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.