Architecture And Design With OPB Columnist-In-Residence Randy Gragg

The concept of an “architects’ architect” is explored, drawing parallels to “musicians’ musicians”—artists highly appreciated within their respective fields for their craft rather than mass appeal. The article outlines a series of exclusionary criteria for what an architects' architect is not: they are not too commercial, too famous, or too branded. This means commercial architectural firms like SOM, HOK, OMA, ZHA, and BIG are ineligible due to their focus on pleasing a wide audience and commercial success. Similarly, architects who are household names or Pritzker Prize winners, such as Peter Zumthor, are excluded because architects' architects are typically known and appreciated by other architects, but not necessarily by the general public. A signature style, while often a mark of recognition, also disqualifies an architect, as it implies a consistent application of a particular aesthetic rather than problem-specific solutions. This criterion eliminates architects like Richard Meier, Shigeru Ban, Santiago Calatrava, Frank Gehry, and Alejandro Aravena. Further criteria for exclusion include architects who proselytize through teaching, writing, lecturing, or engaging extensively with social media. Architects who play media games or make their versatility a brand, like Herzog & de Meuron or Jean Nouvel, are also deemed ineligible, as their approach, while appearing to prioritize client needs, also serves to showcase their own creativity and adaptability. The article suggests that these exclusions leave a very small pool of architects who fit the traditional definition. The defining characteristics of an architects' architect are then identified. They are individuals who tread their own path, embodying the mythical lone creative. Their work is artistically driven, often characterized by a "search for something" that, while undefined, is admired by peers. These architects also exhibit an exceptional attention to detail, ensuring consistency in thought and thoroughness in execution, where every element seems intentionally designed. Finally, they possess a distinct way with materials, selecting and using them in a manner that is fit for purpose and photographs well, often in their natural state. While this idealized image of an architects’ architect is appealing, the article also highlights its negative aspects. Their buildings tend to be conventional, appealing to established tastes rather than challenging norms, in contrast to figures like Oswald Ungers, whose work was intellectually and physically unconventional. Such work can also be seen as irrelevant to broader societal needs, focusing on converting property and wealth into elegant forms rather than addressing issues of affordability or social impact, as exemplified by Studio Mumbai compared to Lacaton & Vassal. The concept is also deemed elitist, as the appreciation of such architects often signifies belonging to an exclusive professional club, which can be detrimental to a profession that aims to understand public needs. The article concludes by suggesting that the concept of an "architects’ architect" is likely dead. In contemporary architecture, the pressure to be commercial, famous, and branded is overwhelming, making it nearly impossible for an architect to avoid these traits. The modern architectural landscape is instead dominated by "self-aware media heroes" who are explicitly commercial, famous, and branded—the antithesis of the traditional architects' architect. The author laments that while the faults of the old ideal (conventional, irrelevant, elitist) are now viewed as positives, the focus has shifted from true innovation, appropriateness, and inclusivity to novelty, appeal, and populism, often prioritizing media engagement over the intrinsic quality of the buildings themselves. The article proposes three architects who, in the author's opinion, fit the description: Kazuo Shinohara, Jørn Utzon (excluding the Sydney Opera House), and Heinz Bienefeld, all of whom are deceased. #Architecture #ArchitectsArchitect #ArchitecturalCriticism #DesignPhilosophy #ArchitecturalProfession #CommercialArchitecture #SignatureStyle #ArchitecturalHistory #CreativeProcess

The perception of home makeover shows on television, which often depict rapid transformations within a single episode, is critiqued by Mark Brunetz, Emmy Award-winning co-host of the former Style Network series “Clean House.” Brunetz, who spent nine years on the show, reveals that these productions require extensive resources, including a crew of 100 people and a week of work for each home. He points out a significant disconnect between the glamorized on-screen portrayals and the reality of the design process, which is far more complex and nuanced than what is typically shown. Motivated by this insight, Brunetz launched a podcast titled "Scandalabra: The Ugly Truth Behind Beautiful Spaces," available on various podcast platforms. This podcast aims to delve deeper into the design industry, moving beyond superficial aesthetics and the emotional reveals commonly featured on TV. Since its launch in July, the podcast has featured 24 candid interviews with design insiders, with more episodes planned. These discussions have brought to light critical perspectives on the home improvement genre. One recurring theme in the podcast, articulated by designer Jaime Rummerfield, is that while home makeover shows have raised awareness about home improvement, they have also inadvertently cheapened the fields of design and architecture. Rummerfield draws a parallel between "fast design" and "fast fashion," where products are made to look appealing for a brief moment but lack durability and substance. This trend pushes poorly made furniture and quick fixes, prioritizing immediate visual impact over lasting quality and thoughtful design. Another criticism highlighted is the common practice of showing sledgehammer demolitions in every episode. While visually engaging for television, such structural changes are often unnecessary or inappropriate for many homes, demonstrating a focus on dramatic effect rather than practical design solutions. Brunetz's interviews frequently reveal that many people tend to copy design trends, which can result in homes that lack personal authenticity. Guests on the podcast emphasize that individuals often feel pressured to adhere to a single design style, influenced by quizzes or prevailing trends. However, the true objective of design, as argued by these experts, is to create a space that genuinely reflects the homeowner's personality and lifestyle, rather than a generic or trendy aesthetic. Angelo Surmelis, a guest on an episode titled “The Dangers of Idolizing TV Designers,” advises against mimicking the styles of TV design experts or blindly following trends. He asserts that companies often manufacture trends primarily to boost product sales, and that true design expertise for one's personal space comes from within. The article suggests that embracing personal preferences and individual taste is more crucial than following a prescribed "color of the year" or an "expert's" recommendation, requiring self-reflection to determine one's authentic style. Renowned architect Dean Larkin, known for his work on high-value properties, advocates for ignoring "isms" in design. He argues that adhering strictly to movements like midcentury modernism or traditionalism limits the opportunity to develop a unique personal aesthetic. Larkin stresses that a home should function as a personal sanctuary, reflecting the occupants and their family. He also cautions against rushing the design process, contrasting it with the expedited timelines seen on TV shows. Successful rooms, he contends, evolve over time. Larkin also challenges the concept of "timeless design," asserting that great design inherently connects people, space, and the specific era they inhabit, and thus is always subject to change. Regarding the impact of the pandemic on home design, Brunetz notes that it merely amplified existing issues. The increased time spent at home caused many to scrutinize their living environments more closely, revealing dissatisfactions with spaces that did not genuinely reflect them. Those who thrived at home during this period were often those whose living spaces resonated with their personal identities. To help individuals discover their personal style, Brunetz employs an interview technique where he asks about their hobbies, travel preferences, favorite clothing, or even what piece of furniture they would be, detailing its characteristics. This method helps people articulate their aesthetic inclinations, underscoring that everyone possesses a distinct style. #HomeMakeoverShows #DesignPodcast #InteriorDesignCritique #AuthenticDesign #DesignTrends #HomeDecoration #DesignIndustryInsights #ScandalabraPodcast #MarkBrunetz