AIArchitect

This article and most of the subsequent responses were profound reminders of how the uniqueness of African American culture has been so diluted and mixed in to "American" culture as to be invisible, which ostensibly means irrelevant. One only has to to broach the question either directly or tangentially about race and aesthetics to underscore my point. The brave soul who puts the question forward has to also follow a standard pattern of answering first explaining why the question was even asked and then second justifying why it is even relevant to the discussion. The second part is the most insulting to me, particularly as it relates to the discussion of a work of architecture celebrating a specific and unique part of American History, that is the stories of the African American experience. I don't understand the defensive stance and frankly self righteous posturing when someone vocalizes the desire to have a talented, competent African American architect design the National Museum of African American History and Culture. I don't understand why this desire is met with derision and subtle calls of "reverse racism" which is an oxymoron. But mostly I don't understand why anyone who deeply understands the history of this great nation would not champion the need for a talented and competent native son of African descent to design this project. There was no question that a Jew would design the new Jewish Museum in San Francisco. There was not question that the best and brightest living Mexican architect would design the Mexican museum also in SF. If there was a Italian Museum, no one would bat an eyelash if Renzo Piano was chosen to design the museum.

This essay doesn't ask new questions, however it shows that the question has never truly been answered. The halls of contemporary architecture discourse has always wanted to isolate itself from messy social questions, at least for the most part. Architecture is universal and above the petty particularities or ethnicity and social questions. That is to say, architecture is not part of the social construct. Ridiculous! No, not every conversation needs to be infused with race, but that should be obvious. If a program does not call for crossing a body of water then why would one waste time discussing a bridge design?

I think Dr. Martin Luther King's desire that a person is not "judged" by the color of their skin but by the content of their character is so misunderstood and apropos to the discussion of race and architecture. Recognizing difference, uniqueness, color, ethnicity, gender, sexuality is not the problem, it is the "judging" that is the problem. All of those differences offer different perspectives on the world and in most cases one can also find similarities. But, no one can tell the story of another persons experience like that person be it via architecture, literature, music or art.

Italian architecture, Spanish architecture, Russian architecture, Chinese architecture, Japanese architecture, African architecture, Mexican architecture, Maori architecture, Hopi architecture, Balinese architecture. All the other myriad works architecture are unique examples of different cultures telling their story through their building aesthetics. And, yet each make up the canon of architecture history. It is beautiful. No one would question the validity of wanting a native son of any of these cultures to design a monument to the history of that culture, particularly if that culture was never able to tell their own stories from their point of view. That is really the heart of the critique in the essay. A gag order on discussing race in architecture would be a call for an architecture of blandness, monochrome and flat.

Can a talented, competent and motivated architect of any ethnic background design any project (I am unfortunately playing into the pattern answer here) ? Well, of course they could. But what a sad commentary it would be if their were no talented, competent African American architects to even consider, let alone select, to design the second most significant piece of construction in our capital dedicated to the African American experience. How said it would be that yet again, the diverse and unique story of the African American experience had to be told by someone else.

In response to the various anonymii--this is about The National Museum of African American History and Culture--it don't say Black History and Culture! As Jackie Gleason once said, "skin color got nuthin to do wid it!" Get over it; if you were born in Denmark, grew up in Denmark, and had 3 generations of Danish speaking ancestors wouldn't you be Danish?? Who cares what color your skin is?? The story of the African American experience should be told (ie, created and managed) by those who had it; and those folks ought to have the editorial right to manage the contributions of others who feel they have something to add to that story because they may have shared the same road for a while or a long time. But maybe we ought to ask you all this question: if someone wants to tell the story of their experience and the experiences of their ancestors why would anyone else even consider interfering with the privilege of the telling? why wouldn't they just shut up, sit down and listen?

I truly appreciate the comments of the writer, who suggested that those white architects and others who have a problem with the postion that I took in my article seek out sincere personal relationships across racial lines as a way to develop some insight into our dilema of having been relatively invisible within the profession of architecture such that we are so casually overlooked and dismissed without care or concern. To my cousin, who happens to be white, I also appreciate the clear statement of a complex problem - made so by the unwillingness of some to step into the shoes of others, if only for a minute. In the case of the Black architect, that would be more than enough time to develop some serious empathy around our history of experience within the profession. Peace and blessings to all.

SL--very well written and points all well taken; this is a perennial philosophical problem--whats the word?--a conundrum?--to which there may well be no good answer; what is right and just? will we ever get there?? do we celebrate our differences (ethnic that is), call attention to them, and hence perpetuate them?? or does this help us eliminate them? Do we want to eliminate them? maybe not; why should we homogenize humanity? I'd like to have the differences and a good sense of humor about them; if everyone was some kinda grey it would really be boring...but in this case as in the other similar cases you cited why shouldn't an African American originate, finance, design and run the whole project--let the other folks who want to get involved help out, but someone needs to step up and say, "this is our thing and we are best equipped to tell our story in our way" and fight to the teeth to hold onto that right to do so. Maybe you need to jump up and down and start ranting and raving! let the 800 pound gorilla out of the bag; fight for what you believe in--Don't Tread On Me! maybe that's what you are doing, in your own way with this article....many times patience wins out and cooler heads prevail in the end...there is much more to be said here...many more questions--very few answers..keep the faith, d

Do we want American to be color blind or colorful. I believe Martin Luther King Jr. was revering to being colorful not color blind. Being color blind is unhealthy in a mind set and visually, but being colorful is observing and appreciating all the colors around you culturally, and ethnically and appreciating the honor and contribution they make to our society as a whole.

My recommendation and request to those writing blogs and reading blogs on this issue is talk to and be friend an African American Architect and get his or her opinion on this subject, I'm sure it will be a rich experience for both of you, I warn be ready for honest discussion if you do.

I am an African American Architect I believe the real discussion here is one of restitution and justice not reverse descrimination and color blindness.

"Why is there a Minority Organization of Architects? It's silly. We are all individuals with different beliefs and points of view, that is what makes this country great."

One of the reasons it exists is to bring awareness to young aspiring architects that there are others who have already gone down that path. I attended two different universities for architecture and have not once seen a minority faculty member or met a black architect. For the few minority classmates I had, I think it would be helpful for them to know that there are others who are capable of succeeding in this field who may have similar backgrounds. As great as we may want to believe our country is, it's got some serious flaws with racial tension being among the least of them. We think that we have arrived and gotten over the elephant in the room because we have a president with darker skin than the previous ones? Wow.

Hello Anon. Really like your poetry . . . and those wonderful maxims. Is Anon your real name? Or, just a pen name? But, I digress.

The blog is not the American Institute of Architects? Did you take a close look at the header? And the author? I certainly am not the AIA.

I repeat my questions. But I don't expect any response. I fear the AIA, as usual, is hiding under its desk (so to speak).

Thanks for the wishes.

You are the American Institute of Architects, Michael. The blog is not. It's a way to bring thoughtful response to various issues of the day.

And, I must say, yours are always interesting and welcome.

Happy holidays!

Why was this article re-printed here? What was the intention? Who does the American Institute of Architects think should "tell the story?"

It matters what the color of the skin is in some instances because where you come from can influence your design and understanding of the culture that is in question. I have no roots in Scandinavia or Iceland and though admire the culture greatly, would not put myself forward for consideration to design a Nordic Museum. Having said that, I appreciate many of the designs put forward and in particular Moody Nolan. For the very reason that when I see it, it brings to bear the African American culture in a way that I think is poignant and relevant. Others have similar merits but I am more inclined to favor designs that emit a certain type of cultural vibe that will give the museum an authenticity that is required.

The question might be, who cares? Does NOMA care? Does America care? It is all about the various interests and the nature of those interest that are held in great variety by so many. Who is chosen to design and build, is something that some people will care about, but not all. Should the museum be designed by a black man, yellow man or a white woman? Is that symbolism important? Is it imperative that it be a minority firm? How can the crucible of change and the monument of the African American struggle be served by any brand of apartheid?

The very best expression of the museum is a mutually shared objective, but that outcome may be distributed across a range of very disparate points of view and radically different preconceptions and visions. What should the museum be, to best serve the interests of the nation or if not that........ whom? We are challenged as a profession to clarify both functional requirements as well as symbolic ones, this is the opportunity to test holistic design process in profoundly new ways. Work the problem.

To construct a building of such symbolic power will very clearly require men and women who above all else desire to heal the nation and the city. Let nothing be built that fails to capture the truth or fails to serve this enduring purpose; the truth and the unity of the American people.

I would suggest that those with disparity of interests in the museum, clearly state their position and their mission when seeking the commission. Pick the design team based upon values and intentions, not skin color. We all need to live and work together, if that is not captured by our intentions, then the opportunity to achieve a great symbol of unity has been lost.

I agree with the above but share one more thought: Why does it matter what the color of the skin is, of the Architect in this design? It shouldn't matter, period.

Out of many, One. America was founded upon individual liberty given by our creator, not groups or clubs or government. Regardless of how your ancestors came to be here (Mine came to escape persecution in Nova Scotia and Ireland - I'm half Cajun and Irish)and regardless of the struggle they had in order to survive and make things better for their prodginy (having to suffer an new swamp land and come up with a new french language to describe the new things they saw and then be beaten by the white man to speak English or being sold as indentured servants where Irish and African alike could not sit at a lunch counter or even get a job), who tells the story of Black Americans, should be a mixture of points of view from all Americans. Black people can tell their version of things, but it only makes the story richer by including everyone in the process, isn't that what Dr. King wanted in the first place? It angers me that certain people identify only with their race group and everything else doesn't matter. Why is there a Minority Organization of Architects? It's silly. We are all individuals with different beliefs and points of view, that is what makes this country great. Black groups in this country think that they have the monopoly on the "Black Experience" when it has affected EVERYONE in our country on an individual basis. From the Charleton Heston who marched in the Civil Rights marches to the Buffalo Soldiers, we have all shared in the story that needs to be told. I think it remarkable that we have a (half) Black President who has NO slave roots in this country! No Civil Rights background to show for. How does his story mesh with the true Black experience, especially since he lived a charmed and upper middle class life that was given to him by his white grandparents. How does his story fit into this, without including another race perspective? I think that ultimately this wonderful monument must be "inclusive" showing that all races can come together and build a monument that looks at the good the bad and the ugly of the black experience, but also include the struggle of the Indian, the Irish, the Cajuns,the Chinese, ETC. We have all suffered descrimination and hatred based on our race and sex (I'm a woman)here in America. The reason for that is culture clashes of the immigrants of the past, but eventually we have now created the American culture that has many subplots but coexist together. Dr. King preached about being judged by our Character and not the color of our skin. That is what needs to be expressed in this monument by all of our characters combined.