Participants:
Alex Barney - Host
Emma McDeviitt - Moderator
Isa Restrepo - Moderator
Jacob Coffey - Participant
Qianzhen Li
- Participant
Victoria Vardanyan
- Participant
Oji Anderson
- Participant
Theo Chalker
- Participant
Ainsley Dahl
- Participant
Lily Brooks
- Participant
Adam Drafts-Johnson
- Participant
Julian Weinstock
- Participant
Tobias Gray
- Participant
Anya Kukreja
- Participant
Preface
Amidst the efforts of this publication to celebrate conversation, we promptly discovered it would be much more intricate than that. It seems that this ideal exists with a fine print. We’re forced to ask ourselves: where, if ever, do we draw the line?
Due to recent events, we see this topic as evermore pressing to consider. During a recent lecture hosted within the School of Architecture’s Slocum Hall, David Adjaye’s work was heavily referenced and celebrated. Following this, many conversations were initiated surrounding the inclusion of Adjaye's work at an institutional level. Should his work be revered at an institutional level given the heavy legal claims still unsettled?
A past collaborator of ours was adamant that voices and ideas be heard, regardless of who or what is being said. Regardless of consequence. This provoked a discussion that sought a line to be drawn. We felt unsure of this “line,” but mediated between institutional responsibility and a provocative risk. We erred on the side of institutional responsibility. But was this the right call?
This conversation extends beyond the confines of this institution and design discourse as well. When a revered artist or architect is caught in controversy, is it possible to critique the art as it is? Should we look past a morally questionable character to adopt their earlier contributions to the field? Or should we disregard advancements because of their source? This is something to consider as we center our conversation around creatives who have proven to have questionable morals, but output groundbreaking concepts. A few that come to mind: Le Corbusier, Pablo Picasso, Phllip Johnson, Michael Jackson, etc.
The debate will be focused on the discourse surrounding the spectrum of separation of art from artist. Should a conclusion be found– heavy political, social, and creative implications are consequence. This provokes students to question their personal autonomy to draw their own lines.
This stems from the early 20th century formalist movement in literature, New Criticism, in which a work of literature, often poems, would be analyzed without the author as a self-referential piece. Separated from the contemporary, author, inspiration, and status quo, a work would find success or failure solely due to its content. This lens exists in stark contrast to Traditional Literary Criticism, in which historical and political context, author, theme, and style are taken into account. This debate will raise and scrutinize the most prominent aspects of this topic in pursuit of an intellectual approach towards drawing the line: to censor or commission a designer's work.
Debate Proceedings
Isa Restrepo
(0:00) Hey! Okay, now you guys are officially on. Thanks, everyone.
Everyone
Synced clap.
Theo Chalker
(0:25) Fire.
Emma McDevitt
(2:00) Okay, we made it! I’m nervous guys…
Isa Restrepo
(2:01) No, but this is fun. (2:02) We have friends and family gathered. No family, but the same sentiment.
Emma McDevitt
(2:07) Aw yeah, so I guess to start, we really appreciate everyone who came out to support this event tonight. (2:19) So I guess maybe we'll talk a bit about what Point is just to get an overarching idea because this is our first in-person event. (2:31) So our goal is to have a publication that's maybe not representative of the School of Architecture, but encapsulating of the community within the School of Architecture, as well as people who are interested in design, like in the VPA school on campus. (2:51) We really felt over the past year that it would be a nice thing to have a medium for students to be able to contribute to in the community. (3:00) And that was something that Syracuse was lacking. (3:02) And so this is kind of our culmination of what we think could be a really fun way to bring people together but also to have more lighthearted conversation about things that seem more serious when you're in class or around professors and stuff like that. (3:19) So, we don't want it to seem very like you have to say the right thing or make the best point. (3:25) We just want everyone to feel comfortable and have a good time. (3:30) So, now maybe we will talk more about this specific brief, “Draw the Line” in particular. (3:58) So, we were thinking of having a debate, right? (4:01) And something that kept coming up within all of our discussions were the more taboo or controversial things that seem maybe not immediately relevant, but find themselves relevant to us as young learning architecture students and students in design. (4:20)
There was a recent lecture here at the school and David Adjaye was heavily referenced and revered. (4:31) I wasn't there at the lecture. (4:33) I don't think Isa was there either, but we heard talk from people within administration who were a bit unhappy about his work being featured and discussed. I'm not sure if everybody is aware, but he is a very renowned Black architect who has created a lot of significant cultural work. (4:59) However, he currently has a lot of heavy claims relating to sexual offenses that have not yet been legally settled. (5:11) Yeah so I guess within the administration area of the school, they were very concerned about whether or not that conversation or that subject should have been touched. (5:21) And so, we thought it was kind of interesting since things are not settled yet, should we immediately censor his work in an educational setting? (5:31) It reminded us of the cancel-culture-esque move that we see coming more and more into modern media and social dynamics. (5:44) And so, we thought that this was an interesting starting point to have a discussion like this where there's maybe not a clear boundary of what's too far and what's admissible. (5:58) And then... (5:59) Do we even want to...(6:00) Should we mention the second part?
Isa Restrepo
(6:06) Yeah, I want to say it's okay…
Emma McDevitt
(6:10) Maybe this could be a fun warm-up for the conversation.
Oji Anderson
(6:15) I'm pretty intrigued now.
Theo Chalker
(6:17) Yeah.
Emma McDevitt
(6:19) Okay. (6:20) So, anyway. (6:22) Just to wrap what I was just saying. (6:24) So, within the brief, you'll find on the front page, there's a preface. Pretty much everything I just said, where we're coming from, why we're having this conversation, you will find in there. (6:34) And then, under the “blurred lines” section is a list of a lot of different artists from different fields, very, very broadly blocked into what's their controversy and also what is their reverence as an artist and what is the kind of argument for both sides.
Isa Restrepo
(6:54) Can I add a little note?
Emma McDevitt
(6:56) Yeah.
Isa Restrepo
(6:57) It's kind of just something that really, really applies to what we have to study because architects kind of generally do have a known personality.(7:05) And we've known that. (7:08) It's kind of a recurring story, what we've heard about, not specifically David Adjaye, but there are so many architects that we admire their work heavily, but then we have to say, like, an asterisk at the end. (7:20) We know that they're terrible. (7:22) So, it's kind of just something that we have to acknowledge in our studies. (7:25) So, it's something that maybe is good to unpack for some time.
Emma McDevitt
(7:33) Yes definitely, so, going into what really made us feel like, okay, where's the line? (7:41) We had this idea suggested to us that we could talk about the different forms of new criticism and traditional criticism, which we briefly talked about in the preface. (7:49) But there was another idea that was given to us that implied that we would, to advertise for this event, put images of Hitler's artwork all over the school without context to create buzz. (8:16) We felt very uncomfortable by this suggestion. (8:21) But you have to admit, it does fall in line with the conversation of separation of art from artist, which we will transition to as the main discussion for tonight. (8:36) I remember that first day I came into my studio and was like, “Guys, this just happened. What do you think?” (8:43) Because we felt very wrong to tell somebody who believes in this idea that that's too far and we have to draw the line. (8:54) And so, that's where we came up with this conversation of where is the line? (9:00) Let's draw the line. (9:02) So, that's where we're coming from.
(9:04) And so Alex is also here with us, who is going to be hosting our discussion. (9:11) We want to have some kind of pushback in all of these talks. (9:16) We suspect that we'll go in a little bit of circles in conversation because it's such a blurry subject. (9:27) So, Alex is going to be helping us host some of these questions and discussions.
(9:32) And, yeah. (9:32) You don't have to talk. (9:33) You don't have to contribute. (9:35) You don't have to raise your hand. (9:37) But it's more just like, yeah. (9:39) We're going to have a conversation and start with some questions. (9:43) And hopefully, you can jump in on your own time and add your own questions, your own points, your own comments or disagreements and everything. (9:52) But, yeah. (9:53) This is our first time doing this. (9:54) So, we'll see how this goes!
Alex Barney
(9:57) So, Emma was talking about the idea of new criticism versus traditional. (10:04) I’ll go over it one more time. (10:08) The idea was this: there was this new movement called New Criticism that wanted to look at a body of work without considering the artist who created it. (10:16) And that goes against the more traditional one which was considering the historical context, X, Y, Z. (10:22) And so now looking at the first question, as we start to talk about separation of art from the artist.(10:28) Do you guys think that you subscribe more to some of the ideas of New Criticism? (10:33) Do you think it's still valid to consider something without its context? (10:38) And I guess the core of this question is really like, can we separate an artist from their art?
Emma McDevitt
(10:45) I'm going to give it a second to ponder.
Oji Anderson
(11:09) Well, I feel like art should be appreciated for its aesthetics and the emotional impact it has. (11:20) So to separate it off the bat is definitely an interesting approach. I kind of favor the approach, because the artist's intent is one thing, whether it's from their personal emotions, and then for someone else to perceive it differently is one other thing. (11:40) So I think it is interesting that New Criticism could be a way to look at art differently.
Alex Barney
(11:46) It also kind of reminds me of Marcel Dupont, one of my favorite artists. (11:49) His biggest thing was he believed that art was at its face value. (11:54) He wanted you before you knew anything about it to look at it. (12:00) So I guess maybe if anyone has any thoughts about like, do you think that if you went to a museum and there were no words on anything and you would still be able to look at all the pieces of art, would you get the same experience or do you think you would get more or less of an experience. Compared to if it had the artist's name and when it was made and all of their intentions behind it. (12:22) Do you think that changes what the art is itself?
Victoria Varr
(12:27) I have a question. (12:29) Looking at New Criticism versus Traditional Literary Criticism, is this in relationship to experiencing art or studying art?
Alex Barney
(12:40) I mean, I guess it could really be both. (12:43) I think that for this, I feel like New Criticism and Traditional Criticism is more of like a side note in our larger conversation but it's a way for us to frame it moving forward. (12:59) But yeah, do you guys think if you went to the art museum and there were no words, would you still be happy if you had to pay like $10 to go there?
Victoria Varr
(13:09) I'm just thinking about art history because I happen to be minoring in art history and in a lot of the courses, the way you learn about art is you learn about it within context. (13:20) You need to know what came before, how did the artist come about, the type of work that they produced in their career. (13:32) So it is really strange to kind of alienate the artist from the art to me, personally.
(13:40) And same with architects because a lot of architects are influenced by lineages of history. (13:47) And obviously we should acknowledge where these lineages come from but separating it completely when it comes to education is very strange in my opinion. (13:59) While what you're describing with Duchamp, that's more of an experience with art where you don't need to necessarily know everything about the art when you're seeing it. (14:10) You can go back to it and ponder on it later. (14:15) But when it comes to education of art, I feel like it's so important to place it within context because it might get lost without that context.
Alex Barney
(14:25) I feel like there's even movements like post-modernism which, interestingly enough, seeks to separate itself from historical precedents but in a way, by separating itself, it's still framing itself within that. (14:44) And it's really post-the word it's trying to separate itself from as well.
Theo Chalker
(14:49) I definitely agree with what you're saying, that you can't separate art from the artist in its entirety because I think in a lot of ways, more often than not, art is a form of emotional or ideological expression of the artist. (15:01) But when we get into academia and we talk about things like drawing the line and censorship, when cases get that extreme, I think you have to be able to separate it because you're never going to reach a moral consensus amongst an entire institution. (15:16) And if we're saying that because this is too controversial, we can't study it, then you're never really going to be able to study anything because somebody's always going to be saying that this piece of art or that piece of art crosses some sort of line.
Alex Barney
(15:31) And I think that's starting to get at kind of like the next question, asking about an artist's actions and beliefs and how they influence or view our work. (15:41) And when I was doing my research for this, I was thinking about framing some questions or whatnot, there was this interesting metaphor that I came across with the idea of a puzzle, and everyone is a puzzle, and you as a viewer only have a couple of the pieces, and you can never fully know someone, especially an architect or these people.
(16:06) I guess my next question is, if a tree falls in the woods and no one really hears it, did it really make a sound? (16:12) There's obviously people like David Adjaye who people have come out and talked against, but it's interesting how it requires that action, that response, for anything to start happening. (16:28) He still could have done all these terrible things and if no one ever found out, then it wouldn't have led into this whole thing and it wouldn't have been a thing for us to frame it. (16:41) So I guess then my next question as well, do you guys think that there's a responsibility for you guys to be educated about these people? Where do you guys think your role comes into this?
Oji Anderson
(17:01) I feel like we should be taught the negative connotations that come behind architects or artists, because if they're so great and we can argue, oh, “this is the best architect of all time”, then that's our role model. (17:17) We're going to try and follow in their steps. (17:19) Although, every human's different. (17:21) Obviously I'm not going to be doing some of this crazy shit that some other architects have done, but I think we should be taught it for sure.
Lily Brooks
(17:28) I also think that learning about the controversies doesn't have to be in discussing a matter of a disclaimer, but talking about it as a more holistic discussion. (17:40) I was looking at your example of JK Rowling, and I think about this a lot with film, shows, and music and stuff. If you're looking at the artist's past and their actions, it gives you a better understanding of their work and maybe why they have certain things, why they don't have certain things. (17:59) It doesn't necessarily have to be like they did these things and therefore we must not talk about it or shame them. (18:08) But rather, it gives a different perspective to their work, whether good or bad.
Theo Chalker
(18:16) I definitely agree with what's been said. (18:18) I'm just going to play devil's advocate here. (18:20) I'm going to pull it away from architecture and go into a more capitalistic scenario and talk about Chick-fil-A.
(18:25) It is the same sort of thing. (18:28) You're talking about appreciating someone's work even though they support something that you might morally disagree with. (18:36) To the point of JK Rowling, I think some people might say, yes, we can appreciate her work, but in appreciating her work, do we allow her to continue doing some wrong in the world? (18:49) Then it becomes a moral argument of, sure, you might have a disclaimer that they're not the best person in the world, but should you as a person not celebrate their work to prevent them from continuing to do bad things or something you disagree with? Something like that.
Alex Barney
(19:11) I think you're getting at the next question, asking about what are the boundaries for these types of controversies that can influence our appreciation of art. (19:21) Do you think that it's harder to define what is good or bad and also, when something is really bad, do you think that wherever that line is, that it's an objective truth, or do you think that it's subjective and dependent on each person or culture?
Isa Restrepo
(19:47) And their contributions?
Alex Barney
(19:48) Yeah, and their contribution.
Emma McDevitt
(19:54) I would say it's definitely subjective. (19:57) But I think in all of those different areas, I don't know if I would be able to say where it becomes more clear. (20:10) Yeah, I don't know. (20:12) Maybe it's not even really what are the boundaries. (20:16) For example, there will probably be a disclaimer prefacing this that subjects of sexual assault are mentioned in this conversation just because you never know who really could be sensitive to those things. (20:29) And so I feel like it's maybe less significant to decide what are the boundaries of a conversation or a subject that's “too taboo”, but maybe more significant to acknowledge and consider how emotionally charged a subject might be for somebody who's perceiving it.
Jacob Coffey
(20:46) I think that if their work directly reflects these ideologies or the context or these heinous things they've done, that's up to the viewer. (21:05) I can still listen to music knowing, I guess, the actions that the person does. (21:11) I can view art, maybe if the piece doesn't show exactly what happened, but it's all dependent, in my eyes, on the viewer and how they can take it. (21:28) I don't think you should celebrate, I don't think you should put them as a role model, but I think appreciation and or using them as precedents.
Victoria Varr
(21:41) I would like to circle back to the idea of being presented with architects and their work by our professors in our education career, and I would like to question the way that that is presented because of the sentiment where there's good architecture and there's bad architecture. (22:05) I feel like we're not, in my experience, we're not given enough historical context to understand where their work came from or places in the timeline of history. (22:19) I know some, like you were mentioning, post-modernism, some movements aren't reactionary, but it's still a context that exists, and oftentimes, I feel, especially reflecting back on our freshman year in architecture, we're thrown a lot of precedents without an explanation of why these are the precedents that are being picked. (22:43) So maybe it's a question of delivery of the precedents themselves and an understanding of students of why they're studying what they're studying, what is important, and not just choosing something because this is the authority of the professor and they like this person.
Alex Barney
(23:03) Yeah. (23:05) I think, when you were saying that immediately, I think it was like Villa Savoye, is that what it is, by Le Corbusier? (23:10) I feel like week one, we're in class and I'm trying to memorize the seven tenets of modernism. (23:16) And it's interesting that he's included in the list of people here as well of these blurred lines. (23:24) For me, my relationship with Corb over the course of my four years so far has really gone up and down, ever in between. (23:33) I don't know if anyone else has some thoughts. (23:36) What do you guys, in general, just think of Corb? (23:39) I guess the kind of way I'm framing it is within his influence in modernism in Africa and also, obviously, I think modernism somewhat failed. (23:51) But do you guys think that Corb is a good guy?
Oji Anderson
(23:56) I'm circling back and then going back to this, but freshman year, if we learned all these negative things behind these great architects like Corbusier or Frank Lloyd Wright, I think I'd personally be so overwhelmed and then just be like, no, I can't research that morally. (24:12) Although they did have a great impact.
(24:13) Going back to Corb now, if I like him…I remember I got the E-1027 house and I was like, oh my god, what a nice house, until I found out that Corb took over Eileen Gray's beautiful building and then started drawing naked murals of women on all the walls in the interior trying to ruin the minimalist design of her work. (24:37) My professor just subtly dropped that by accident freshman year. (24:41) I was like, no! (24:42) Get that precedent! (24:46) So, I don't know. (24:47) I don't agree with the Corb thing. (24:49) He's very fascist and very not good…
Victoria Varr
(24:51) It's a very complex question because the reason why E-1027 was preserved after World War II is because of those Corb murals. (25:00) And that's the only reason why they restored it. (25:04) Because Eileen Gray was not a very popular architect at the time. (25:09) So if it wasn't for that act of vandalism, her work probably wouldn't have made it up to now.
Oji Anderson
(25:15) True, but the reason for his act of vandalism was just to spite a woman architect. (25:22) And then didn't he end up designing a house right next to it too, just to show off?
Emma McDevitt
(25:27) Yeah.
Isa Restrepo
(25:29) No, and I think that Corb is especially an interesting one to bring up because, I mean, a massive issue with his design is his top-down approach. (25:39) It's the city planning that he has put out, the things that he's trying to do that in and of itself is a representation of his morals and his outlook on society that are problematic. (25:50) And it's directly being reflected in his design. (25:53) So it's kind of a question of the separation. (25:57) It's his morals directly being reflected into the art in and of itself.
Alex Barney
(26:01) Yeah, and I feel like that primes us perfectly for this next question, this fifth question. (26:05) How do we determine the legacy of an artist? (26:08) Is it just the work that they produce, or is it also their personal life?(26:13) When I was considering this, I thought it was interesting to think about especially once you get to this level of a starchitect, you almost give up the option of letting people into your life. (26:25) It's interesting to think about how once you reach such a point, your personal life isn't really your personal life anymore. (26:33) It's everyone constantly studying every move that you do. (26:38) And it doesn't give you the same amount of latitude if you weren't having so many pressures. (26:44) But do you guys think that the personal life should be considered as heavily as what they are putting, the person that they want to present? (26:55) Or do you think it really does matter who they are, maybe underneath that?
Isa Restrepo
(27:03) In the case of the starchitect?
Alex Barney
(27:05) Yeah, starchitect, or I guess in this context, we're kind of talking about Corb, some of the details about what were his motivations behind that.
Theo Chalker
(27:16) I mean, I feel this is similar to your question about if a tree falls in the woods, would we really know if an amazing architect were fascist and supported Hitler and all this stuff. (27:29) If nobody ever knew, does it really matter? (27:32) Does that affect his legacy? (27:34) And if it were to come out today, would that then affect his legacy and would it affect his work? (27:41) I feel like in this instance, it doesn't. (27:43) Because if it is able to separate it from the work itself, and there's no overarching theme of those opinions or agendas in the work, then it doesn't affect the legacy.
Alex Barney
(27:58) That's a great point.
Ainsley Dahl
(28:00) I also think with Corb and Wright, their actions are why they are so successful and revered. (28:11) They were assholes and they took advantage of other people and whatnot, and that's what got them to the top. (28:19) I think that's important to acknowledge for sure.
Ariya Kukreja
(28:23) In a similar way, bad publicity is publicity.
Alex Barney
(28:28) If it bleeds, it leads. (28:30) That type of thing.
Emma McDevitt
(28:33) If it bleeds, it leads.
Alex Barney
(28:35) I think I saw that in the new museum in DC or something.
Emma McDevitt
(28:39) I do think Bjarke is also a good example of that idea. Like even though they might have this public intent to create something that's good, it's like, maybe the follow through is not so much.
Alex Barney
(29:00) That makes me think of the narratives. (29:02) For me, in the last year or two, I've really been thinking about what are the narratives that I tell myself about my projects? (29:08) Are these actually true? (29:11) Let's say I'm an architect and I have the best intentions and I try to create this amazing housing block that's going to enrich the lives of so many people and it was thoughtfully designed. (29:24) The Robinhood Estates in London, for example, that then fell into disrepair afterwards. (29:33) Do you guys feel like it's still the responsibility of an architect when there's a failure? (29:39) Or do you think then it's a question of where does this responsibility fall?
Isa Restrepo
(29:44) I think absolutely it is.
Alex Barney
(29:46) The architect?
Isa Restrepo
(29:47) So I think in the case of when you're not acknowledging the site and the people that you're working with. Because architecture isn't just making a building pretty, we know that, we know that it's something that people are going to react to and it's your role to predict what's going to happen with that.
Oji Anderson
(0:33) But then what if an architect designs something so beautiful and all the people around it, just scratch that and make it something better? (0:44) Then it's still like, they didn't design with such intent like that, or they did, but then it like haywired and it became something good. (0:51) We'd probably praise it even more even if it was accidental, so I don't know.
Alex Barney
(0:55) One example of that, Oji, I was thinking about when I was doing my research was like, there was this bank, and obviously like, just for the sake of this argument, I'm gonna say like banks are bad and evil, and like X, Y, Z, A, B, C,. (1:09) But then eventually the bank closed down and it was turned into like a community center. (1:16) And so the original intent of this building wasn't designed to be a community center, but now the living legacy of that building is one.
(1:25) So now do you still think that the architect is responsible for these things after it's been built, or do you think that there is another person at play that is kind of influencing the way that buildings are used and appropriated after they're built?
Julian Weinstock
(1:50) I think it depends, isn't it so case by case? (1:54) Like if it's like a building, like the monument built for the Twin Towers, that probably will never be re-attributed a new meaning, because it's so tied to what it was built for, for its purpose. (2:07) Whereas like a barn in a vacant town can be turned into like, oh we party there every Saturday, so it has a different meaning now, and it's not just a vacant barn. (2:18) Like so I think it's completely case by case.
Alex Barney
(2:21) Yeah, and I think that's very true.
Isa Restrepo
(2:24) And also if it gets redesigned explicitly by a renovator, it's then the renovator’s job. (2:29) That's a little bit of a cop-out answer to that.
Alex Barney
(2:32) No, that's a good point as well.
Jacob Coffey
(2:34) What about the vessel? (2:36) When we put up the vessel, now everyone jumps off. (2:39) Who's responsible for that?
Alex Barney
(2:40) That is a good question.
Jacob Coffey
(2:40) That's it, they shut it down, they don't let people up there anymore.
Theo Chalker
(2:43) Well I think they're about to reopen it actually.
Jacob Coffey
(2:45) Until someone jumps again, and then they close it down again.
Theo Chalker
(2:48) Well apparently there's like nets now.
Julian Weinstock
(2:50) I mean at that point, like do you blame people who build bridges for the people who jump off of them?
Emma McDevitt
(2:55) Oh, that's a good one.
Alex Barney
(2:57) That's a great question.
Oji Anderson
(2:58) Damn.
Alex Barney
(3:02) I feel like sometimes architecture tries to say, and normally it is through narratives, that it constructs ways that like “people on the bridge are never gonna wanna jump off of it!”.
Julian Weinstock
(3:11) Or we'll build a net, and then the net fails. (3:14) It's like do you blame the net makers, or do you blame the person who planned the net?
(3:18) Yeah, like I'm not an architect at all. (3:26) I don't study this, but I think that the reason, even from like an outside perspective, that it's so nuanced, is that it is almost the job of an architect to be so good that the dynamism of how people decide to use their thing, their building, their space, they can get…it's an art of how close can we get to perfection without ever being able to make it, because you can never predict every single thing. (3:52) You can't, you just, at a certain point, there's a drop off of like capability versus possibility, and I, I think that's why it's so hard to answer. (4:02) Because I can think of about a thousand examples that work, and it's like, yeah, okay, they could have thought of that. (4:09) I can think of probably five that they couldn't have. (4:11) And like, that's enough to be like, well, there's five, I mean, there's probably infinite that I can't think of that they also couldn't predict. (4:19) So I don't know, it's kind of weird.
Alex Barney
(4:21) Yeah, it's kind of a weird trick. (4:23) But I feel like this kind of now, moving into the “society” section of this discussion, this relates to the first question, asking about advocating for the separation of art, and maybe for a stand-in for art, I would say like building, from the architect or artist, and is that an unrealistic expectation. Like should the outcome of the vessel be the responsibility of the architect, or is it more so something that they couldn't have even thought of? (4:53) Where does the responsibility lie, and is it about separating the art from the artist, or trying to maybe rethink who the artist is in this scenario?
Ainsley Dahl
(5:06) I also think going into this, it's really important to consider that people are the product of the time. (5:15) Especially like during their career, so things that were okay in the 1900s are not okay now, and equating two things, I mean it's kind of hard to do. (5:28) It's hard to be like, oh I'm excusing this person being racist in the 1900s because it was the “normal”, but I don't know, I think that's like an important thing to consider.
Ariya Kukreja
(5:40) But there were also people in the 1900s who were definitely not racist, and in fact they were anti-racist. (5:47) So then when you consider that, then you're like how normal was it actually to be racist, like is it just as bad now as it was then, or have we progressed with that time?
Ainsley Dahl
(5:59) Yeah, yeah, I mean I absolutely agree, I think most of these people we are talking about are just bad people to their core, and that's definitely a big takeaway.
Alex Barney
(6:11) Speaking of bad people, so like ideas of cancel culture, I would love to get a raise of hands, who here is pro or anti-cancel culture? (6:22) Oh no, actually I don't want to make you guys pick on someone like that. (6:26) Well I guess kind of why I'm asking it is because I feel really conflicted, on one hand I really love cancel culture because it's the only way that the mass really gets a say sometimes. (6:39) But at the same time, I think it really often times neglects the nuances of scenarios. (6:46) So do you guys, do you feel that you align more with supporting, or are you against ideas of cancel culture?
Theo Chalker
(6:55) Like many of these things that we've already talked about, I do think it is a big spectrum because I would say I'm more against cancel culture, just because there's so many instances where now, because of how popularized and supported cancel culture is, it's so easy for somebody to play the victim card, and then for an innocent person to then feel, you know, life-changing severe consequences because of that.
Jacob Coffey
(7:22) I agree, I mean, I myself don't want to walk on eggshells throughout society, and have every little thing I do or make even have the opportunity to ruin and cancel, discredit everything that I bring to the table.
Theo Chalker
(7:38) And to relate that back to what y'all were talking about just a second ago, the slavery subject is very interesting because, you know, however many hundreds of years ago, it was more accepted than it wasn't, and even today in some cultures, I think it is still very accepted, but like if we think about our modern day society, what do we do or say on a daily basis that like 50 years from now or 100 years from now could be incredibly offensive and can tie into the cancel culture thing? (8:10) And it's like that's where the whole cancel culture thing rose out of, it was all these celebrities that said something that 15 years ago was culturally accepted, but now is enough to, you know, to derail their entire career.
Oji Anderson
(8:23) Speaking on the opposite side, I guess, like a little devil’s advocate, without cancel culture though, wouldn't we not be kept in check a little bit? (8:31) I feel like we see these crazy examples get really blown out of proportion and like, wouldn't it, I don't know, us everyday people, it's like maybe they would say, oh like I should chill out a little bit and think about this.
Ariya Kukreja
(8:46) But then the reason why they're doing it changes, it's not because like morally they feel like it's wrong, it's because they don't want to get canceled.
Theo Chalker
(8:54) So then, is it really actually helping anything? (8:57) Yeah. (8:57) Because they still harbor their same opinions.
Alex Barney
(8:59) Yeah, and kind of building off of what you said, another question that I have is, what's the difference between something that is a mistake and something that's like a cancelable offense?
(9:13) When is it, yes, I'm a human and I make mistakes and I can learn and grow from them, when does that cross the line into the idea that this is unforgivable and this is something that this person needs to be canceled over?
Ariya Kukreja
(9:26) I think it's about ownership, like if you acknowledge that something you've done is a mistake, like, even before someone brings it up, you're like, this is something I did that was bad in the past, I'm here to make amends and move forward, be more educated, then that would be something that would make people see you in a more positive light versus letting someone 10 years from now just find out all the shit you've done.
Jacob Coffey
(9:52) Yeah, I like the fact that owning it and bringing it to light prior to, or like, instead of hiding, I think that shows true character. Like you don't want to beat being canceled, you don't want to get there first. (10:09) I mean, I'm sure people do do that. (10:11) Like, hey, let me just beat it so I can't get canceled. (10:16) But I think that shows true character, I mean, people can grow in my eyes, unless you're like, really, really the devil.
Oji Anderson
(10:25) But I feel like as a society, we still don't accept a lot of people apologizing to the public, it actually makes people more mad. (10:33) Like, Kanye,...
Emma McDevitt
(10:35) James Charles.
Oji Anderson
(10:42) I don't know, I feel like it stirs everyone up more, where it's like, oh my god, I forgot this happened, and now you're apologizing, and then they get more mad, and they're like, you're just saying that because you got canceled, so I don't know if apologies and stuff really work.
(10:56) Because then with David Adjaye, I read something where it's like, he is seeking professional help now, he recognizes what's done, but it doesn't really change much. (11:06) I don't know, it kind of seems like, oh, you are human now, we all make mistakes, but it's not, oh, you're off the hook.
Ariya Kukreja
(11:14) I think, to your point, people just love to feel good about themselves. (11:18) So like, regardless of whether someone's making all of these like, attempts to really better themselves, I think we're inclined to just feel negatively about them regardless.
Isa Restrepo
(11:32) It does go back to how cancer culture does kind of just reduce things down into like, agreeing with what the mass outcry is, and kind of just being like, yeah, we're all saying fuck them and I’m going to say it too.(11:44) And you don't even fully know the extent of what's going on.
Li Li
(11:47) Yeah, so to that, does the mass really get us? (11:52) I mean, like, if you're just shouting whatever the masses are saying, like, does, to you, as part of the mass, have a say?
Alex Barney
(12:00) That is interesting, it's kind of almost like a chicken and an egg thing. (12:04) It's like, to what point is it your original thought versus you're subscribing to someone else's ideas?
Li Li
(12:11) Yeah, I hate to put social media into this, but like, you are just believing whatever's pushing through your phone. (12:17) You know, like, you are looking at this content. (12:19) You are being fed this. (12:20) You are agreeing with this. (12:22) You are saying fuck it, right?
Theo Chalker
(12:24) I feel like that's really like, the biggest distinction here, and I think that's why cancel culture in recent years has become such a controversial topic, is because it's like, some big celebrity, like, I don't know, like, Taylor Swift, or like, Speed, or something, Jake Paul, or whatever. (12:46) Like, they can just say something, and then all of these 15-year-old TikTokers are then gonna become this army that it's like, we can't assume that the masses are an educated mass, and when you get into philosophy, a lot of these theoretical scenarios assume that everybody's an equal person with equal intellect, but that doesn't play out in the real world.
Alex Barney
(13:11) I feel like that's perfectly getting right into this next question about like, can we separate an artist's intention from the way that their work is received and interpreted by the public? (13:25) And for me, this is such an interesting question. (13:27) It gets back to some of the things we were talking about earlier, about ownership, and in some ways, like art is what the person created, but then art is reinterpreted by the viewer. (13:40) So do you think that you can kind of separate the two, or do you think that the artist's intention is what the art is?
Tobias Gray
(13:51) First and foremost, apologies for my late arrival. (13:54) My name's Tobias.
Everyone
(13:55) Hi, Tobias! (13:55) Hi, Tobias.
Tobias Gray
(13:57) I wanted to, in lieu of this question, discuss “Anxiety of Influence”, which was the book recommended by Kyle Miller that he showed us, and he has a really good interpretation of this question. (14:11) The book is about poets, and to think about a poet as their influence. (14:36)
Alex Barney
(14:47) Does anyone else have any thoughts on like how an artist's intentions versus the way it's received differs in the media world?
Theo Chalker
(14:56) Well, I think it's, I don't have an exact response to that. (15:00) I would say, assume that this question is about like, fault. (15:05) Whose fault is it? (15:06) Like, let's say somebody looks at somebody's art and gets offended. (15:09) Is it their fault that they're offended? (15:12) Or is it the artist's fault for expressing themselves in an offensive way?
Emma McDevitt
(15:14) Mmm that’s a good reframe.
Theo Chalker
(15:16) Yeah, write that down. Write that down.
Everyone
Laughter
Theo Chalker
(15:30) Well, I'll say my opinion. (15:35) I think it's the viewer's fault. (15:38) I'm not saying fault as in like it's a bad thing, but you can't apologize for who you are as a person unless, I think unless you're actively putting others down or committing a hate crime or something. (15:55) Everybody has a different opinion. (15:57) Nobody's opinion is technically right. (16:00) It's just about who agrees with it more than the next person. (16:03) And to say that somebody can't freely express themselves because someone might find it offensive is then oppressing the artist and suppressing their feelings in a way. (16:14) So I guess what the original question is… (16:20) It's a much more complex question.
Alex Barney
(16:23) Yeah, but I think you raise great points. (16:26) The idea of who's like, is it the artist's responsibility to be considering how you're gonna react to what they're trying to express? (16:34) And like how Emma was mentioning, sometimes some things could involve themes that make people uncomfortable or that could even trigger people and they could have an awful reaction to it.
(16:46) Is it then the role of, well I guess I don't really know whose role it is… (16:52) I don't think in this scenario the artist has done anything wrong. (16:56) I don't think that necessarily the viewer has done anything wrong by looking at it. (17:00) But do you guys think that there's still some responsibility to try to alleviate the pain that's been created? (17:08) Or do you think it's kind of just about like taking it and moving on,... the point's getting kind of convoluted, but you get the idea.
Emma McDevitt
(17:19) No, I get what you're saying though. (17:21) I don't know if I'll exactly answer or respond to the last question you just asked, but...
Alex Barney
(17:26) Good.
Everyone
Laughter
Emma McDevitt
(17:26) But I think going off of what Theo was talking about, and I don't want to speak for architecture specifically… (17:36) I think just in addressing like artists and art and what are those two roles, I do think that the whole essence of art really in a way is to provoke a reaction from a viewer. (17:54) Like, at least in most cases of art, I mean, I think architecture is a bit different because there's an inherent function, like there's a lot more practical implications when you get down to like that level of art.
(18:09) But kind of exactly what Theo was talking about, I don't think that it necessarily should or can be put on the artist so heavily to censor what reaction they want to evoke. (18:30) And I don't know what that means for like where the line of responsibility for the viewer, consumer, or distributor is in that realm. (18:39) But I don't know. (18:43) Art is always gonna happen and I don't think that you can exactly say like artists shouldn't or should create something. (18:51) (18:52) But that's so, like, see I don't like that statement either though. (18:56) It’s really interesting.
Victoria Varr
(19:00) Rosalind Kandinsky has a very interesting theory on art and spirituality where art is this living and breathing creature that communicates from the artist to the viewer and from the viewer to the artist. (19:16) So, I guess to break that down a little bit, what that means is when you're painting something, for example, you're expressing something, a page, a plane, and a viewer could have similar experience to what you had when you were painting it, or they can have a completely different experience. (19:43) And art becomes this medium that communicates between the viewer and the artist.
(19:48) And I guess it could be applied to architecture because as much as we want to be really perfect and design for everything and consider everything in our design, it is impossible. It is the impossible task of architecture to create something perfect, right? (20:08) Because no matter how much we think about it, once it's out there and people are using it, it's going to be experienced through their perspectives, not through our perspective. (20:19) So, maybe it's a question of what kind of communication happens between the visitor, the person experiencing the space, and the architect once something is built.
Jacob Coffey
(20:33) I have written down, I don't know if it's similar, but what does art ask of us? (20:42) Just simply that, I don't know if that really… (20:49) It's only a couple words, but that's what I keep thinking about as you spoke.
Tobias Gray
(20:56) This is an interesting idea, so if you take a piece of writing, a piece of poetry, a design, a piece of architecture, and put it in the context of new criticism, just looking at the piece (21:14) outside of, you know, separating the art from the artist, and just seeing the influence, the idea being that any creative idea that you have is just a misconstrued version of your influence, and that is necessary in order to create that imaginary space in which your idea comes from.
Setting
Applause from nearby event
Tobias Gray
(21:49) Sorry, it took me a while. Does that make sense?
Emma McDevitt
(21:52) No, yeah, I echo that applause. I like that.
Tobias Gray
(21:59) But yeah, I think to take something and separate it and to think about it that way, it is really interesting. (22:08) Like, there's almost a degree for a design to be great and exist in a new space. (22:14) It has to, it has to look at the things that it is influenced by. (22:21) It has to be misconstrued.
Alex Barney
(22:35) I think, for me, as we're working through more of these questions, do you guys think that history, or time in that context, the context of time, for me it's one of the most important ones when we're thinking about these. (22:55) We were talking about the idea of if you own up to it before it comes out, or also just the way that we understand history is through books and through the idea of whoever wins the war gets to write history. (23:09) And so for me, that comes back to the idea that we were talking earlier, if the tree falls, and no one's there to hear it, did it even really happen?(23:17) We learn in history class, in America, about all these wars that we were in, that we're somehow the good guy in every single one of them.
Everyone
Laughter
Alex Barney
(23:27) Do you guys think it's also somewhat like the responsibility of the historian or the people who are relaying it, maybe not even the people who committed these acts? (23:38) Is it their responsibility to make sure that these things are told truthfully?
Ariya Kukreja
(23:43) Oh, I don't know why I raised my hand, but we just covered this in our ARC434 class. (23:49) We were talking about how history can never be truly objective, because even the historian who writes it is seeing it from a perspective. They might not have been there, but they're studying someone else's work. (24:02) So it's just like a continuous loop of, like, I read this thing, so I'm gonna write about it, and someone else reads that thing. (24:10) So you will never truly know for certain how accurate something really is.
Theo Chalker
(24:18) No, I think that's the greatest part about history, though, is the narratives captured and the nuances, because that's what really teaches you about cultures and societies and how countries and civilizations have changed over time. (24:31) Because if we opened history textbooks and all it said was, at this place, on this day, two countries fought, this many people died, here's who won, history would be a very boring thing. (24:43) But by being able to compare how it was perceived by both sides is what allows you to draw your own conclusion and what progresses art and culture and tradition.
Alex Barney
(24:55) It's almost like it's about the motivations behind the act more so than the act itself. (25:00) Who was it, Kant, maybe? (25:04) Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was Kant. (25:05)Let's say, here's a scenario. (25:09) What Kant was getting at was, when he was thinking about ethics, is it the action itself that is the bad or good thing? (25:18) Or is it the context to that that can define whether or not it's a bad thing?
(25:26) And the example that he gave was, let's say that someone came to your door and said, where are your kids? (25:34) Like, I'm going to kill all of them now. (25:37) Kant would have argued that you can't lie to this man because lying to him, Kant believed that the act itself was the thing that you did wrong, and that the context didn't matter as much. (25:51) Do you guys have thoughts? (25:52) Do you think that it's possible to just base things based off the action? (25:57) Or do you think that the context is important to consider as well?
Julian Weinstock
(26:01) I think the context is vital. (26:04) Like, whether you call somebody a terrorist or a freedom fighter depends on which side you're on. (26:11) And like, their intent is the same. (26:13) If a person at war's intent is like, I'm going to kill that guy on the other side, it's still murder. (26:20) But to one side, that's not, quote-unquote, “bad”, or he's not at fault, as opposed to the other side, which he is. (26:28) And so like, I think it is context and act. (26:30) It's both in tandem.
Alex Barney
(26:32) I mean, even in the context of war itself.
Julian Weinstock
(26:34) Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Alex Barney
(26:39) Moving on to thinking about consumers and kind of getting into us a little bit. (26:44) What responsibility do you think, as consumers of art, the people buying and using these things, we have to research that? (26:52) Is it our responsibility to know these artists completely?
Theo Chalker
(27:04) I think sometimes we don't have a choice and to make it more specific to architecture, like I could name very few architects that designed what I use on a daily basis, or like walked on a daily basis. (27:17) So I think everybody's innately a consumer of art because we're surrounded by it. (27:22) And sometimes you don't have a choice to know the background. (27:26) So I would say we have none. Like no responsibility. (27:31) Just as an initial thought.
Alex Barney
(27:33) Interesting.
Julian Weinstock
(28:01) I think even the act of dictating how people should interact with art, and it is in and of itself kind of against the whole thing about art. (28:10) You could go even with the intent of like, I'm going to passively enjoy this. (28:17) I'm not going to look for a meaning. (28:18) I'm not going to ask why they made it. (28:19) I'm just going to fucking like it. (28:21) And that's it. (28:22) That is a valid intent to enjoy something.
(28:25) Whereas on the other side, if you were like, I want to experience this as objectively, to a fault, as I can. (28:35) I guess you could argue, the way to do that would be to impart your own meaning onto it, take into account the meaning that was proposed, and then try to find a middle ground between it that feels correct or accurate to the context you're seeing it in. (28:50) But like, again, you can't box them into like, oh, you're a passenger, and you're an actor. (28:55) It's weird. (28:56) It's like, it is in and of itself subjective how you interpret, and then how you meddle with your interpretation after the fact.
Alex Barney
(29:04) I think that also sets us up great for the next question asking about like, does knowing an artist's controversial past obligate us to act differently? (29:14) Like, avoiding their worth? (29:16) For me, the biggest example, I might get some groans, is like Kanye West. (29:20) I think he's a great example of someone who, for a while, in a lot of circles, was like, very much revered, and a lot of people said he was one of the best producers ever. (29:30) And then there was this huge controversy, and he made a lot of very xenophobic and anti-Jewish comments and whatnot. (29:39) And now suddenly, it's like, oh, you're still listening to Kanye?
(29:43) Like, do you think that people who listen to Kanye are bad people? (29:48) Or do you think that you're somewhat able to separate the actions. These people might have even been listening to this music before any of this has happened. (29:56) And they've been listening to it forever. But now suddenly something completely removed from them influences whether or not someone is able to enjoy that. Do you think that they should stop listening to Kanye?
Isa Restrepo
(0:00) I think something that makes it really hard for me to continue listening to him is the fact that he still benefits. (0:07) Like, if I listen to his stuff, if I promote his stuff, he's alive and he's still putting his stuff out there, he's still trying to get money and more attention. (0:16) He's doing it for attention. (0:18) Well, actually, I can't say that I know exactly his intentions. God knows, but it seems, if we were to bring it back to architecture or something, I can feel more comfortable studying Corb because, I mean, he's dead. (0:33) He's not going to win by me, like, praising something that he's done. (0:38) He doesn't get, like, more streams by me studying his five points.
Ariya Kukreja
(0:48) But there's a whole different layer to that because architecture is so much more tangible than music is. (0:54) I had a whole point here. (0:57) But that was it.
Theo Chalker
(1:00) I think they're comparable in different ways. (1:07) And I think to some people, music is more important than architecture. (1:18) I feel like I listen to music every day. (1:22) And I never really recognized the importance of music until I was talking to some of my friends, where they are in a specialized music program. (1:28) And it's like, music has a tangible effect on your mood. (1:33) It's like, you listen to music to go to bed, you listen to music to excite you, you listen to music when you're working. (1:39) And I would argue that I feel like music has a more, I guess, diverse impact on my daily life than architecture does. (1:49) Because every day, I experience the same architecture, but I use different music to change my mood, to help me do one thing or another. (1:58) So just to push up against that.
Ariya Kukreja
(1:59) No, no, I agree.
Theo Chalker
(2:01) And then, to push against your point again, is that it comes down to where your morality lies and what you prioritize. (2:11) And so, this is what I was saying about the whole Chick-fil-A thing. (2:13) It's the same sort of situation. (2:15) Is it wrong of you to allow them to keep doing something? (2:18) And I think if there's an institutional gain from an artist, whether it's an architect, Corb, or a musician, Kanye, if there's an institutional gain, then there's a capital gain by the artist.
(2:41) Okay, so let's say we've got Kanye, and the way music grows from Kanye is on such a large scale that every day, a new form of art is being created, or a new artist is emerging. (3:00) Is it then wrong of you to prevent that growth from happening? (3:04) And so, it's like, do you want to limit the possible gain from this controversial artist, or do you want to stop supporting him? (3:14) Because he's wrong, and you have different morals than him, but then you lose out on all this gain.
Alex Barney
(3:21) That makes me think of, like how in Auschwitz, sorry that was a big drop, but there was the doctor who performed, I forget his name, but he performed a lot of really awful surgeries on twins, and he documented it incredibly well, but there's now this huge controversy, like, obviously these poor people were abused and completely misused, but there's this breadth of knowledge that came out of it. (3:51) Is that knowledge, even if it could help save more lives, should that be explored and researched, or is this something that, because of how it was collected, is something that should be disregarded and forgotten about?
Julian Weinstock
(4:06) Yeah, it's similar to the nuclear bomb. (4:09) It was undoubtedly a tragedy, but it also birthed the Geneva Conventions, the UN, NATO, and the Geneva Conventions aren't even relegated to nuclear warfare. (4:21) It's almost like vast, all warfare was affected, ground warfare, air warfare, and that undoubtedly saved, at this point, more lives than it took that day. (4:32) I mean, we started on the basis of good and bad are subjective, and Kanye's a perfect example to illustrate it.
(4:42) I wouldn't say he's one of the best rappers. (4:48) Sorry. (4:49) I think he's one of the best producers of all time. (4:54) Musically, what he's contributed to the genre and to just the vaster world of it is undeniable. (5:02) I have a weirdly unique thing on Kanye. I'm Jewish. I was raised in LA, and this summer I met Kanye, because my dad's working with him, as a Jew. (5:16) So I met him, and it's like, it was a bizarre experience, because I had fallen prey to what everyone else was thinking, of like, this is a horrible person, which is, again, on the basis of that being subjective, it's a weird thing to preach to everybody that you think that. (5:33) And I did it. (5:34) I was like, oh, fuck Kanye, you know, I love Homecoming, and he's talking shit about Israel and the Jews, like, that's so bizarre and not okay.
(5:42) And meeting him in person, after having felt that way, he's a viciously addicted and mentally ill person, and I've heard my sober grandma say more racist things than he has, and I think she's good and he's bad, and for some reason I was able to do that. (6:01) And I think that in the same way that we can all acknowledge the nuances of every single contextual situation, it's also just as easy to point at every single one and say, good, bad, good, bad, good, bad. (6:12) So we all do it, it's a human nature thing. (6:14) I think the job is not to determine whether things are good, bad, and how we should support or not support it.
(6:20) I think the job of an individual is to acknowledge that you don't know. (6:26) That it's okay to be stupid sometimes. (6:29) Like, yeah, what he said on Twitter is bad, objectively, of course. (6:37) To preach hate against any group, in this case, we have a special word for it, antisemitism, like, it's terrible. (6:44) But to extend that to a greater scale, it's so narcissistic to think that we know that much about the complexity of one person, when myself, and I'm sure everybody, has things that if they were misconstrued online and everybody saw it in the wrong light, that they would be immediately seen as the person that they are not. (7:04) And the people who know them know that they are not. (7:07) So yeah, Kanye is a good example of how that's the fault that we fall into. (7:10) I think the job is to catch ourselves, not to get better at defining things.
Alex Barney
(7:16) And I feel like this really starts, like this leads right into the next question, thinking about how does expressing admiration for an artist facing controversy reflect their personal morals on you? (7:27) By adopting, by advocating for, I kind of want to get away from the Kanye example, but for now, let's continue with it. (7:34) Like, by supporting the things that these people do, does then that transform who you are?
Tobias Gray
(7:44) I think that a lot of the rhetoric that Kanye West has been preaching, there is no, in my opinion, I think that it is objective hatred and anger as a result of isolation, which I think is a problem this country is facing on a massive scale ahead of this upcoming election. (8:09) And I think it's interesting to think about, like, where does our social responsibility lie in educating these people?
Ariya Kukreja
(8:20) Hypothetically speaking, if tomorrow there's some kind of evidence that suggests that Kanye, or like in any one situation, where they were blamed and were actually not guilty at all, how soon would the public start to accept that?
Julian Weinstock
(8:38) I think, again, like in the context, you know, if we all think he killed somebody, and then find out that, like, oh he was in Florida, it's like, okay, we can't be mad at him because he wasn't there. (8:51) But then again, if he said something racist at the Oscars, and they cut it out, and then you see the clip, and it's like five seconds, and it's like we can't really tell what he's saying. (8:59) I don't know, it might take a while. (9:01) Like, it just depends. (9:02) People are so fickle with that shit. (9:04) It's so weird.
Alex Barney
(9:05) I feel like it comes back to the conversations we were having earlier about ownership. (9:09) And so, like, another question that I have for you guys is as these firms, architecture firms, are getting bigger and bigger, how do you negotiate the idea of, let's say that there was some mistake that was made, the whole building collapses, where does that social responsibility begin to fall when there's 200 people who work on this project? (9:29) Is it the fault of the lead architect, which is like the simple answer to go to? (9:35) Or, when realistically, they weren't the ones who drew those structural plans or whatever. (9:40) But they still signed off on that. (9:43) Does the person who drew the original plans carry more or less of the social responsibility?
(9:50) Or, would you guys also, in general, I'm just asking if you have any thoughts about the way that social responsibility is diffused once there's a larger group of people involved with an action.
Julian Weinstock
(10:02) I think it's like, someone said, yes, nuance and context, but again, the response should be, if it's a case-by-case thing, say you fall upon a case, and then you decide, either I'm going to engage and give a fuck about this, or I'm going to disengage and not. (10:19) That's a subjective decision in and of itself. (10:21) If you engage, then it's to say to yourself, I don't know anything about this, and I'm going to figure, I'm going to look, I'm going to delve in, I'm going to admit how ignorant I am.
(10:30) And as you look and say a building collapses, and you, from the face value, you're probably going to try and just pick a head and punish them. (0:07) And then, say, four more buildings fall down and you realize you've punished the wrong person. (0:11) If you were to pause and admit ignorance and look into the details and say you find that, like, oh, there's videos of the construction guys on this site throwing drills at each other, it's like, we should probably look at what they were doing. (0:23) We should probably look at the nuts in the floor and, I don't know, I don't really, I'm sorry.
Everyone
Laughter
Julian Weinstock
(0:28) But, like, we should probably try to check for mal-intent stupidity, and as you find details, as you admit ignorance and ratify ignorance, the answer becomes clear on a contextual basis of, like, okay, clearly Jeff fucked up.
Everyone
Laughter
Julian Weinstock
(0:45) And, like, Gabe also, he really insinuated a lot of it, and so Gabe's going to court, too.
(0:51) Like, but we would never know about Gabe unless we looked at it and admitted that we don't know, you know?
Alex Barney
(0:58) So it's almost, you'd argue, through admitting your own ignorance, you're able to hopefully bring yourself closer to the truth.
Julian Weinstock
(1:06) I think it's human nature to be swayed by bias and emotion. (1:12) I think if you were to boil it down to, like, one thing, your job is to manage that. (1:16) If we're aware of something that human beings tend to do through, like, everything, and it tends (1:23) to be a hindrance in something like this, to control it, to do the opposite (1:28) and say, I'm not going to have an opinion immediately, that would be definitely falling (1:32) prey to what I know humans do. To pause and admit that you don't know, would be to try (1:38) your very best to eliminate that and get closer to, closer to an objective truth. (1:44) Like, I, yeah, I think that's the best we can do. (1:47) And then sometimes we fuck up, and then we yell at the person “no!”, but its like we all fucked up, and we will all point the finger at the wrong person thinking we are absolutely right. (1:56) Yeah.
Adam DJ
(1:58) When it comes to, like, large business models, like architecture, I agree, it's not just, like, one person's fault, but, I think the role of the leader is partially to take that blame to some degree. Like, the captain's the last person on the ship. (2:17) That's, like, usually what you expect a leader to do is, like, take some responsibility. (2:23) But I feel like when it comes to large firms and businesses, the whole firm or business should take some level of responsibility as well. (2:36) It's not just one. (2:39) It's both.
Victoria Varr
(2:40) I completely disagree with that.
Adam DJ
(2:42) Okay, awesome.
Victoria Varr
(2:43) I'll tell you why. (2:45) When it comes to something like a building falling down, an architect has a license for a reason, and it's this code of ethics that is put in place. (2:57) It is a way to protect a society by saying that as a licensed architect, you will perform your best. (3:09) You will perform your best in any project that you sign off on. Meaning that people's health wouldn't be affected in the case where a building would fall down. (3:21) So then I think in something so large, it would be easy to identify whose fault it was. (3:34) We can look back at construction videos or whatever. (3:40) But I guess then my question would be, going back to the original question, would you reframe it? (3:46) Maybe use a different metaphor?
Alex Barney
(3:50) Oh, gosh. (3:51) I honestly forgot my original question. (3:56) It was a building built by 200 people. (3:59) Oh, yes. (4:00) So sorry. (4:01) Could you ask your—oh, just reframe it?
Victoria Varr
(4:03) I guess what was the bigger context that you were trying to get at?
Alex Barney
(4:07) Well, I can think of another example to give you, almost. (4:14) I don't remember where this was or any of this, and I think it became kind of like a theory as well. (4:20) It became bigger than the actual event. (4:22) But there was this woman who was assaulted on her walk home in this major city, and she was outside screaming, bloody murder, help me. (4:32) But no one helped her. (4:34) And it was because everyone assumed that there would be another person there who would help them.
(4:40) Or like, there's this other really interesting thing that I was reading about how, let's say that you're in a room of three people, and one person falls over, the other two people almost immediately always jump in to help them. (4:54) But if you're in a room of 100 people and someone falls over, suddenly now everyone's just standing around waiting for someone else to take action.
(5:02) It's almost like kind of an inverse of what I just said a little bit, but it's still about, if you guys have any thoughts of how the mass influences the way that we make decisions and what we view as good or bad, or the right thing to do, or our responsibilities in scenarios.
Isa Restrepo
(5:21) It also makes me kind of consider the way that architecture firms have very much shifted from being Philip Johnson, like Corbusier, to OMA, which you don't really—I mean, I guess we know Rem. (5:33) But like, whatever, just there are now these vague abbreviations, and it kind of protects them from these types of things. (5:40) And David Adjaye is one of the very few that are left that is Adjaye Associates, where it's a name attached to a thing which doesn't really exist anymore. (5:50) So I think that's something kind of to consider as we talk about this question.
Victoria Varr
(5:55) I think that in terms of society as a whole, whatever country we're in, there's always a right answer. (6:09) I think for a point of time and place, there's always a right answer. (6:14) Obviously society can change their mind the next morning after something big happens, but especially in our current realities where we have social media and information travels very fast, I think people are very swayed because of this fear of getting the right answer.
(6:37) Otherwise you would also be cancelled if you don't. (6:41) And then it comes up tomorrow that your original opinion was the correct one, and now everybody is agreeing with you. (6:49) So I think there are always a multitude of positions that can be taken, and I feel like because of, going back to cancel culture, obviously there are some things that are inherently bad, and we can tell that they're bad, but it's almost like people are afraid of sticking to something singular, and afraid of believing in something, because of this fear of having the right opinion, perhaps.
Julian Weinstock
(7:30) I agree with that. (7:32) Can I add to it?
Alex Barney
(7:33) Of course.
Everyone
Laughter
Emma McDevitt
(7:41) I was just going to say, in case anybody was worried, we're only going to be here for 15, 20 more, just to give everyone a heads up that we're not going to chain you here.
Julian Weinstock
(7:56) Not to shift it back fully to cancel culture, because we were talking about it earlier, and I wanted to say it, but I didn't. (8:02) I agree, I think there is a fear that comes with it. (8:05) I think there's pros and cons to cancel culture. (8:08) The pros being that people felt that they had to be responsible, not only for now, but some of the past things that they had said under anonymity, that they thought would not affect them.
(8:20) To a degree, I think that's good. (8:22) I think that's a pro. (8:23) The con being that sometimes nuances are neglected, complexities neglected, and people who are innocent are mistried as something that they're not.
(8:33) I'm an advocate for cancel culture now, I think I was less so before, because we watched the pendulum swing, it was a big movement, and it got to that point where people were afraid to speak out of fear that people would take it at surface value, make an assumption about it, and then label them as something horrible. (8:52) But I think that it's shifting. (8:56) I think that now, even this conversation, these conversations of not anti-cancel culture, but just honest cancel culture, about what the real effects are, they're happening way more frequently.
(9:07) Pretty much everybody that I know, that I would consider aware, intelligent, emotionally aware, logically aware, I think that all of those people seem to have a ubiquitous idea with it, that we need to incorporate nuance, and that's happening more. (9:25) It's much more common now, way more than a year or two ago, where someone gets canceled and then you see a second movement of like, wait a minute, we just found this thing. (9:34) And then there's two sides, and then because there's two sides, suddenly they have to look at the nuances, because they're arguing with each other.
(9:41) And then the nuances come to light, and then we actually get to see way more context, way more intent, and it doesn't happen every time, but the fact that it's happening at an exponential rate, I'm hopeful. (9:51) Because that feels like the pendulum's swinging back to a corrective place of like, this is good, but kind of like this, not like that. (9:58) And that's great. (9:59) So that's why I'm an advocate, because the pros and cons, in the way that it's shifting back to a normalcy state, meaning that all the pros kind of stay, and the cons are starting to diminish.
(10:10) So yeah, I think responsibility. (10:12) Like, the internet's crazy.
Everyone
Laughter
Julian Weinstock
(10:14) The anonymity is like that. (10:16) I mean, I personally, I was raised religious, but I'm agnostic. (10:19) I personally think that a preacher, rabbi, all that, way too much power for a person, let alone infinite anonymity to every person on the planet that can also have infinite anonymity. (10:28) That's crazy. (10:29) And we just introduce that to everyone at the same time. (10:32) It's like, I think this was a big corrective movement that is now correcting itself back to a place in society that is beneficial, so I support it.
Alex Barney
(10:42) And I feel like you're already getting at one of these last questions, like, should we advocate for more transparent conversations around the lives of artists in educational settings? (10:51) And I think when reading that question at face value, the obvious answer most of you would say is like, yes. (10:55) But I think that one thing that you have to consider is that by increasing transparency, it also is slightly about what we were talking about earlier.
(11:06) Like, what do these artists owe us? (11:09) And do we deserve to know about their personal life? (11:14) Or is it their right to be able to control their level of anonymity?
Julian Weinstock
(11:20) I totally think it's their right. (11:22) Totally. (11:22) And if they decide to put it all out there and there's controversy with that, nice choice. (11:26) That was your fault.
Theo Chalker
(11:28) Can I clarify what you mean when you say transparent conversations?
Alex Barney
(11:31) You can define it if you want. (11:33) But I think when I say transparency, it's really just about making what's not able to be seen, seen. (11:42) Like, I think whatever you're saying, it definitely depends on the conversation. (11:49) But in general, it's just about making something that's vague more obvious, if that helps you at all.
Emma McDevitt
(11:59) I think for an example, like how we're talking about maybe your first year you're introduced to Corbusier, should there be a context applied to what you introduced him as an architect? (12:12) Should there be a context as to his personal affiliations and actions? (12:15) And I think that's kind of what we're hinting at of a transparent conversation, one that includes the context of it.
Julian Weinstock
(12:27) I think it should include the context and the context of the context. (12:31) Like why we're telling you this. (12:33) Say it's an architect that was a Nazi. (12:37) Or take Hugo Boss, for example. (12:39) Undeniably very capable of fashion. (12:43) Also designed the Nazi uniforms. (12:44) So much so that as a Jewish person, I can say the uniforms, nothing about the Nazis other than the uniforms, were impressive.
Everyone
Laughter
Julian Weinstock
(12:55) That's incredible. (12:56) He's a savant. (12:57) And to teach a fashion class with the context that he's a Nazi without also saying, we're telling you he's a Nazi and going over his work because there is a detachment of the work and the art. (13:09) To give that, to be like, we're not just saying, look at this Nazi's art. (13:13) There has to be some why.
(13:16) Because obviously there's a level of trust your audience, trust your students, whatever. (13:20) But also, when it gets to this, how subjective right or wrong is, to be very particular about how you incorporate it and how you teach it is vital. (13:30) And not to say you shouldn't. (13:32) You absolutely should. (13:34) Like that, I think. (13:37) That's just my opinion. (13:38) I said it for a matter of fact.
Alex Barney
(13:40) I agree. (13:45) Does anyone also think, now you started hinting at the role of education and the role of the institution in these things. (13:54) Do you think it's the responsibility of us as students or the school as an educator more so to know these things about, let's say for example, Corb. (14:06) Is that our responsibility to educate ourselves or where does the role slash responsibility of the institution come into that?
Emma McDevitt
(14:17) I think in the beginning, Victoria Varr kind of hit it right on the nail how critical it is in a way. (14:30) Maybe especially in the sense of art history and that discussion, it is to provide that context. But maybe you don't have to explain it and allow a personal exploration for that student to come to their own conclusion about what in fact is the context. (15:29) But I think allowing institutions to be like, this is something in discussion and something that is worth considering rather than taking a fact at face value. (15:41) I think it is the responsibility of the institution to say, hey, there are some conversations that don't necessarily have a solid conclusion about this.
(15:53) So as a learning student, you should look into what you think. (15:58) And here are maybe some starting points to grapple with. (16:01) I mean, you're paying to go to a school.
(16:05) You're paying to be taught these different perspectives and to think critically about different perspectives. (16:10) And so I think, yeah, it would be a really big disappointment if Syracuse was like, here are all these great architects, worship them. (16:20) You know? (16:21) And adopt everything they say. (16:22) Because obviously that has taken us to some bad places. (16:27) So yeah, I think it's definitely part of the institutional responsibility.
Theo Chalker
(16:32) I think it's a lot easier said than done though. (16:34) And proof of that is the fact that this whole thesis is based off of backlash from the institutional professors at this school. (16:43) And it's like, you talk about the ideal of the school. (16:47) A school isn't meant to teach you what to think or what's right and wrong. (16:51) Which, you know, Corb was wrong. (16:53) Philip Johnson was wrong. (16:55) Why are they wrong? (16:57) And I think it's the responsibility of the school to only pose the objective details and the empirical data. (17:05) And as soon as emotion and opinion gets involved, then you're doing a disservice to the students because now you're telling them what to think and how to think. (17:16) And once students leave the school, they might be able to say a very well-written sentence and thesis about, you know, why Corbusier was wrong. (17:27) But is it their words or is it the words of a professor or of the institution?
Isa Restrepo
(17:33) I really want to agree with you, but that contradicts so heavily with your take on history that it just forces me to kind of point out, like, it's the way that this architecture is received. (17:46) It's the way that it's understood. (17:48) And it would be a disservice to just say this is the floor plan and this is the materials of the building and nothing else. (17:56) Like, there's a reason why we're studying it and it would make sense for them to kind of explain that.
Victoria Varr
(18:02) I kind of want to disagree and agree with this.
Theo Chalker
(18:05) Yeah, I don't know if I clarified that as well as I meant to.
Victoria Varr
(18:09) Both of you. (18:10) I think the role of – I'll use the words of my – a really admired professor of mine and question that as you like. (18:23) Obviously, there's a position in it.
(18:26) I think the role of the institution is to create literacy in students. (18:41) And that is the – if we're talking specifically about architecture, it is the ability to read it. (18:52) At the end of the day, we are designing spaces. (18:54) We need to understand how to read a space and dissect perhaps the historical lineages that are present in the space.
(19:05) Whereas if it was in the music school, it would be writing music. (19:11) And this one great example that this professor uses is that – imagine architecture school as a music school where you go and you're taught that I want to write a song that will make my mother cry or I want to write a song that will make somebody fall in love with someone.
(19:35) But I refuse to learn how to play and how to write – play an instrument and write music. (19:43) And that is almost like what is happening in the architecture school where we are taught to take these positions and advocate for things, but we're not taught to architecture. (19:57) How to be literate in architecture and history of architecture and the ability to design for yourself.
Tobias Gray
(20:08) I kind of also want to point out that we are entering an era, a design era, unprecedented. (20:17) And a lot of our professors did not – in designing spaces or objects or buildings, they don't – they have not had to deal with this – they have not had to deal with the same sort of insecurities to space and resources that we will have to in the next two to three decades. (20:39) And I think in that sense, it is our responsibility to understand the world that we are entering in a way that they haven't.
Julian Weinstock
(20:48) I also think if we negate any – like if we take the stance of like we cannot separate (20:53) art and artists and they've done something wrong publicly and we just – so we just (20:57) take that out, eventually we're just going to end up learning about like what the highlights (21:00) of human history, like that – the amount of things that are – honestly, I don't (21:05) know if you'd even learn about anything because again, good and bad is subjective (21:08) and anyone can find an issue with anything. (21:10) So it's like even that distinction of like separation and why and all that, it's completely up to the person.
(21:21) I think it's like – I don't know. (21:25) I think everything you just said that I think, so there's no point. (21:27) But yeah, I think to that degree. (21:30) Like for example, if you get granular about it, if an architect is a war criminal and he builds a home, like the right angle in the kitchen and the back left, is that like a hateful corner? (21:45) Like a racist writes a song, you take a note out, it's one of the 12 notes. (21:50) Is that note racist? (21:51) Like how far are you willing to go? (21:55) Like how many things can you take out of that piece of art before it's not that anymore?
Alex Barney
(21:59) I think that's a perfect transition into one of the first questions for the wrap-up which is like how might the controversies of the past influence the way that us emerging artists approach their work and public personas? (22:12) And kind of taking it back to where the conversation was a couple minutes ago, I'd also think like when we think of controversies of the past, for me I could also input like institutions and the way that they interpret history as a way that for better or for worse also begins to like influence us in our art. (22:34) So I guess the question is do you think it might be better or for worse or do you guys – how do you think that some of these controversies influence what we make today?
Theo Chalker
(22:47) I think it's everything. (22:49) I think everything's a reactionary force and you look at postmodernism, romanticism, industrialism, it's all a reaction of the past. (22:57) And with that, it's like we wouldn't be today if it weren't for such radical movements. (23:03) And I would go so far as to say like the world needs radicalism and these – you know, not to extremify myself, I think horrible things in the world have to happen to keep culture pushing forward. (23:17) And obviously not – I don't mean that like in its entirety. (23:20) I don't think we need to like do the Holocaust again or something. (23:22) But such major shifts in culture, in our world, and how people think politically and how it influences architecture come from all the bad.
(23:35) And it's like as you were saying earlier, if we cut out all the bad, are we really going to be reading about just the highlights? (23:41) And then like what does that mean and why is that? (23:43) Like we don't know why something's good if we don't also understand what makes something bad at the same time.
Emma McDevitt
(23:52) I think like another thing that we talked about earlier as well, like when cancel culture kind of reaches this point of initiating like performative actions rather than just kind of genuine intention. (24:08) I think something that's definitely emerging artists need to be wary of is like, again, going back to this conversation of like the masses. (24:20) I think like, yes, have an awareness of what kind of those masses are but have the kind of personal dignity to create your own conclusion and your own kind of way of navigating those different, I guess, conflicts.
Alex Barney
(24:49) You're kind of thinking it's the intent that really matters.
Emma McDevitt
(24:52) Yeah. (24:58) I don't know. (24:59) Maybe we can just wrap up on like one more question.
Isa Restrepo
(25:01) Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
Alex Barney
(25:02) My last question for you guys is like one key takeaway from this conversation? (25:11) Or what is something that you hadn't really thought about before that you think now you're kind of might be thinking about a bit differently after we've talked about all this stuff, talked about the idea of separating the art from the artists or the role of the artists historically and how someone being dead might make it different than if they were alive or basically anything. (25:36) What was like one thing that stood out to you guys in this conversation?
Julian Weinstock
(25:40) Maybe more hopeful. (25:41) I was really hopeful. (25:43) But this might be a projection.
(25:45) It might be not. (25:46) But I think at least for me a lot of the fear around like the topic of separation of artists and art is like the fear that I'll be sitting in a room and they won't do it correctly or they'll give all the context and then somebody in the room will interpret it as like, dude, this Nazi is my hero. (26:05) Like I'm afraid of that.
(26:07) And it's like maybe it's a lacking of trust in the fellow man. (26:11) I don't know what it is. (26:13) But like conversations like this and the fact that this is more consistently happening where everybody's kind of on the same page about cancel culture and how to approach it and when they hear things like this, how to interpret it, it just makes me more hopeful that I'm just wrong. (26:27) That it's like people are worried like me and I'm also thinking about that.
(26:32) And the inevitable truth is that this is like a little bubble of people who would show up to a table and talk about a debate. (26:38) So maybe that in and of itself makes it a biased take.
(26:42) And I know there will always be someone in the room who's like, yeah, this fucking Nazi is so cool. (26:47) And that's disheartening. (26:50) But that's kind of an inevitability with the subjective nature of good and bad. (26:54) So I would rather the context be shared so that like in the same way, like if you think somebody's wrong, you shouldn't shut them up. (27:01) You should let them talk to prove how wrong they are. (27:04) Like you should, it's important to hear things that are wrong, disagreed upon or anything like that. (27:09) So it made me hopeful because it's like there's a group of people that are breaking my fear. (27:14) It's dope. (27:17) Yeah, a little therapeutic.
Emma McDevitt
(27:19) I liked Vittoria's point earlier about like how institutions role in a way is to create a sense of literacy. (27:27) Like I think being able to have conversations like is what allows people to be more comfortable to address the kind of taboo and uncertain conclusions that a lot of this discourse forces us to approach and to take a stance on. (27:46) Yeah, I would definitely, definitely agree with that.
(27:51) So maybe on that note, we conclude?
Alex Barney
(27:57) Yes.
Everybody
Applause
Emma McDevitt
(27:57) Oh boy. (28:00) Thank you so much. (28:01) Thank you. (28:02) This was really, really nice. (28:04) I enjoyed this a lot.
Alex Barney
(28:06) Yeah, this was fun. (28:07) Can we talk about the next steps? (28:09) And maybe the publication itself a little bit more.
Emma McDevitt
(28:14) Yes. (28:15) So this is the main event. (28:18) So “Draw the Line” is the topic for this month's issue. (28:22) So this will become a transcript. The transcript is going to be the bulk of what is going to come out at the end of the semester. (29:41) So that will be a physical print. (29:44) And along with this conversation about separation of artists from artists, we have a few writers who are working on more referenced articles, specifically addressing it to maybe not have a conclusion, but a little bit more of a backed stance on it. And so that will be coming out in the next couple of months if you are interested in reading about it. Some faculty interviews or people of relevance, we have an interview with the gagosian fellow who has the exhibition downstairs about storytelling and trauma, “Within Me I Found an Invincible Summer”. We have graphics on fun references and comics.
So yeah just again, we really appreciate you guys coming out and being willing to put your voices on display and helping us create something that actually is a physical tangible thing!
Isa Restrepo
(-0:24) And if you guys want to get involved in it as well, our email is open!