think Willisimon was a troll too!
"blame it on passion"... LOL, passion is better than a place in the proffession with the "sine ira et studio" percpective... for this I can appreciate Willisimon.
(even if I didn't appreciate Willis, imagine architecture without various perspectives; would the profession exist? Wouldn't we just be "building buildings" or "plumbing" ?(as Richard Serra is said to have reffered to architecture...)
I appreciated reading what Trace, Liberty Bell, Jump and Willisimon had to say)
awww gee I was hoping to see a flame war...
Be a patriot first and defend your country against terrorists.
And, yes you do want to be a famous architect don't lie! But be an architect first.
i'm still curious to know who these undeservedly famous architects are.
there are infamous architects, possibly. but any really bad and famous architects...i just don't think its possible.
even a small house takes a year to design and build, anything bigger tends to the years, 4 or 5 being quite common. not exactly a paparazzi time scale. maye only a student can contemplate this sort of question, someone who doesn't know it takes even zaha years to get out a project, or that a table by starck takes 2 years to conceive and get to production. the idea of fame from architecture just seems odd to me. the timescales are all wrong. i mean really there can't be instant gratification if it takes 10 years of your life just to get noticed and then another 10 to be slightly well known. even young upstarts like david adjaye have been in the game for a decade or more....
The only undeservedly famous architect I can think of is Brad Pitt.
you might probably be the most boring architect
I think Brad Pitt would be the first to say he's not an architect. And personally I think he's done good things for both the profession and New Orleans. It’s not everyday that you see the likes of MVRDV, and David Adjaye being mentioned on the NBC nightly news and I don't mind letting an actor dabble in architecture if it means bringing what I love to do into the public eye.
Jump: I'm getting in on this discussion late but in regards to undeservedly famous architects, undeserving might be a poor word, but I think there are various forms of fame in any field and architecture isn't any different.
For instance, I can name some notable architects who have become famous because they've made dramatic contributions to arch. theory, technology, structures, etc. and it seems like the field of architecture is genuinely thankful to these folks in the long run.
But at the same time there have been some people who have perhaps achieved notoriety in the field but didn't necessarily use the benefits that come with fame (i.e. better projects, better clients etc) to further the discourse.
Personally I don't think I’d say these people don’t deserve their fame; nor do I really think fame is something that can be deserved or not-deserved, a glance at pop music and big budget Hollywood flicks shows that plainly enough. But I might say that they were successful because they learned how to employ skills that aren't found within the immediate field of architecture, such as business savvy, networking, and publicity, and this seems to piss some of those deeply trenched archies off sometimes. Perhaps the very worst of them is undeserving of our admiration but not necessarily the fame they’ve garnered.
no, not wierd
the older i get (i'm only 31) the more i realize how many people there are out there battling for the top. it's just not worth it. you need a lot of things to line up to be famous.
who wants fame anyway? architect fame would be better than being stopped on the street or people screaming "i wanna have your baby" while you are on stage. i think it is kinda nice down here under the radar
a lot less pressure and a lot fewer tail-riding scavengers picking at your pockets
maybe its about definitions
the closest brush i had with fame in architecture is with renzo piano. in 2004 i was in genoa, somehow finding myself sitting in the company of some current and future starchitects, chewing fat and being smarty-pants together...michael sorkin was very impressive. ben van berkel looked tired and detached. but renzo was just...well, frankly he was amazing.
the reason he was super cool was that he was first of all humble, then after he opened a show in a new gallery he had remodeled he went on stage to deliver a speech in an opera house by aldo rossi. us young architect people were given free access, and it was seriously impressive. there was renzo, walking on an enormous stage, images of his buildings behind him and he was just talking out into a darkened hall filled with hundreds of architecture lovers...it was basically a lecture, but the ambiance and the setting made it more...finally, the thing that topped it off was when we returned to hotel and on the tv behind the counter was a broadcast of renzo's lecture...the guy was/is clearly more than just a regular working architect. he is famous, even an icon of his culture...
so it was a kool memory. it was also an experience that left an impression. i have had chance to meet with a few japanese starchitects, and seen rem and others give very good lectures, but none so far come close to the kind of fame that renzo's performance represented...and really THAT is the thing that defines architectural fame for me. I don't believe it can be pursued actively as a career path, and only comes from working hard and being good. its about greatness. i find it hard to accept it is a bad thing...
anyway...i am not certain that fame brings with it any responsibility to further any discourses. In fact i think when frank gehry was asked about his discourses, he said he didn't believe in them and anyway he wasn't there when it happened and no one could prove a thing.
funkitecture
have you heard the terms:
I can't get it therefore I don't want it.
or
If the fox cant get the grape he calls it sour.
Aren't these just odes to defeatism?
It is too difficult, hard, almost impossible, far reaching to become a famous architect therefore:
fame = too much pressure
it is kinda nice down here under the radar
it's just not worth it.
fame is a measurement of what other people think,
fame should really be irrelevant.
I don't wanna be overrated
I am just sooo happy designing boring stuff in the closet
I would rather be successful,
I would rather be respected,
I would rather be this, and I would rather be that
and the best one of all, I really don't want some woman screaming "i wanna have your baby" at me when I walk down the street. (anything but that, oh god no!, pluck my finger nails out, water-board me but not that!)
bla, bla, bla,
I would rather take the 50-Cent approach and "Get FAMOUS or Die Tryin' "
newsflash: architects are not famous. even the famous ones. yes they may be known among their peers, they may be known by the students who crowd the lecture halls to listen to their lectures, they may even be featured in a documentary or grace the cover of the magazine in the sunday paper. this ain't being famous. so get over it.
If you want to be famous become a star athlete....do drugs and you will even become more famous...I could list a few buy I think You
know where I'm headed.
I'd argue Gehry is famous. Tiffany line, celeb parties, etc., etc.
i'd agree w/ vado on this one...
ask your neighbors to name a famous architect...
fame in architectural terms is internal to our little arch. world...(unless brad pitt is standing next to you)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.