65 willis Journal of Architectural Education,pp. 65–67 Q 2003 Daniel Willis

DANIEL WILLIS Education or Marketing?The Responsibility of Educators Whenthe AIA and the ArchitectureMagazines Substitute Advertisingfor Analysis

In “The Value and Values of Architecture,” ThomasFisher, a former editor of Progressive Architecture,laments the lack of an independent journal of archi-tecture widely read by professionals. Fisher believesour profession’s reliance on commercial publishersfor our major journals has had negative conse-quences for the profession: “Measured against jour-nals in other �elds, ours have devoted relatively lit-tle attention to common practices, typical problems,or broadly applicable solutions.” Because we dependon for-pro�t journals, “we have had a rather poortrack record in building the sort of knowledge basethat other professions have constructed and main-tained with great care.”1 Fisher makes an importantpoint that I would like to take further. There arepresently two trends in architectural journalism thatI �nd disturbing. The �rst is the general downsizingof the number and variety of in-print architecturaljournals. The second is that the major Americanarchitecture journals, Architecture and ArchitecturalRecord, are becoming increasingly advertiser driven.Record, the of�cial journal of the AIA, is devotingan ever-greater proportion of its pages to the AIA’scontinuing education program (AIA/CES). Onemight assume from this that the magazine is con-tributing to the profession’s “knowledge base.” Oncloser inspection, however, I �nd the educationalcontent in Record’s CES articles compromised, attimes, by advocacy for the kinds of products andtechnologies the magazine advertises.

Architecture, which under the editorship ofReed Kroloff had attempted to engage topics—exempli�ed by the April 2002 “queer space”issue—beyond star coverage and “how to” articles,has become more “product oriented” and therefore,more like its main competitor. This homogeneity istroublesome in part because it reinforces the divide

between academics and practitioners. As the diver-sity of the journals directed at professional readersdwindles, it may become dif�cult for architects toencounter any articles that are not in someway“market tested.”

By requiring its members to accumulate con-tinuing education credits, the AIA has created acaptive audience for the journals. But the AIA hasnot been suf�ciently diligent in assuring that thearticles for which it grants educational credit are, infact, educational. CES articles in Architectural Rec-ord can contain statements of untested opinion. Forexample, the article “New Ways to Build Better, Fas-ter, Cheaper” by Sara Hart purports to be a factualreport on the ways “technology transfer can bene�tarchitecture.”2 Instead, the piece promotes the sim-plistic proposition that advances in building tech-nology bene�t architecture unequivocally. Theauthor never questions the assumptions underlyingthe research she describes and never interviews any-one who could offer counterarguments. Ms. Hartwrites that “historically the architecture professionhas been the passive recipient of innovation.”(Filippo Brunelleschi springs to mind as but one his-torical counterexample.) She claims the “decentral-ized nature of the design and construction industryhas hindered architects creatively”—this in themagazine that eleven months earlier had applaudedthe creative constructions of the low-tech designer-builders in Auburn University’s “decentralized” RuralStudio.3 Given they are contradicted by other arti-cles that have appeared in Record, it is surprisingthat Hart presents her conclusions as though theirtruth were self-evident.

The building Hart describes was commissionedby the University of Pennsylvania. Assuming theauthor traveled to Philadelphia to interview the

architects (Kieran and Timberlake),4 she could easilyhave met with a Penn faculty member who hasthought deeply on a “decentralized design and con-struction industry.” In Uncommon Ground, DavidLeatherbarrow cautions against the naive assump-tion that increases in the builder’s productivity canbe had without social costs. Leatherbarrow writes,“Moreover, this practice [architects relying almostexclusively on ready-made building components]disguises the lack of connection between the workof building and the social and political practices ortraditions that typify a given place, meaning thatthe cultural memory attendant to the act of build-ing is eclipsed as well.”5

My point is not that authors writing for archi-tecture magazines should be held to the standardsof academic publishing. Instead, I would prefer thatthese writers adhere to accepted journalistic prac-tices. Healthy skepticism toward new products andnovel procedures is being supplanted byinfomercial-style hype. Our magazines are placingthe interests of their advertisers above those oftheir professional readers. As Fisher rightly states,the decision to give readers “what sells” does notnecessarily preclude a publisher from also givingthem “what needs to be said or known.” Yet thepreference for the former over the latter is becom-ing more pronounced in the architectural media, justas in the media generally. The magazines may becovering the topics Fisher had in mind when hecalled for articles to expand the profession’s knowl-edge base, but their treatment of these subjects isoften biased or super�cial. As a growing number ofthe articles bestowing AIA/CES credits are carryingthe �ne print “Advertising supplement provided by________,” the magazines are giving up editorial

Education or Marketing? 66

control of more and more of the pages betweentheir covers.

Whereas it is understandable that commercialpublishers would follow this path, it is less so thatthe AIA is abetting them. I attribute the AIA’s com-plicity to its ongoing attempts to reconcile the soci-etal forces that have always pulled professionalarchitects in opposing directions. As the power ofarchitects to determine building systems and tech-nologies unilaterally has waned, architectural maga-zines have struggled to retain advertisers. Neitherthe AIA nor the publishers of Architecture and Rec-ord are anxious to exacerbate this trend. Hoping tobolster the perception that architects are the mostknowledgeable of the “building services providers,”the AIA has also invested heavily in its continuingeducation program. Sustaining this program requiresa continuous stream of readily available new con-tent. If the mandatory requirements of the AIA/CESbecame too bothersome for busy professionals, theAIA would risk losing members. Thus, the AIAmakes the majority of the CES credits it requiresconvenient to obtain, and credit-granting magazinearticles are one of the best ways it has found toaccomplish this. Because the AIA cannot supply allthe necessary CES content, it has come to dependfor much of it on the magazines, and they in turnon manufacturers and trade organizations. By deliv-ering a captive audience to the magazines and theiradvertisers, the AIA has (unwittingly) acceleratedthe demise of the boundary between advertisingand architectural journalism.

The best example of how marketing can com-promise architectural journalism is the BusinessWeek-Architectural Record Awards, a six-year-oldannual competition organized jointly by the twoMcGraw-Hill publications and the AIA. This awardsprogram is the centerpiece of the AIA’s effort topromote the ideology “good architecture is goodbusiness”—a marketing slogan that, no matter howeffective, obscures the complex relationshipsbetween architecture as an art, practice, academicdiscipline, licensed profession, and business.

Apparently, the AIA has decided to ignore thesometime competing imperatives of ethics and prof-its by pretending that the interests of architectureand business are now perfectly aligned.

The AIA-selected juries for this award programare composed of both prominent architects andbusinesspeople. To the competition’s credit, it hasrecognized some very deserving architects andbuildings. Another plus: the BW-AR Awards includeprojects like those on which the majority of Ameri-can architects actually work. Yet, as an educator Iam dismayed by how insistently the writers whocover the awards choose cheerleading over analysis.Although the AIA promotes these awards as proofof a direct relationship between good design and“the bottom line,”6 the competition deals with afairly narrow range of building uses. Modernist glassboxes dominate the winning projects, which aremostly of�ce buildings. The juries continually praisetransparency and natural light, but we are nevertreated to an explanation as to why the glass boxhas returned to popularity, at least in this segmentof the building market. Is this merely a shift in fash-ion? Is it the result of new technologies, such as theadvances in glazing systems and environmental con-trols? Or do businesses in the early twenty-�rstcentury prefer the modernist box for the same rea-son they did in the mid-twentieth—for its economyand ef�ciency? Such obvious questions are neverasked.

As you might then expect, impertinent inquir-ies likely to raise readers’ suspicions regarding thefacile premise of the competition are also neglected.Although most of the premiated projects appear tobe quite humane, an inquiring journalist might atleast bring up past associations between internaltransparency and the surveillance, supervision, andcontrol of employees—if for no other reason thanto demonstrate the fallacy of the comparison. Themost important unasked question is, of course,whether good architecture really is good business.Neither Record nor Business Week acknowledge thatthis is a question, and neither makes an effort to

de�ne what it means by “architecture” or “busi-ness”—making the slogan dif�cult to challenge.

This much is clear: “good business” in thesearticles means the client’s business. Architects’ feesor the pro�tability of the projects for their architectsare not discussed. Business Week’s readers may notbe concerned with such matters, but I wonder whyArchitectural Record would not be more focused onthe architect’s business. The only exception I foundwas the Brew Moon Restaurant, an award-winner in1997. Both magazines mention that its architectsaccepted 10% of their fee in stock options from theclient.7 Again, one might expect that a writer forRecord would inquire into the effect such a feearrangement could have on a �rm’s professionalism.

This lack of curiosity toward the rami�cationsof the AIA’s chosen marketing strategy is one of thereasons why the divide between the kinds of jour-nals read by academic architects and professionals istroubling. Many academics would be familiar withMichael Benedikt’s scholarly attempts to shed lighton the economics-architecture relationship. A morediscriminating view of the intersections betweenarchitecture and business is found in Benedikt’sarticle “Less for Less Yet.” Benedikt notes thatarchitects’ much-celebrated ability to “solve prob-lems” can be, paradoxically, a business liability:“basing our personal and professional reputationson creativity greatly reduces our bargaining powerwhen all the parties that have a say in the design ofthe environment sit down at the same table.”8 Why?If architects are such great problem solvers, clientsbelieve we should be able to make do with less.This relentless quest for economy is the primaryreason business pressures have been, for the pastsixty years at least, driving building costs steadilydownward. Between 1950 and 1990, the percentageof the United State’s gross national product due tocivilian construction shrunk by 7.9%, even as theamount of construction increased by 600%.Although some of this can be attributed to more-ef�cient construction methods, Benedikt writes thatit also “re�ects our national values directly”

67 willis

because, during the same time span, “the share ofthe GNP represented by the banking, real estate,entertainment and communication sectors . . . grewin precisely the opposite direction.”

After reading Benedikt’s writings on theeconomics-architecture relationship, one is far morelikely to regard the AIA’s attempts to tie “goodarchitecture” unambiguously to “the bottom line”with ambivalence. The AIA is right to point out thatarchitecture can contribute to the success of a busi-ness, but does it serve the long-term interests ofarchitects to promote architecture as a valuablecommodity, yet a commodity nonetheless? When itsdesign competitions and magazine articles becomeprimarily sales devices, the profession loses its abil-ity to assess its own performance accurately—anability necessary for ethical behavior. This returnsme to the essay I began by citing. Fisher writes,“We need to �nd a way, as a profession, to provethe added value of architectural services.” He thencautions that this “will demand going beyond a

smattering of advertising and public relations basedon broad generalizations.” Even Fisher, I think,underestimates the dif�culty of this essential taskbecause so much of architecture deals with qualitiesthat are, in the words of economist David Throsby,“untranslatable” to a “monetary metric.”9 How then,are architects to conform to dictates of the bottomline? From the recent Arthur Anderson accountingscandals, architects ought to be reminded that anyassessment of “value” requires one to make ethicalchoices, and also that professional integrity is com-promised whenever professionals pay too muchattention to the bottom line. Luckily, open discus-sion on topics such as these can still take placewithin our schools and academic publications.Unfortunately, it can rarely be found in the journalsthat most American architects read. This placesadded responsibility on educators to cultivate infuture architects the ability to critically assess whatthey read, even if its source is their own profes-sional organization.

Notes

1. Thomas R. Fisher, In the Scheme of Things (Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press, 2000), pp. 31–32.

2. Sara Hart, “New Ways to Build Better, Faster, Cheaper,” Architectural

Record (Jan. 2002): pp. 131–138.

3. Robert Ivy, “Out There: Practicing Architecture Outside the Centers

of Fashion” Architectural Record (Feb. 2001): p. 89; and Andrea O.

Dean, “The Hero of Hale County: Sam Mockbee, Architectural Record

(Feb. 2001): pp. 76–82.

4. My criticism is of the manner in which the building and research are

described in the article, not of the buildings or research themselves.

5. David Leatherbarrow, Uncommon Ground: Architecture, Technology,

and Topography (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000), p. 123.

6. “Where Does ‘Good Design’ Meet the ‘Bottom Line’?” (advertise-

ment), Architectural Record (Mar. 2002): p. 158.

7. “Recipe for Success,” Business Week (Nov. 3, 1997): p. 126; and

James S. Russell, “Reinventing the Brew Pub Puts Collaboration on Tap,”

Architectural Record (Oct. 1997): p. 62.

8. Michael Benedikt, “Less for Less Yet: On Architecture’s Value(s) in

the Marketplace,” Harvard Design Magazine (winter/spring 1999).

Online version cited. (http://www.ar.utexas.edu/center/benedikt

_articles/less.html, p. 1).

9. David Throsby, Economics and Culture (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press, 2001), p. 32.