Photograph by Bartholomew Cooke (via Dwell)At the close of Nora Ephron's 2010 book,
I Remember Nothing, she included a list titled
"What I Won't Miss." Down at the bottom, between "Small print" and "Taking off makeup every night" was this zinger, "Panels on Women in Film." I like the way she capitalized the letters, capturing the organizers' formal sincerity while maintaining her distance from the whole enterprise.
Next week, on October 3, I find myself playing both roles. I am the moderator for a panel titled
Women in Design as part of
New York and
Dwell magazines' weeklong
City Modern series. The series includes discussions, lectures, panels and on the weekend of October 6 and 7, house tours. My panel, which should more properly be called Women in Architecture, features
Galia Solomonoff,
Marion Weiss and
Claire Weisz. And the first question I am going to ask them is about
Architect Barbie.
Greenwich Village Townhouse (2012), Solomonoff Architecture Studio (Photograph by Alex Guerrero)Part of me is in total sympathy with Nora Ephron, and my panelists. This is surely not their first time being asked about being a woman in architecture. I doubt any of them think that aspect is the most important part of their careers (I will ask). Is a question about Architect Barbie now a tiresome obligation? The very existence of the panel suggests there is something strange, something other to architecture, about being a women.
On the other hand, I feel that in the decade after my own undergraduate architecture degree, there weren't enough panels on Women in Architecture. The women who were doing it did not want to talk about it. They wanted to do their excellent work, and let that speak about their place in the profession. Which was a worthy, understandable approach. Unfortunately it changed nothing. As far as I can tell, when I graduated from college in 1994 the percentage of female members of the AIA was 15 percent. In 2010, it was 17 percent.
Brooklyn Botanic Garden Visitor Center (2012), Weiss/ManfrediThese statistics make me sad, but it also feels like action is brewing. Over the course of the year I have seen many more productive discussions about women in architecture: on Design Observer, in the recent
Places series on
women in architecture; on the Australian site
Parlour, where a recent essay addresses exactly what it is like
to be an architect and mother of small children. It feels as if the moment is right to discuss structural change, work/life balance for everyone, and, as all of these women have their own practices, how they run things differently. But first we need to talk honestly and openly about what is difficult and what has been different about the profession, not for all women, but for these women.
It also isn't necessary to see otherness as only negative. Sometimes it makes creative life easier – it certainly does for me as a critic. As Claire Weisz told Nina Rappaport, in a
Constructs article on an upcoming reunion of
Women in Architecture at Yale: "Sometimes the greatest work comes from outsiders. The particularily of a woman's experience can also generate strength and create opportunity."
Beach 30th Street Pavilion at Rockaway Park (2012), WXY Architecture + Urban DesignIf this topic is of interest to you, please join us at the panel. Tickets are
available here. Ironically,
at the exact same time, Paul Goldberger is "in conversation" with MacArthur winner
Jeanne Gang at the
National Academy, a conversation I would have liked to hear. (PG wrote
this excellent take on Gang's work for the
New Yorker in 2010.)
In the meantime, I am still writing up my list of questions. If you have something you would like to ask these Women in Design, please let me know in the comments.
Comments [10]
09.27.12
02:38
09.27.12
04:11
Dismissing the positive effects of female role models because of disappointing statistics (AIA certification doesn't represent all people in and around the profession, just its leadership) doesn't match what I see on the ground level, and doesn't reflect the progress that's been made. If not for the recession (the real villain here), progress would be much greater.
My questions are: do you think the current design media is damaging women in architecture with this kind of shallow coverage (i.e. Pink T-Squares)? Does it brand architecture by giving it a gender (see examples above)? Does it give extra points to women architects who are more attractive (a symptom of celebrity architecture coverage)?
Basically, what can women do to keep the focus on their work and not let the media "use" them as a marketing gimmick?
09.28.12
02:32
10.02.12
10:19
10.03.12
08:19
Still...If it were a panel of men, I wouldn't dream of asking them personal questions about children and work/life balance. These accomplished Architects on the panel should not be asked to justify, explain, or qualify their work in these terms either.
10.03.12
04:20
10.04.12
01:25
'Pink T-Squares? Architecture Barbies? I think that's all you need to know about why Nora Ephron didn't like these kind of forums. Why? They ghettoize the contributions of women like it were the Special Olympics.'
Peter Safe: Having just had the amazing experience of being in London for the Paralympics Games, which were a major triumph, with huge and enthusiastic crowds and a great spirit, I am surprised that it's possible in persisting in seeing them as a kind of second-rate version of the Olympics. (That is your implication above.) Paralympic athletes were not 'ghettoized' at all! And it doesn't seem at all credible to assume that female architects are either by participating in events that can support and encourage others women in the field. Leadership and visibility is important, and this is what these women are seeking to provide. They wouldn't agree to sit on these panels otherwise...
10.06.12
05:29
The Paralympics are a indeed a triumph of the human spirit, but we have to admit that they cannot compete on the same field as 'traditional' Olympians (that great South African sprinter was pretty good though....). I think it's offensive that the women who sat on this panel should be subjected to questions more concerned with child-development than serious architecture and design. Building community and leadership is essential, but the barbie and pink-t-squares leads me to believe this is a pseudo-discussion that plays on stereotypes. Like let's ask a Mexican Architect what they think of Taco Bell--hahaha, discuss! I guess we live in the age of Sasha Baron-Cohen and Carlos Mencia, but I'm sure these are not the questions that female architects got into the profession to answer.
A better first question: "what inspired you to become an architect or designer?" The subjective answers to that question would much better give us a viewpoint from a female architect. Maybe not as sexy, but hey, this isn't the Mind of Mencia here, as much as the non-designer intellegentsia would like it to be.
10.06.12
05:04
10.21.12
08:07