02. A thought related to David Ruy's "Molecular Gastronomy"

In his comparison between so called "molecular gastronomists" and "digital architects", David Ruy reveals a misunderstanding prevalent within the broader fields of both food and architecture.

As molecular gastronomy gets criticized for being "too exclusive and elitist" and for ignoring "far more urgent problems regarding hunger and sustainable agriculture", as well as not being "respectful of cultural heritage", there seems to be a desire to levy upon chefs of contemporary haute cuisine this pre-conceived set of social responsibilities. Professional architects have been subject to similar social responsibilities to some degree as long as they've existed, and are often considered controversial if they openly shirk these responsibilities.

It seems that such controversies in both fields are due to a lack of distinction made between the haute and the basse; the high and the low. Perhaps this something that the egalitarian segments of modernism, or other proceeding movements, have removed from conversation. The average lay person, say, in the United States, is likely to scoff at this notion - "So you are too good for your social responsibilities?", they might say. But my argument is more about observing an existing division of labor; there are architects whose work serves the discourse of building construction, of institutions, of sociology, etc., and there are architects who design grand, magnificent constructions to serve, primarily, individuals with wealth and power. [edit note: I soon realize that the concept of "low" is something else entirely, more on that later.]

I would imagine professionals of the culinary arts are finding themselves in a comparable situation; food science (which ought to be responsible), or haute cuisine (which needn't be - not to the same degree anyway)?

The important thing to understand is that the two are basically different in their purposes. Perhaps the first may be thought as more of an scientist (engineer might be a closer word, but it is loaded in ways I don't intend), and the second is more of an artist. The "scientist" type is concerned with developing functional systems, whereas the "artist" type is concerned with crafting new sensory experiences. Is being an artist-architect (or artist-chef) less legitimate than being a scientist-architect (or scientist-chef)? Perhaps, if social responsibility is perceived to be important, or if one insists that serving many is inherently better than serving few, which are both certainly sensible.

After reflecting on it, I realize that I have made an error. The traditional understanding of the 'low' refers not to the scientists (obvious when those words are assembled together). 'Low' really refers to the vulgar, i.e. the lay, the pragmatists who fulfill basic needs of food preparation and building design for the masses. So, there are actually three classes of professional to be considered.

01. A Couple Thoughts on "Showing Work"

In her article from Log 20, entitled "Showing Work", Sylvia Lavin analyzes changing attitudes about what constitutes the body of work produced by an architect.

[In describing the rise of contemporary attitudes,] "The 'work' of an architect could take many forms, not just the conventional ones of drawings, models and buildings, but also books, installations, institution building, etc."

Venturi built buildings, but most consider his written work to be more important. Other architects have since been able to build reputations as writers and theorists beyond their built work. I think Rem Koolhaus is an obvious example, with books like Delirious New York, S, M, L, XL, and others, along with his (and Bouman's and Wigley's) quarterly periodical “Volume Magazine”, and other things (such as an extensive body of world-class built work). One does not have to Rem Koolhaus of course, but perhaps architects feel the need to expand of the scope of their authorship as a way of compensating for the general decline of the architect as the heroic “master builder”.

As a side note, I find it a little interesting that Ms. Lavin used Venturi so extensively as an example and did not mention Denise Scott Brown, who many argue deserves an equal share of credit as Venturi's long time collaborator for their large body of written and built work. The omission of Scott Brown's name in discussions about their work is a gripe that one occasionally hears from contemporary academics. There seems to be something awfully convenient, or perhaps even satisfying, about simply referring to them as “Venturi”, but I digress.

"On the other hand, the field - now filled with many things vying for status of the architectural work - became newly competitive and rife with petty resentments: the 'work' of the historians, critics, and theorists as 'work' but was not always recognized as such by the broader public nor architects, understandably reluctant to give up both status and money that come with the title of producer.”

I've heard Erik Ghenoiu, architectural historian and visiting assistant professor at the Pratt Institute, bemoan this very point. Does being an architect with built work lend you more credibility as a writer of architecture? Probably, but maybe not for rational reasons. How many architects with built work are any good at writing? Why should they be?

Lavin goes on to describe how the curation and exhibition of work of various sorts has been seen more and more as creative "work" unto itself.

Welcome

This is a blog primarily for Nathan Hume's & Abigail Coover Hume's "Curated Consumption" class at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, NY. The title and blog design are temporary, and will probably be changed at a later date to something that's hopefully more interesting and provocative.