What do you think are the most important aspects of architecture and design to celebrate, and who do you feel deserves recognition for doing this successfully?

For me, the crux of this question is not about pinpointing rising starchitects, but rather “how do we attribute value within the profession/discipline?” Architecture right now is so dispersed, I hesitate to say fractured to avoid a nihilistic point of view, that it takes a more than a single backslash between practice/theory to co-join its many parts. We’re not seeing big stand offs between camps, such as the Whites versus Grays, but internally focused groups often bonded by technology (parametric forms, rapid prototyping), ideology (pro-bono design, sustainability), and/or thematic interest (sci-fi, data-mining, Modernism).

What is valued depends on the particular niche. Is it form, the ability to fulfill a program and the client’s needs, cost efficiency, greenness? Or is it pushing the edges of discipline, timelessness, materiality, or technological prowess? It’s a game of mix and match, with a whiff of a Myers Briggs personality test.

Monday, August 16 at 10:01am

Design, from any of it’s myriad disciplines, must be Sustainable, Egalitarian, and Sublime. In must integrate into the systems of our biosphere to the best of our current understanding. Next, it must not just be accessible, but aim to promote accessibility and equality to all humanity regardless of station or affiliation. And once these qualities are met then it must accomplish some transcendent though subjective measure of beauty or awe. To make or to praise less than this is short-sighted and irresponsible.

Monday, August 16 at 6:43pm

We are interested in the question of shared ground within the profession, when it seems that as noted, that to a large extent ‘anything goes’ in today’s contemporary practice. The fact of the prize, and the associated recognition could help us to quantify values and reflect a collective perspective.

Monday, August 16 at 9:54pm

Sharon, how does the act of giving a single prize build collectivity and solidarity? The Pritzker is given by a small jury to architects already highly-regarded within the field. The awarding of that prize sometimes sparks conversation, say with the naming of both Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa and not Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. But the act of valuing the work goes on behind closed doors. Should it be an open, collective process, with multiple recipients in various categories?

Tuesday, August 17 at 10:47am

Sustainability. The best architecture in the world is architecture that can withstand the tests of time – whether it be through economic ruin or the wrath of mother nature.

Tuesday, August 17 at 12:57pm

I like how Adolf Loos identified, more than a century ago, the need to recognize masters who transcend construction and remain as fixed points of reference in the history of civilization….fixed reference points which enable one to grasp fully the changes of life itself.

So a recognition such as the Pritzker, in many ways could serve as barometer of the design climate of the moment.
Given that, as Mimi has pointed out, I think the process of its selection could be more open and transparent.

And after more than three decades, the premise and structure of the prize could be also rethought. The prize should not automatically be awarded every year, and the monetary sum of the prize (which has remained the same since Philip Johnson won) should be increased.

Architects, as a general rule, take decades to mature in the profession. The most mature living architects received the award in the first ten, twenty years; those who remain have far less experience and don’t necessarily deserve the award so early in their careers. Awarding the prize every year dilutes its value. Instead of a prize that is given out every year, it could be more like the Football Hall of Fame, where inductees are voted in. If no one gathers enough votes in one year, the prize money (which should equal that disbursed to Nobel recipients) would automatically be rolled over to the next year.

Tuesday, August 17 at 10:09pm

to mimi–but wouldn’t different categories just further the niche situation even more? i agree architecture is very dispersed right now, but i the work that gets my attention is usually whatever manages to avoid becoming just a category. that is the more interesting challenge (more than the prize, actually), to create spaces for niche contamination.

to chikezie–consequently, i’d say a work that is only sustainable is not necessarily great architecture.

perhaps categories work as secondary accolades, but there is something about having one big award. it’s similar to the beaux-arts prix de rome in 19th century france, which depended completely on the 8 academy jurors who chose it. they were elected for life–which is why it became more and more conservative. how is the pritzker committee decided upon?

Wednesday, August 18 at 12:06am

More recent choices for the Pritzker, such as SANAA and Peter Zumthor recognize building not driven by ideology, but about rich “experience.” Simple but more humanistic values are key: light, space, material, transition. Many past winners are questionable using these criteria: Philip Johnson (except the Glass House, of course), I.M. Pei, and others weren’t great architects but they were representative of movements. Hopefully the humanistic approach will be here to stay, and will resist trendy design ideas.

Maybe it would be better to award buildings themselves. It should be more like the Oscars: Best Building, Best Architect, Best Supporting Architects (since much architecture isn’t built by just one person).

Wednesday, August 18 at 12:19am

@ana marie I don’t see niches as a negative, only a reflection of where we are now (and perhaps where we’ve always been, only we see it more given our networked age).

@jim I’d prefer a Golden Globes analogy, unless you want Rockwell to design the set. To return to to nichedom and values, perhaps is it up to a new generation to set the parameters. Maybe Architzer, Archinect, or Design Observer should host a global MTV/Video Music Awards–style event.

Wednesday, August 18 at 12:34am

mimi–yes, the niches are not negative on their own, and they have always existed. the problem now, as i see it, is that there is too much private agreement and too little public discussion. there is nothing wrong with agreement and focused introspective dialogue. but the lack of conversation across categories seems to be increasing (there was a great essay on this a few years ago, but i’ve lost the link–on how we tend to associate with like-minded peers, read news outlets we agree with, and are gradually isolated from different points of view).

this is why i think as much as multiple awards would be a positive thing, there is still value in recognizing a body of work that–hopefully–cuts across several categories.

andres–regarding social impact, the recent nussbaum discussion was an instance of the productive disagreement that i’d like to see happen more often.

Wednesday, August 18 at 5:45pm

Following Nietzche, I would say the most important aspects of architecture are as simple as environment, culture, tradition and available technology.
There are a lot of examples around the world on this simple but powerfully inspired architecture that remains anonymous because there is a veil of media fascination on architecture that privileges form and spectacle.

Wednesday, August 18 at 9:14pm

I’m surprised nothing has been said yet about laws, government, or governance yet this week. While I understand that it’s a slippery slope to try to regulate aesthetics, particularly on the scale of nation-states, and while highly-regulated architectural efforts at the micro-scale often take the contentious (and questionably ethical?) form of gated communities, I think the possibilities of self-definition by communities are great. I know this idea, in the way I’ve voiced it, is out of vogue right now, and in the twentieth century, I think it was usually a bad route to take. However, we have the means to make more or less everyone in a community heard these days, and as long as no one’s in a rush to build anything right this minute, we have time to talk it over, whether that conversation take one year, or five years, or ten. I’d like to see some cities start to collectively talk about their overall design- I doubt this would work well for New York, or DC, or LA, but there are plenty of smaller cities and towns that might even benefit from finding new, digitally-enabled ways to talk about finding a unified architectural design vision.

Thursday, August 19 at 12:35pm

I agree with Ray and Sharon about the changing face of practice—the move from the individual figurehead to the collective. What’s interesting in young firms is the kind of flexibility they have to investigate ideas in almost a research-driven or think tank collaboration where they bring in artists, urbanists, engineers as full members of the design team. This makes for rich projects, but a difficulty for awarding individuals.

Friday, August 20 at 10:28am

The Pritzker has been successful in recognizing many of the most forward-thinking and influential architects of the past thirty years. But in terms of affecting real change, I’d argue that the impact many of these architects’ work hasn’t extended too far beyond a small, close-knit community of designers, artists, and clients. At the same time there are massive public health, social, and ecological issues which are affected by the built environment. According to the U.N. roughly a third of the global urban population, 1 billion people, currently live in dire conditions in slum settlements and that number is increasing rapidly. It would be nice to see the award to recognize individuals whose work on the built environment has a broader kind of relevance.

Also, the idea that architects, acting alone, can successfully address such large-scale, complex seems to me an outmoded idea. Real collaboration is required with professionals from a diverse range of disciplines – economists, politicians, biologists, artists – who are not conventionally thought of as relevant to the production of built environments. This has interesting implications for the Pritzker Prize. Should it continue as an award only for architects? Will the award evolve as the definition of what is architecture and what is an architect becomes less pure? Would it be best serve simply to recognize individuals (regardless of discipline) who have affected profound, positive change in the built environment?

Friday, August 20 at 11:30am

This week’s conversation has really intrigued me, but also stirred up a question that gnaws at me professionally and artistically. Previous posts speak to the Pritzker Prize as a barometer – a means of both reading and evaluating the atmosphere of architecture. However, the use of the term barometer is in some senses location specific. Is the architectural atmosphere the same everywhere? Or, do pressure levels differ depending on additional climatic factors – economic, cultural and environmental. While the Pritzkers’ intent in awarding the prize was initially to raise architecture’s exposure to the level of the Nobel and other awards in the sciences and humanities, architecture resists residency and prefers to operate in relation to but also tangentially to other disciplines. Therefore, the question raised this week is both far-reaching and in some respects unattenable. Just as there is no one way people live, work and inhabit, there is no one-size-fits all award for achievement.

Friday, August 20 at 12:59pm

The conversation this week has generated a series of intriguing responses on the chasm between the individual and the collective- from Diogo’s stance on the opportunities inherent within the inevitable elitism of the award, to Ray’s notion of expanding the recognition to other fields of collaboration, to Jim’s suggestion of awarding buildings instead of authors, à la academy awards.

And speaking of the Academy Awards, my favorite is always the Lifetime Achievement Award – awarded to a person for an entire body of work, and often to someone who has not won an Oscar before. Perhaps an award such as the Pritzker serves best to recognize a secular generation that’s on the slow burn – very good, very serious, not on the fast track, but pursuing their own architectural interests with tenacity, quirkiness, and confidence. A generation which, instead of forcing others to subsume to their own experiences, performs more like a striptease, slowly unveiling its work to those who give their time and attention.

Friday, August 20 at 6:28pm