A response to the AIA’s forum ‘Why No Drawn Information?’
I cannot tell you the amount of times, I and other social / communication media coordinators have found ourselves express the desire (let alone the public’s desire) to see the hidden layers of architecture. Be it the the bare bones of the foundation, the contractors, builders, the hands and minds that put the architecture and design together – there’s always a level of human curiosity in which the public desires to see.
Recently, I found myself laughing sarcastically at a community member on the architecture forum puzzling on the lack of drawings in our media publication. As a frequent writer of architecture and design reviews, this has been something I’ve often asked architects whenever I’ve been delivered a press release package. Often, I’ll be given a couple of good sentences (at worst, a two-sentence project that had me go hunting at other publications to pull out details), and some lovely images of hero interior (and the occasional tired photo of a furniture piece that we know will later be questioned by the public on its practicality). While I absolutely adore the photographs being provided, I find that my writing does not excel as much as I’d like – especially when I’m looking at a set of press photos that only showcases one room when the promotional package explores several spaces.
Despite the importance of good communication with words – the reality is, that words and illustrations do perform better when working in tandem, rather than depending on solely one medium to support the other. What I sometimes struggle with is when the architects – try as they might to explain the key spaces, their provision of images of a concentrated space unknowingly limits the opportunity for writers to uncover other hidden gems which their writing has promised. On the contrary, should I be given some drawings or even sketches, I could immediately latch onto a vivid writing experience. Additionally, the set of drawings allows us to fact-check our writing to ensure we haven’t misinterpreted the presented images (there have been several occasions in which I have requested architects to provide me a very basic sketch of their design to ensure I haven’t misinterpreted their building description!).
While the commenter on the post implores editors (in this case – AIA Publications) to include drawings in their presentation – unfortunately, the reality of architecture publication comes down to what the architects permit publications to share. Sometimes, only selective publications have the privilege to share specific information (or that there was an exclusive deal) – if not only release additional information after their first couple of publications (it happened to me after my first review). There are other concerns which has been thoroughly discussed which include the protection of the designer’s creative intellectual property* (see Kevin Hui and Andrew Maynard’s excellent commentary on plagiarism and copying in architecture); residential architecture – and the privacy of the clients (which I can understand could be rebuked if you look at real estate website); or simply, some architects perceive media publications to be their shiny billboard (or in my favourite terms – the new Duck and Decorated Shed) that would eventually be immortalised on the Pinterest world. The list is endless. Even as a writer who has requested information from architects – I can understand their hesitation in their sharing of plans because sometimes, it’s akin to sharing a very personal identity of yourself.
Thinking about the discussion of the bones of architecture beyond the sanitised and photoshopped images (want to guess how many fire escapes have been edited out?) – it’s not uncommon that many people are curious about the practice of architecture. After all, the amount of home renovation shows, the painstaking moments Kevin McLeod has displayed during the agonising Grand Designs (too much anxiety for me sometimes) – it’s natural for the public wanting to understand the process. Even if we look at events such as Open House, these are evidence of the curious nature we as people have. The desire to dissect, poke and prod is reflective of the argument of us wanting to know the people ‘behind’ the realisation of the architecture.
But here’s where the snag often lies – just how much are architects willing to share the work in progress as a business cooperation? Perhaps the reason we want to know the process is perhaps in our university studies, we’re often told to DOC-U-MENT EVERYTHING in our portfolio. Perhaps there is the fear of publishing the work in progress because we don’t need everyone to scrutinise every pixel on the internet. Or – should I dare to say, there is a level of ‘godly-complex’ or mythical element in architecture publication – in that despite we talk about the process – it will never please people, so perhaps just showing the final image and let the public ponder on the behind the scenes is more than enough (this might be a good time for me to say allegedly ha.).
Supposedly we do document everything and behind the scenes (as I have seen with some residential practices) – does that humanise and demystify how the public perceives architecture? Personally, I don’t think that is the final solution to change the public’s ingrained belief that design is a ‘luxury’ and not a necessity. We’ve often heard people mutter with a fatigued bitterness of ‘designing for the rich’ – and I think even if we put the behind the scenes image will not assist in making architecture more approachable. I’d also encourage readers who desire to see more to consider the contracts and obligations architects are under during practice. Namely, the projects I’ve worked on myself are often confidential to a degree – and as much as I’d love to show an image of myself on-site visits, communicating with those who are making our designs come to life, my level of permissions can only limit me to publicise so much.
And then there’s the slightly grim reality of what architecture media really is about these days – advertising. When in the world there is so much competition for what we’re capable of, and along with the age of efficiency and urgency – clients who seek our work often want the end result. The best way is to grasp the images that are printed on the pages because it embodies the vision that they want.
Of course, there’s also the other side of the narrative– what architects want to share is reflective of the clients they desire to collaborate with. As Rachael Berstone and Nikita Morell have put it – how each practice presents itself through writing, website design and imagery ultimately dictates what kind of relationships architects want to bring.
And sometimes, that’s the purpose of publications – putting forth the identity each firm wants to portray.
Related works: Instagram: Today’s Architecture Duck and the Decorated Shed (2020)
Notes
*For those who are thinking of Oscar Wilde’s famed imitation quote here is the full quote – ‘Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness’ I shall let you sit on it for a bit...
References:
Nathan, Bridget (The Doyenne Interviews). “Kimberley Hui | Architectural Media’. August, 2023. Produced by Bridget Nathan, podcast, online audio, 37.16. https://open.spotify.com/episode/1jqQFw12IrqNFSme1GmaXZ?si=77010131689643b7
Archimarathon. ‘CopyRight - CopyWrong | Plagiarism in Architecture?’. 12 June, 2020. Youtube Video. 15.30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlAV4zQc5zE&t=461s&ab_channel=Archimarathon
Parlour. ‘Speaking Up’. 23 September, 2020. CPD Event. Video 1.00.28. https://parlour.org.au/parlour-live/light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel/speaking-up/
Australian Institute of Architects ‘Website copywriting 101 for architects’ 10 September, 2020. AIA Workshop Online event. 55.42 https://www.architecture.com.au/archives/33140
This entry is written during the moon shining upon the lands of the Wurundjeri Country