Rebuttal Over Roark, Wright et al

The following piece is a rebuttal on two previous articles, the one about Howard Roark, and the other about Wright and Corbusier. This entry would just be a point by point commentary to the different issues raised in these articles. Since these two articles have been posted for some time already, these would be somewhat a belated reply. But as they say, better late than never.


1. It is rather unfair to label ALL architects as arrogant, or as having this air of self-importance, because not all architects are arrogant, and that there are other professionals or particular groups of people, who are equally as arrogant, or even more arrogant than architects. You just look at mass media and you’ll see that politicians, filthy rich people, writers, sports celebrities, movie stars and corporate CEO’s have egos more bloated than those of architects’.

It just so happened that Ayn Rand chose an architect to be the star of her novel that architects have become an incidental victim of accusations of arrogance. If she had chosen a painter or an inventor instead, then I’m pretty sure that someone would label painters or inventors as being arrogant.


2. Architects, being also designers or artists, would have a tendency to be “protective” of their design or creation. When you tinker with a painter’s art piece, that painter would raise hell with you. When you tamper with a novelist’s writing, that novelist would raise hell with you. When you fiddle with a singer’s musical composition, that singer would raise hell with you.

Can you name an artist who isn’t proud of his work? Can you name an architect who doesn’t want to have his/her structure be listed as one of the great works in history? Can you name a person who wouldn’t react if someone messes his/her creation?

Again, it just so happened that Ayn Rand made her character Howard Roark blew up a building. That particular incident is more of an exaggeration and can also be interpreted in a symbolical manner. I really don’t think that any architect for that matter, would dare to blow up any building. Maybe smash few drafting boards and models (just like what Kevin Kline did in the movie “Life As a House”, nice movie by the way), but not blow up buildings. Those stuff are just for books and movies.


3. Arrogance, in itself, is not really a “misdeed” or an intolerable trait. It is when one’s arrogance does not match one’s qualifications or credentials that arrogance really becomes an intolerable cruelty. It is one thing to brag about one’s genius and have the product to show for it. It is another to brag without having anything to show for it. I think of the two, the latter is the more appalling.

I know of some local architects who think they are this genius of a designer, and claims to have done this and that building, have won this and that award. And yet when you look at their creations, it is nothing more than a copycat of some foreign structure. I’ve even heard of stories (though unsubstantiated) of heads of architectural firms who “borrowed” ideas from their staff and claim them as their own.

I think the more compelling question regarding arrogance is, “Can you back it up?” If you can’t, then you just have to shut your mouth. It’s just like saying put your foot where your mouth is.


4. “Sterile public buildings, look-alike downtowns, and inhumane urban renewal projects” can’t be directly blamed to architects’ “know-it-all attitude”. In the first place, architects do not actually build structures or projects themselves, nor do they have the powers of decision to continue or shelve a project. It is the client who provides the project brief, and in the end, it is the client who will approve or disprove the project because THE MONEY TO FUND THE PROJECT IS THEIRS. If the architect submits a poor design, the client has the right and power to demand the architect to redo a design, or hire a more competent architect.

But again, this would then depend on the level of “awareness” of the client. And this is where the area of responsibility of the architect lies. The architect, upon receipt of the project brief, should properly inform the client every step of the way, and GUIDE HIM HOW TO MAKE PROPER DECISIONS, even if these decisions could mean reduction of benefits on his part. If the architect, with all his inherent knowledge, knows something about the project is wrong but doesn’t inform the client about it because his fee might be put in jeopardy, then that’s already the fault of the architect, not the client. If the architect knows that he lacks certain knowledge about the project, yet he hides under this guise of “architectural omniscience” because his employment might be put in jeopardy, then that’s the fault of the architect.

As in the first rebuttal statement, it is rather unfair to put a generalized blame of “poor architecture” directly to architects, because ARCHITECTS AREN’T GRANTED WITH DECISION-MAKING POWERS REGARDING A PROJECT’S LIFE.


5. The only way architects like Wright, Le Corbusier ever get to “set the standard for our practice” is if society, at large, do embrace their creations, designs and theories, and other architects emulate them (or at least make an attempt to). Not every “delusional architect” gets to be the “standard for the practice”, no matter how weird-looking they try to make their structures look, or how esoteric they try to make their ideologies sound. Eventually, it is society who will be the judge whether their theories or designs can be considered to be the “standard”.

For example in movies, before “The Matrix” was released, no one ever really cared much for the movie since many thought it would be just a typical special effects heavy movie with a stoic-looking Keanu at the starring role. And no one knew who these Wachowski Brothers were. But when the movie was shown, it became a huge box office hit, and its “bullet-time” editing has been copied over and over again by subsequent movies. That was the time when it can be said that “The Matrix” set the standard for cutting-edge visual effects in movies. (Too bad the two sequels were quite lame compared to its ancestor.)

Just like what the article has said, it is one thing to aspire to their level of competence of these architects, and it’s another to imitate their arrogance. I think we should maintain a sense of objectivity in labelling these architects, and do not make the mistake of disregarding their achievements because of the negativity of their character. Even Beethoven, during his times, was considered quite a madman.

We should try to separate the idea from the person. We should try to appreciate the soundness of their theories—if they are sound at all, but at the same time dislike the haughtiness of their personalities.

And if we feel that some “primadonna” architect is getting some attention for his/her designs even though we feel that they are shallow, lacks originality or just plain stupid, then we should publicly make a statement about it, so that the public can be informed about it. If we are not vigilant about these things, then we ourselves are also to blame if these “delusional” architects become the standard from the practice. Just as it is happening now in our country.