UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURAL ICON
UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURAL ICON Scholars have long recognised the capacity of architecture to summon or represent hidden messages or meanings, with such discussions often centred on the idiosyncratic nature of many contemporary architectural icons. In recent years however, research has increasingly acknowledged the influence of globalisation, particularly in its relationship with capitalism, in determining the aesthetic nature of architectural icons across both the developed and developing worlds. Through theory-guided qualitative analysis of print, audio and visual media, this paper questions the defining notion of iconic as it is commonly referred within current architectural literature, and introduces a framework through which the characteristics and influence behind the contemporary architectural icon might be brought into disrepute. It is argued that a common misconception of what it means to be iconic has enabled the powers at the forefront of capitalism and globalisation to utilise such architecture in the promotion of their own corporate interests, contributing to a lack of integrity within many architectural icons of today. With growing doubt over the viability of capitalism within the context of a sustainable future however, it is suggested that now might be the opportune time for architects to reassess the role of iconic architecture, with the potential for its persuasive power to instead be utilised as a means of promoting a better appreciation of architecture and architects alike. What is an Icon? Icon, n. 1. An image, figure, or representation; a portrait; a statue (c.1572). 2. Orthodox Church. A representation of some sacred personage, in painting, bas-relief, or mosaic, itself regarded as sacred, and honoured with a relative worship or adoration (c.1833). 3. A person or thing regarded as a representative symbol, esp. of a culture or movement; a person, institution, etc., considered worthy of admiration or respect (c.1952).1
1 | THESIS
The preceding citation, adapted from various editions of the Oxford English Dictionary, indicates that to be an icon, is to represent, either through direct expression or symbolically, a subject of great significance. While one could argue that an icon traditionally holds little reverence towards subject matter per se, it is important to bear in mind the effort at which such representations could only be achieved up until recent time. Irrespective of the term’s apparent evolution within the context of the Orthodox Church and beyond, it is reasonable to assume that icons have always been reserved to honour only the most sacred or special of subjects – those that in their time,
were considered worthy of admiration and respect. In light of this suggestion, it is possible to deduce that over the course of history the defining notion of an icon has remained consistent: as a representation, direct and/or symbolic, of a significant subject. The purpose of emphasising this point is to not only provide a single working definition of icon as it is referred within the context of this paper, but also to establish a basis in which to challenge the existence of two competing conceptions of the term that prevail throughout discussions of architecture today. Upon
Figure 1. Iconic I, typical examples of a Palladian Villa, mosque, cathedral and office building 5
doing so, it is the aim of this paper to develop a sociological framework in which to suggest that many contemporary icons are visually driven by the interest of the capitalist system and the powers that be. It is argued that contemporary icons are manufactured and promoted with the explicit intention of propagating an ideology of consumerism within a global culture and, as a consequence of this process, a general consensus over what is iconic and what should be promoted as good architectural design has been confused. The objective of this paper is to push for a renewed public definition and appreciation of the architectural icon, by bringing into question the place of capitalism in the context of a sustainable global future. The Fallacy of Iconic Architecture Across a series of articles, an attempt is made to analyse the development of iconic architecture in the context of capitalism and globalisation.2 Within this research, Sklair elaborates on what he asserts are two contrasting, but equally valid meanings of icon; conveniently identified as either Iconic I or Iconic II.3 According to his assessment, to reference an icon in line with the prescribed definition of the term – as a representation – does maintain some pedigree within architectural theory today. Discussed in relation to when “a culture has a fixed image of what an object should look like”; it is suggested that an icon may serve as an ordinary and constantly repeated copy of that object, with cited cases including an iconic example of a Palladian Villa, mosque, cathedral or even an office building.4 In this context, an icon can be summarised
as a recognisable reproduction of an archetypal building and, according to Sklair, should be ascribed the title of Iconic I. In comparison, perhaps a more recent conception of the term, is what Sklair identifies as Iconic II; “a building or a space that is different and unique, intended to be famous and to have special symbolic/aesthetic qualities”.6 Also noted explicitly is that within this interpretation, “such icons can be proclaimed iconic before they are built”.7 So within the notion of Iconic II, iconicity is ascribed to architecture on the basis of its intended uniqueness or difference 8 – an almost direct contradiction to the more traditional delineation of an icon as the reproduction of an established image. In acknowledging the ambiguity that surrounds this variation, Sklair attempts to nullify the confusion by declaring what he concludes to be the two defining characteristics of any icon: (1) a degree of fame, both within the field of question and the public at large and, (2) associated symbolic or aesthetic significance.9 “It is this unique combination of fame with symbolism and aesthetic quality that creates the icon”.10 The appeal of this all encompassing and generalised resolution of iconic is that it allows both Sklair, and subscribers to his theory of iconic architecture, to conveniently evade any further scrutiny surrounding the term. However, this does little to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the proposal of any icon is so often received with cautious apprehension. This is the shortcoming of what is arguably, a theoretically confused basis in which Sklair dismisses the competing conceptions of iconic from the outset.
The defining characteristics of an icon remain elusive because, in its very nature, the term challenges perception; it should be approached as a question of not what is an icon (as Sklair futilely attempts to answer), but rather, what is it an icon of? In other words, the study of icons must start with a study of the subject; be it a person, place, time, type of building or style; anything that may be considered by a particular following, as worthy of admiration and respect. Through this methodology, the focus is shifted away from the characteristics of the icon itself and toward establishing a clear consensus over the characteristics that make the subject of that icon so identifiably special. Under these conditions, when a building specifically sets out to represent the qualities identified within time-honoured consensus, for example: through application of pointed arches, ribbed vaults, flying buttresses and an overall emphasis toward lightness and verticality, then the status of the building as iconic – of a Gothic Cathedral – is immediately conferred. This is not dissimilar to Sklair’s appreciation of Iconic I, and is the fundamental basis to which all icons should be assessed: iconic of whom, iconic of what, iconic of where, iconic of when? As a definitive measure this is of course hopelessly idealistic, as in reality, individual perceptions and social consensus can and will change. It is therefore necessary to also consider the development of an icon as an incidence in time: it can either be iconic now, or it can become iconic when a consensus over what makes the characteristics of its subject so identifiably special changes. This is the process by which most, if
Understanding the Contemporary Architectural Icon | 2
Figure 2. Iconic II, the unique Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao 11
not all, icons originate – through an expression of certain qualities so distinct, that they at some point in time come to be identified as synonymous with, and iconic of, their subject. In the context of design, the characteristics of an object or building that make it distinct might vary from it being so beautiful, so successful, so well known or so unique (good or bad) that over time they develop to become a symbol, or representation, of the person, place, time, style or type to which the object is credited. This point is illustrated by English architect David Chipperfield, in his interview of the term iconic for the magazine Iconeye: icon magazine online: “An icon just happens. If you think about three-dimensional objects in product design or furniture, there were objects in the 20th century that became icons that you wouldn’t classify as icons using the current [Iconic II] meaning... I think you could say that Mies’ Barcelona chair is an icon, but in some ways it is quite self-effacing. Design objects of the 20th century, whether it’s Mario Bellini’s typewriters [for Olivetti] or Michele De Lucchi’s lamp or whatever, became icons because of how beautiful they were or how successful they were. Now we have to have an instant icon. It has to say it’s an icon at the very point of delivery”.12 In this sense it could be argued that the cited example of an Iconic II building – the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao – was in fact not iconic at conception, but rather it become an icon when its image
3 | THESIS
became synonymous with Frank Gehry, Spain, or even the 21st century. This illustrates the point that icons are formed as much by their frame (social and time) as their content, and in order to fabricate a legitimately iconic piece of architecture it is necessary to first persuade a consensus into subscribing to the distinct characteristics and qualities of the design. Whilst the previously listed suggestions of what could constitute distinct is by no means exhaustive, they do provide a useful reference through which to demonstrate this concept. For example, whilst qualities of beauty or success can be openly discussed and debated, they are in their very nature (and particularly within current architectural debate) so subjective, that it is almost impossible for such discussion to ever reach a definitive conclusion. Qualities of uniqueness or fame on the other hand are more easily characterised, and it is through a deliberate ambition to influence these very traits that Sklair’s idea of Iconic II is conceived. The critical difference however is that, unlike his comprehension of the term, the iconicity proposed here is based not on the uniqueness or fame of the object itself, but rather on the success of these qualities at providing an impression so deep, that they themselves inevitably become synonymous with – and only then iconic of – their subject. This is the process of many cited icons throughout history, including the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty and even the Sydney Opera House. Some of these projects were even confronted by initial public scrutiny, and it was not until long after they were received that they became identifiably iconic, first of their respective cities, then of their countries as a whole. Iconic is therefore a status
that can be achieved instantaneously or gained retrospectively, and it is this very nature of an icon – as a state of being within a moment in time – that is critically neglected in Sklair’s theory of two competing conceptions. In other words, it is suggested that Sklair’s notion of Iconic II is better understood as a building or object in the preliminary phases of becoming Iconic I – differentiated by the fact that its uniqueness or fame has yet to influence a consensus over the qualities that make its architect, place, time, type or style so identifiably special. Through this explanation, Iconic I and Iconic II should in fact be understood as generations of the same representation, (direct and/or symbolic, of a significant subject). Finally, it is important to note that the characteristics of an icon can be deemed representative of one or more subjects simultaneously. For example, it could be said that the same distinct qualities make the Barcelona Pavilion stand as an icon of the new post-war Germany, and of Mies van der Rohe, and of the twentieth century, and of Modernism. This helps to explain Skair’s problem of “why, when iconicity is ascribed to one or two buildings of some architects, iconicity starts to spread to all their buildings, past, present and future”.13 It is simply a question of what the iconicity is said to represent; if the building stands as an icon of its unique location for example, then, as Sklair implies, its iconic status should remain solitary. If on the other hand the icon is said to represent, for example, the unique style of an architect that became apparent only through hindsight, then it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that iconicity would spread to all of the architect’s corresponding works, past
present and future. This is the case for many of history’s most creative visionaries, who’s innovative and unorthodox styles meant that they did not always receive the praise they deserved until much later in their career, if in their lifetime at all. Now that the proposed conception of iconic architecture has been established, it is appropriate to ask the question as to why so many of the world’s most revered architects insist on pursuing tomorrow’s icon today? It is hereby suggested that this is due, in part, to the fact that all buildings have an architectural language and, to those with the wealth to commission iconic buildings, the message within this language has become an increasingly valuable commodity. This is true particularly of highly populated urban settings where, with a wider audience, such messages become increasingly valuable, thus helping to explain why the vast majority of iconic buildings are commissioned within larger ‘global cities’ around the world. Fall of the Monument & Rise of the Iconic Private Secular Shrine With an extensive amount of academic discourse on the subject over recent years, the idea of iconic architecture embodying the values held by those that commission such projects is far from new. Architecture has long served to glorify and reinforce the power and authority of the strong over the weak,14 and as Sklair & Gherardi explain, “up until the middle of the twentieth century, such ideas were discussed largely in terms of the role of monumentality in architecture”.15 It is suggested that throughout history,
monumental architecture has been used as an instrument in propaganda; to embody and promote the values of dominant ideologies and groups.16 To properly appreciate the context of this statement however, it is important to first disassociate the notion of propaganda from its usual negative connotations. As Alain de Botton explains, propaganda merely refers to “the promotion of any doctrine or set of beliefs”17 and, provided the lessons it promotes within us are valuable, there is nothing wrong with the idea that architecture should influence our actions in some way.18 By retracing the genealogy of monuments throughout architecture’s history, Kaika & Thielen illustrate the not so surprising role that both state and religious powers have played in promoting this form of architectural ideology.19 From the Egyptian pyramids as homage to the power of the Pharaohs, to the Parthenon as a symbol of Athenian democracy, to Siena’s Palazzo Pubblico as a statement of bureaucracy – the persuasive potential of architecture has for a long time been utilised to represent a state of authority.20 It is interesting to compare this to medieval times, where instead of statesponsored buildings it was cathedrals and town halls that dominated the urban skyline.21 As Kaika & Thielen explain, the sheer height of these buildings, combined with their preferred location on a hill, in the centre of town, or abutting a public square, worked to not only accentuate the physical dominance of the architecture itself, but also to reinforce – through an inescapable visual reminder – the social power of the authorities that commissioned their production in the first place.22 This intimidating presence within an urban setting is the inherent nature of
almost all architectural monuments and, so irrefutable is the associated power of these qualities, they remain at the symbolic heart of what is arguably the most revered monument of the twentieth century – the aptly named skyscraper. Within almost any commentary on monumental architecture, the skyscraper stands out (or rather up) as one of the most powerful statements of the modern world.23 Whilst their monumental stature is unquestionable, it is important to acknowledge a fundamental difference between such modern monuments and their traditional counterparts. As argued by Kaika & Theilen and again by Sklair & Gherardi, the most significant change between the modern and traditional monument is not a discussion of form or function but rather, of the authorities that commission their production.24 As the western world transitioned towards a more industrialised society at the turn of the twentieth century, the power of state and church gave way to that of a rising bourgeoisie. Society’s belief in God was rapidly eclipsed by an even greater belief in the power of money and technology, and the state too was relegated to a role of supporting this emerging capitalism.25 For the first time in history, powerful individuals began to assert their authority on the city-stage with architectural commissions that were not personal dwellings nor public monuments, “that would glorify neither god, not state or clergy power, but the achievements of one single individual, or one single company”.26 Buildings became the physical identities and spiritual logos of their corporate owners, and so emerged the private secular shrine: architecture as homage to personal capital.27 Of course
Understanding the Contemporary Architectural Icon | 4
this is not suggesting that twentieth century capitalists were the first powers in history to build shrines. As Kaika & Thielen acknowledge, “from the Maecenas of antiquity to the renaissance patrons of architecture, the rich and the powerful had always contributed to the monumentalisation of urban space”.28 The difference however is that, rather than commissioning shrines in the honour of God, capitalists of the twentieth century no longer felt the need to invoke religious or political hierarchy as an excuse to place their names, quite literally, across the urban skyline. One only needs to look to the skyline of New York City to illustrate this point: the Woolworth Building (c.1913) by powerful merchant Frank W. Woolworth, the Chrysler Building (c. 1926-30) by automotive tycoon Walter P. Chrysler, the Rockefeller Center (c. 192940) a homage to the Rockefeller family.29 To these great capitalists architecture was, in a sense, a material possession, with its conspicuous consumption having become an ideal in its own right.30 Whilst monumental language of architecture had remained for the most part consistent up until this time, the Second World War came to prove that the associated symbolic qualities of the monument prevailed only as long as the authority in which it represents remained in power. The fall of fascism saw the traditional architectural gestures of the monument become increasingly discredited as a means of asserting social strength, and a new form of democratic monumentality was needed for the post-war world.31 As Jencks explains, “[traditional] monuments have lost
5 | THESIS
their power to persuade… but society has hardly lost its appetite for grand structures”.32 Professional ideology within architecture at this time had been heavily characterised by optimism toward the future, with its promise of democracy, technology, science and speed. As such, the new monumental avant-garde found its place within the promise of Modernism, and secular shrines began to overlook ornament in preference for a more honest and functionally orientated aesthetic. It is often suggested that this modernist turn reached its epitome in the Seagram Building (c.1958) in New York City by Mies van der Rohe (with Phillip Johnson) – widely regarded as the precursor to many monumental skyscrapers across North America including the World Trade Centre (c. 1972,1973) in New York City, the John Hancock Centre (c. 1969) and Sears Tower (c.1974) in Chicago, as well as the John Hancock Tower (c. 1976) in Boston.33 What many of the architects and authorities that commissioned such buildings began to realise however was that, without relying solely on height, the ability to assert oneself through monumental architecture became severely inhibited when the functionallyderived styling of Modernism ensued that the vast majority of skyscrapers all began to look more-or-less the same. Typical of most contemporary art movements, by the end of the 1970s the ‘politics of counter-culture’ had fostered a movement toward postmodernist relativity, and designs for secular shrines began to shift away from the modernist aesthetic and the notion of height equals power.35 Free from
the suppression of Modernism, wealthy individuals instead sought reverence through the production of novel, unique and sculptural architecture that could stand as a symbolic representation of their innovative and visionary selves.36 True to G.K. Chesterton’s famous adage: “when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything”, with the rise of postmodernism in the late-twentieth century, architectural iconicity – whereby almost anything goes – began to replace height as a symbol of power and authority.37 In the 1980s, an emerging group of architects that included the likes of Peter Eisenman, Rem Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid, Daniel Libeskind and Frank Gehry, gained notoriety and almost-instant iconic status for their ‘deconstructivist’ styles of architecture that promoted nonrectilinearity, improbable intersections and geometric imbalance.38 These revolutionaries were glorified alongside the tycoons that commissioned their unique work and as Kaika and Theilen explain “along with the birth of the urban icon came the birth of the pop-architect, the architect as fashion designer, who would compete over producing louder and more conspicuous building statements to match equally loud patrons”.39 Whilst fashion and style provided a convenient distraction from the main determinants of the trend, it is important to bear in mind that most often, iconic status is little more than a sought outcome – temporary or permanent – of many deliberate and strategic practices.40 The rise of the architectural icon has many deep causes that are not limited to a decline in religious and state power or the fall of
Figure 3. The Seagram Building (left), widely regarded as a precursor to many North American skyscrapers including Sears Towers (centre) and the John Hancock Centre (right) 34
the monument. However with names less often perched atop these buildings for the entire world to see, the forces at play behind many architectural icons – along with the values they subliminally enforce – are increasingly overlooked when attempting to unlock the ‘genius’ of their unique and ambiguous forms. Architectural Icons in the Context of Capitalist Globalisation Any attempt at a definitive account of iconic architecture cannot take place without reference towards its synchronic relationship to globalisation. This isn’t to suggest that iconic architecture is a result of globalisation per se, but rather, as the global system continues to consolidate, it has become so closely attached to the intrinsic benefits of developing iconic architecture that it would be naïve not to acknowledge this influence. Therefore, for the sake of clarity in understanding what is to follow, the notion of globalisation requires, at the very least, a brief introduction. There is an extensive amount of literature on globalisation, with many competing conceptions of the term jostling for primacy. As Sklair rightfully cautions, “any attempt to present a definitive account of ‘globalisation and architecture’ (or anything else) is doomed to failure”.41 This is because ‘globalisation’ in itself is a hypernym – or ‘umbrella’ term – that exists purely as an abstract framework for the purpose of analysis. It is what Sklair refers to as generic globalisation and, it should not be confused as an actually existing, globalisation system or theory.42
The notion of globalisation as referred within this thesis therefore, relates to a specific conception of the term – a globalisation system – that is hereby referred to as capitalist globalisation.43 For, as Sklair proposes, “one of the consequences of capitalist globalisation is a transformation in the production, marketing and reception of iconic architecture”.44 In the broadest sense, the notion of globalisation refers to the new economic, political and cultural conditions that began to develop in the middle of the twentieth century, stimulated by rapid developments in transportation and communication technologies. Opponents will often bring into question the longterm prospects and benefits of living in a globalised world, however for the vast majority, globalisation in the abstract sense could serve their own best interests, even if it is not necessarily doing so at the present time. Sklair describes that, as a system, it has the capacity to reach and improve the circumstances of almost everyone within the social spectrum; “big landlords as well as subsistence farmers in the countryside, corporate executives as well as labourers in sweatshops in major cities, well-paid professionals as well as… desperate migrants in transit in the hope of better lives”.45 These examples however, also allude to the unfortunate fact that we do not at present reside in the abstract world of generic globalisation, but rather in a world of actually existing capitalist globalisation – where such class polarisation has become a very real and pressing issue. Whilst it remains possible for individuals and even international
communities to exist and possibly thrive outside the realm of this global system, this is becoming increasingly rare and difficult as capitalist globalisation continues to penetrate far and wide.46 In the context of iconic architecture, it is hereby suggested that those at the upper echelon of the social spectrum, that is, the big landlords, corporate executives, well-paid professionals along with many other capitalist individuals and corporations, have successfully mobilised the commercial potential of the built environment for their own corporate gains. This argument is founded on the basis that in the pre-global era (roughly prior to the 1960s), most monumental architecture was driven by the interests of state and/or religious powers, whereas in an era of capitalist globalisation, the dominant force driving iconic architecture is what Sklair identifies as the transnational capitalist class.47 Whilst capitalism provides the structure, it is these major transnational practices of globalisation that provide the means. In order to properly decipher the language of iconic architecture therefore, it is recommended to first ask a question of who exactly is the transnational capitalist class and what is the message they are trying to convey? Iconic Architecture’s Greatest Patron: the Transnational Capitalist Class In the globalising era, it is no longer possible to conceptualise countries as purely autonomous, sovereign entities tied only to their own national economies and local interests.48 One of the most keenly contested disagreements
Understanding the Contemporary Architectural Icon | 6
“the iconic building is, on one level, just the application of shock and awe to architecture” between globalisation theorists and their opponents however, is to what extent the powers of the state are in decline.49 Whilst ‘transnational’ acknowledges that states do still exist, globalisation proponents question the degree to which these states remain autonomous. As Sklair contests, the balance of power in the global system has been swinging decisively in favour of non-state, transnational forces since the 1960s.50 Many other globalising theorists have also spoken of the formation of a transnational capitalist class, including van der Pijl, Robinson & Harris, and Struna.51 What is important to acknowledge however is that not all agree on a conceptualisation of exactly whom or what the class includes – a difference that in itself has become a focus of Appelbaum & Robinson, Dicken, Khagram & Levitt and Sprague.52 What they can all agree on however is that during the last quarter of the twentieth century, a combination of significant economic, social and political changes, welcomed in a new era of global capitalism. They also agree that a new social class, namely the transnational capitalist class or TCC, has emerged from this process. Robinson & Harris conceptualise members of the TCC as the beneficiaries involved in the actual accumulation of global capital.53 Others involved in supporting this action, without necessarily accumulating much capital themselves in the process, are distinguished separately as ‘transnational elites’ or ‘functionaries’.54 By comparison, Sklair’s model of a single hegemonic TCC includes both those involved in the accumulation of global capital as well as those that support the process, including some media, technical and political factions.55 This contrasts with Robinson, who insists that the suggestion of a political faction should instead be conceptualised as a separate but
7 | THESIS
closely allied transnational state.56 In analysing the possible connections between a TCC and iconic architecture, it is Sklair’s hypothesis of a hegemonic class comprised of four unified factions that offers what is perhaps the most substantive basis for further exploration. It is important to understand the TCC as the dominant social class in the era of capitalist globalisation. The reason for entertaining this discussion therefore is to propose that the symbolic and provocative aesthetic nature of architectural icons needs to be contextualised in relation to its explicit connection with this authority. As previously noted, Sklair conceptualises the TCC as consisting of four factions – corporate, state, technical and consumerist – with their specific role in relation to the promotion of iconic architecture outlined as follows.57 The corporate faction is the most prominent faction of the TCC, but as suggested by Sprague, “it depends on the other three factions for capitalist globalisation to work smoothly”.58 It consists primarily of those who own and/or control the major transnational corporations but, in the context of this analysis, should be recognised as any contingent – including real estate and development firms, private enterprises, or even cities – that have the expressed desire and means to commission the production of an architectural icon.59 In the general sense, it is the client or patron of the architect. The state faction consists of any politician or bureaucrat, at all levels of administrative power, that possesses “a globalising perspective”.60 This can include those with a first hand role in promotion and/or
transformation of foreign investment into free market economics and, in relation to architecture, also extends to those who have the power to decide what gets build where, and how changes to the built environment are regulated.61 In consideration of architectural icons, as many global cities work to recover from a process of deindustrialisation and the resulting urban blight, the state faction’s most valuable strength is the ability to dictate where potential icons are located, especially in relation to surrounding public space. The technical faction includes globalising professionals charged with the role of developing and promoting best practice across all phases of production. Members of this faction include the many professionals employed in the development of new buildings (including design, construction and financial), as well as those responsible for the architectural education of students and the public alike.62 In his pioneering study of the sociology of architecture, Gutman identifies three types of contemporary architectural firms – all of which hold some relevance in a discussion of the technical faction of the TCC.63 The first type, the ‘strong-idea firm’, is what he defines as a practice-centred firm, with cited examples including the likes of Gehry, Graves, Meier and Venturi. The second type, the ‘strong-service firm’ is a design-orientated but business-centred practice, with the suggested example of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (or SOM). Third, is the group of practices Gutman suggests are ‘strong-delivery firms’. They are large, often transnational, design firms that rarely win awards but possess the greatest portfolio of built work. As Knox acknowledges, one consequence of capitalist globalisation
has come through the transformation in the structural composition of many architectural firms.64 With an increasingly international client base, the divisions between Gutman’s practice-types have become somewhat greyed, as has the distinction between Sklair’s technical and corporate factions. It could reasonably be argued that many of the transnational architectural or architectural-engineering practices identified here as members of the technical faction, could quite as easily be considered part of the corporate faction too. Sklair acknowledges this potential discrepancy in declaring that there is a degree of overlap between the technical and corporate factions.65 In the study of architectural icons, the practice type of most interest are the ‘strong-ideas firms’ most often credited for the design of iconic buildings. They represent what Olds defines as the ‘Global Intelligence Corps’ – the few, elite firms that are responsible for the vast majority of prestigious architectural commissions around the world.66 Olds also goes as far to suggest that these firms are often fronted by high profile, charismatic men, citing Le Corbusier, Gropius and Mies van der Rohe as historical exemplars, and Piano, Rogers, Foster, Nouvel and Koolhaas as the contemporary equivalent.67 As McNeil and Knox also concur, many of these strong-idea firms are now global brand names; some with senior partners whose individual celebrity and marketability have made them rich and famous.68 They are what can colloquially be referred to as ‘starchitects’. The point to understand is that the vast majority of iconic buildings in the global era are built not by the biggest firms, but by “a relatively small number of firms identified with individual architects, often with substantial reputations”.69 In comparison to other practice-types, the
cultural value of these small but highly regarded architectural firms far outweighs their comparatively minor revenues. Finally, the fourth faction identified by Sklair is the consumerist faction, described as the merchants and media who use their control and/or access within the commercial sector to further the interests of the TCC. In the context of architecture, they are sections of the media whose interests lie in the marketing of design in all of its manifestations, but especially in promoting the visual consumption of architectural icons. They are also retailers with a commercial interest in using iconic architecture or architects as a means of globalising the appeal of their own brands.70 This is the success of the consumerist faction; by utilising its power through the media it has the capacity to transform iconic architecture into a type of commodity, that can then be used by merchants for their own gain, whilst at the same time propagating the TCC’s very own interests. These are interests that, it is hereby suggested, are subliminally promoted within the majority of architectural icons currently conceived. It is what Sklair defines as the underlying value system of the TCC and of capitalist globalisation in general: to develop and promote a global “culture-ideology of consumerism”.71 The Culture-Ideology of Consumerism Goss reports that in the early 1990s, shopping was recorded as the second most important leisure time activity in the United States, succeeded only by watching television (which worked to promote shopping to a large extent).72 He declared that shopping had become “the most dominant mode of contemporary
public life” and, whilst at the time most paid no heed, twenty years later Sklair echoes the very same sentiment with his suggestion of a culture-ideology of consumerism. The notion of shopping, or consumerism, as the shared-ideology of a global culture, can be traced back around the time of the industrial revolution in the West, and mid-twentieth century for much of the remaining world. It coincides with the post-war economic boom and the romantic idea of capitalism as key to a dream economy and a happy life.73 Bolstered by the growing popularity of credit cards at this time, this promise in consumerism inevitably led to a state of disenchantment, as Knox explains, “novelty, exclusivity, distinction and the romantic appeal of goods were undermined by mass consumption”.74 In answer to this concern, niche marketing, ‘poetic’ branding and strategically orchestrated product design have become critical to the constant re-enchantment of spending.75 Following on from Debord, Baudrillard and Ritzer among others, Knox writes on the importance of spectacle, extravaganza, stimulation and sheer size in material culture, arguing “they are all key to enchantment and reenchantment in the consumer world”.76 This is the sphere in which architecture relates most directly with the cultureideology of consumerism; as Jencks suggests, “the iconic building is, on one level, just the application of shock and awe to architecture”.77 An apt illustration of this process is how, in recent years, high-end shopping and consumerism has been driven much more by architectdesigned boutiques, with Prada as a good case in point. Rem Koolhaas, Herzog and de Meuron and Kazua Sejima have all designed intentionally-unique stores for the Italian fashion label within global cities.78 When interviewed upon
Understanding the Contemporary Architectural Icon | 8
Figure 4. Prada NYC by Rem Koolhaas (left) and Prada Tokyo by Herzog & de Meuron (right) 82
the unveiling of Herzog and de Meuron’s Tokyo store, Prada’s CEO suggested that “architecture is the same as advertising for communicating the brand”.79 Similarly, on Koolhaas’ equivalent for Manhattan, Ockman writes of the ingenious way in which the architect has transformed an otherwise commercial store into a cultural space.80 This demonstrates that oncebanal building tasks have become more works of art, thus prompting Jencks to cynically suggest: ‘If people no longer go to church, only follow politics as a sport, and dedicate themselves to shopping, then why can’t Prada become the icon of the moment? Clothes are worshipped, scanty-clad celebrities are emulated today almost like saints, and money is the only universal in which a global culture believes”.81 The net result of a consumerist-ideology is the aestheticisation and commoditisation of everyday life, with the practice of architecture having become intrinsic to this process. Insofar as the notion of a TCC suggests the development of new social class not confined to gender, age, race, religion, national boundary or the like, the culture-ideology of consumerism provides the defining set of values – namely, shopping – that, as Sklair explains, “aspires to transcend the very real differences that exist between geographical, ethnic and cultural communities”.83 Fiske even goes so far as to liken consumerism to a religion, with contemporary architecture, and in particularly shopping centres, ‘cathedrals of consumption’.84 In a similar vein, Sklair notes that architectural icons of the preglobal era have become increasingly
9 | THESIS
commercialised in recent years, usually in the interests of tourism and city marketing. “As malls become more cathedrallike” he states, “cathedrals, notably St Paul’s in London, have begun to charge admission and open souvenir shops!”.85 This, Campbell suggests, exemplifies the ‘spirit of modern consumerism’.86 The global system can therefore be considered a constitution of three spheres: economic, political and ideological. Whilst capitalism and globalisation are not synonymous (in the generic sense at least), it is important to appreciate that the dominant forces of global capitalism, the TCC, are the dominant forces in the global system at the present time.87 To be specific, the corporate faction is the core of global economic practices; the political faction is the core of global political practices, and the technical and consumerist factions combine as the dual core of global ideological practices; namely the culture-ideology of consumerism. The TCC strives for control of international (and domestic) economics and politics, as well as of the ideology that defines the global culture. Whilst cultures do not necessarily always share a single ideology and are rarely defined by such, consumerism in the context of a global culture can only be fully comprehended as a shared ideological paradox. In this sense, as Sklair explains, the defining cultural practice (of shopping) reinforces the shared ideology (of consumerism) as equally as the ideology reinforces the cultural practice.88 As spiritual leaders of the TCC, it is the mission of the corporate faction to therefore organise conditions under which the interests of the class, and the interests of the capitalist system in general, can be furthered both within the global and the local contexts. This is the role of the icon, as the hegemonic
architecture of the TCC; it serves to further their interests through an attempt to transpose almost all public spaces into consumerist space. As Sklair proclaims: “Just as one can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of the best Palladian villas while deploring the socio-economic system they promoted ideologically, one can appreciate the Sydney Opera House or the Guggenheim Bilbao while deploring the consumerist interests they serve”.89 Despite a public- and self- image of architects often emphasising the progressive, holistic and, in recent years, ‘sustainable’ genius of their work, reality is that most must operate within the interests of a severely capitalist economy.90 This means that the suggestion of a social good is all too often eclipsed by the bottom-line priorities of their corporate (or public-private) patrons. As such, Kieran and Gutman acknowledge that it is getting more difficult to ascertain exactly how much the architect contributes to major projects, as Gutman complains, media outlets often neglect “the complex relations among the cast of characters who now participate in a major building project”.91 Therefore, whilst most publicity for architectural icons focuses on the architect (the technical faction) and, to a lesser extent, the patron of the project (the corporate faction), it is argued that more awareness should be paid to all factions of the project – without whom these potential icons would rarely be made possible. By doing so, this may help to understand exactly how the built environment can be manipulated in the interests of a dominant class.92
The Art of the Manufactured Icon (Part One): Architecture as Celebrity Whilst this thesis maintains that a true icon should develop on its own accord, reality is that due to a contemporary misconception of icons as singular and unique entities (see Sklair’s Iconic II), it is now possible to confer iconic status to practically any building or any thing. With its controlling stake in the ideology of the global culture, it is this very ability that stands as perhaps the most powerful resource of the TCC. This is suggesting that, through carefully orchestrated campaigns within the media, the TCC has the capacity to influence the public consensus over what is (or is not) agreeably iconic. It is in these terms that the notion of the manufactured icon is conceived and, to be appropriately understood, it is worth revisiting what were previously identified as Sklair’s two defining characteristics of any icon: namely, fame, and symbolic or aesthetic significance. It is not uncommon for architectural icons to attract condemnation for allegations of shallow meaning, a-contextual design, loss of heritage values and the like. Whilst Glendinning and Sudjic attempt to alleviate such concerns through suggestion that the current propensity for icons it is nothing more that a passing vogue, Jencks argues that one cannot underestimate the public’s desire for unique buildings.93 He maintains that it is wishful thinking on the critics part to suggest that the iconic age is coming to an end and that by contributing to negative publicity, they are in fact amplifying the success of the icon.94 For, as Jencks argues, moralistic outrage not only sells well, but it has become “an essential and calculated part of the
message”.95 It is this kind of reverse logic that helps in understanding the rationale and process behind fame in the context of the manufactured architectural icon. If a building is not unusual enough, provoking enough, even hated enough like the Eiffel Tower was at its inception – it will never inspire enough negative energy to become noticed and, potentially, become iconic as a result.96 Sklair & Gherardi go even further in the application of reverse logic to suggest that the high-cost often associated with iconic buildings should actually be condoned as, they suggest, it is eventually offset by the flow of people (and profit) that the icon will entice as a result.97 In this sense, architectural icons can be conceived as a form of speculative investment, designed in most cases to attract a specific global consumer. In order to do so, developers rely on the production and distribution (through the media) of graphically glorified imagery and narratives that often commence circulation prior to the project being built. This alludes to what Sklair describes as the “centrality of the image in the production and iteration of iconicity”.98 As Pallasmaa proclaims: Architectural publications, criticism, and even education are now focused relentlessly on the enticing visual image. The longing for singular, memorable imagery subordinates other aspects of buildings…[and] as buildings are increasingly conceived and confronted through the eye rather than the entire body… the camera becomes the ultimate witness to and mediator of architecture”.99 When buildings begin to be looked upon “purely as images or marketing
objects”, there is a natural tendency to place a greater premium on the visual originality of the architecture.100 This is the basis behind the commoditisation of iconic architecture, where as previously demonstrated through the case of Prada, the distinctive visual identity of the building becomes an important branding device.101 In this case, as much as an icon can be thought of as an investment to its developer, it is also an investment for the architectural firm. As Sklair & Gherardi suggest, signature architects can charge premium fees by selling not only the structure of the building itself, but also the identity created by the icon as the result of their associated brand of architecture.102 Be it a concert hall, museum, airport or cathedral, the value of such architecture to its client is often not only in its performance as a building, but also in its visual uniqueness and the marketability of its designer. In this sense, starchitect designed buildings are akin to a piece of fashion – with value placed primarily on the name of their designer brand and the assumed marketing advantages that are inherent within. As McNeil explains, in a globalising economy, developers come to see the prestige associated with signature architects as critical to acquiring public consent for big projects.103 To ensure that the new development receives the necessary exposure to attract prospective tenants (thus lower the associated risk of the project), Jencks goes further to suggest that “big clients need a judicious mixture of fame and controversy to keep the media interested”.104 They are therefore encouraged to “take risks, break the rules, upstage competitors and shamelessly grab the spotlight”.105 It is this supposed necessity to take risk in order to shock that helps to explain the distaste for iconic architecture amongst many within both the general public
Understanding the Contemporary Architectural Icon | 10
and the profession. For the architects however, it has become somewhat of a double bind: “they are damned if they don’t compete to be outrageous, and damned when their risks looks stupid” which, according to Jencks, “is most of the time”.106 However as long as the potency of a city’s (or corporation’s) brand remains at least in part a derivative of its collection of signature buildings, real estate developers and city leaders will ultimately continue to compete for the service of top name architects.107 This is an unpleasant reality of the fashion-celebrity culture (a subsidiary to consumer culture) that according to Jencks, “substitutes fame and notoriety for traditional value”.108 In the context of architecture, Knox argues that the idea is rooted in the profession’s fixation with the cult of architectural personality – something that he traces back to the emergence of the early twentieth century ‘heroes’ of Modernism.109 Whilst their manifestos described an emerging Utopia, their individual careers, Knox suggests, “thrived on radical egocentricity that was often carefully cultivated to enhance their ‘heroic’ image”.110 Citing Le Corbusier and Wright, he suggests that, as well being genius designers, these most celebrated architects – with their distinctive attire and hauteur – were equally proficient in the art of branding and self-publicity.111 Wright’s propensity for television and radio appearances throughout his career is widely documented, whilst Le Corbusier is credited to authorship of over 50 books and countless other newspaper articles and publications. In fact so recurrent was Le Corbusier’s writing that even Wright himself is known to have once quipped,
11 | THESIS
“well, now that he’s finished one building, he’ll go write four books about it”.112 Minus the distinctive spectacles or signature cape and cane, little has changed in the way that many of the most celebrated global architects of today have what McNeill observes as an identifiable persona and a flair for self-promotion; through book authorship, television appearances or simply looking the part.113 Some like Meier, Hadid and Gehry have, what Rybczynski and Knox suggest; a recognisable style based on striking shapes, surfaces and concepts, whereas others, including Foster, Piano and Herzog and de Meuron, have developed reputations based on a technological or aesthetic response to programmatic conditions.114 Whilst all are unequivocal brands within their own right, they also contribute to the larger, collective brand of ‘famous architects’ that, since as early as the 1980s, has extended beyond the realm of architecture and into areas such as product design. As Gutman as well as Ewen identified at this time, well-known architects are ever-increasingly being lured into popular culture and “there has been a tremendous expansion in the opportunities to consume architectural culture over the last few decades”.115 This statement is equally as applicable now as it was then, with recent cases of architect’s extending their oeuvre including (but by no means limited to) Michael Graves’ kitchenware for Target stores; Aldo Rossi’s kitchen and tableware for Alessi, Norman Foster’s desk accessories for Helit, as well as an exclusive collection of Tiffany & Co. jewellery by Frank Gehry.116 Under the conditions of a consumer culture,
examples such as these help to not only demonstrate the associated value (and marketing potential) of famous architects, but also provide a strong indication as to how the notion of fame should be received within the context of Sklair’s defining characteristics of an icon. In discussion of what she terms the ‘critical infrastructure’ of consumption, Zukin argues that the general depiction of architecture within most forms of mass media promotes a decidedly narrow understanding of design, usually framed around the persona of a the designer or the visual aesthetics of their particular building.117 In this sense, the media’s role in promoting architecture – through television, print, online as well as in films – makes a decisive contribution to what the general public see as famous and, by association, what eventually becomes iconic. It is therefore argued that fame – and most iconic architecture as a result – is largely the product of strategic publicity campaigns, orchestrated by the consumerist faction, and supported in part by a self-promoting technical faction, of the TCC. In account of this argument, one could go further to suggest that the very notion of fame, in its truer sense, should be reserved for the condition of being well known on account of notable qualities or achievements – not merely as the product of a competent press agency. On this basis, it is suggested that a building with no recognisable or distinct reason for being well known other than high media exposure, should more rightfully be bestowed the title not of famous or iconic, but of celebrity. This isn’t to suggest that all
Figure 5. Notre Dame du Haut by Le Corbusier (left), and Frank Gehry’s Walt Disney Concert Hall (right), depicted as the fluttering skirt of Marilyn Monroe on the back cover of The Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma, 2005) 135
iconic buildings that come as the result of extensive publicity should be deemed celebrity, but rather, it concludes that to be truly worthy of fame and subsequent iconicity, a building should offer more, architecturally, than a mere investment opportunity. Recognising this distinction, in establishing a definition of iconic for one of his more recent articles, Sklair makes the explicit point of noting that “icons are famous not simply for being famous, as is the case for various forms of celebrity, but famous for possessing specific symbolic aesthetic qualities”.118 This provides a useful passage into discussion of what is the second of Sklair’s two defining characteristics of an icon, that is, a degree of symbolic or aesthetic significance. The Art of the Manufactured Icon (Part Two): Architecture as Symbol It was previously established that a purpose of the visual image in iconic architecture is to persuade investors (or consumers) to buy into the proposed development. However equally important is the need for its audience to buy into – in the sense of lending credence to – the aspirations of the design itself. Sklair suggests that the most successful icons in this context, are those that apply symbolism or ‘aesthetic significance’ as reference to something (or possibly several things) of value to their audience.119 Whilst this is by no means conclusive, it does present an useful opportunity to analyse the kinds of symbolism that commonly exist within iconic architecture today. First, it must be acknowledged that not all icons necessarily raise questions of symbolism
at all, as for many, consensus over what they stand to symbolise has already been reached (think Iconic I). For those that strive to become iconic however, it is precisely in the ways through which they do so that one can begin to appreciate the different modes of symbolism within architectural iconography. In their aptly titled book Learning from Las Vegas, architects Robert Venturi, Steven Izenour and Denise Scott Brown famously summarised all buildings as either ‘ducks’, where the architectural systems are “submerged and distorted by an overall symbolic form”, or ‘decorated sheds’, where “systems of space and structure are directly at the service of the programme” and ornamental symbols are applied subsequent.120 In the context of iconic architecture, this observation draws strong similarities to the notion of icons as a derivative of time where, ‘decorated sheds’, like Iconic I buildings, rely on the application of existing symbolism whilst, ‘ducks’ and Iconic II buildings, are (or at least aim to become) symbols within their own right. As Venturi et al. ironically conclude, what is needed is more of the “ugly and ordinary” qualities of the former (that is, Iconic I) and less of the “heroic and original” qualities of the latter (Iconic II).121 In the context of Venturi et al.’s analogy, Sklair suggests that most architecture is both a duck and decorated shed, and argues that “iconicity may be a way of celebrating the “duckness” [or uniqueness] of special buildings for what they are agreed to symbolise of express”.122 Whilst this thesis contends that iconicity in itself should not be misconceived as a sign of uniqueness, Sklair’s statement does allude to the fact that many proposed icons, whilst striving
to become symbolic within their own right, do often opt for the application of additional symbolic signifiers. It is suggested that the tendency of decorating icons with symbolic meaning is the consequence of a postmodern absence of any overarching ideology or religion.123 As Jencks explains, “given the desire of society and architects to have great icons and yet not agree on any iconography, they will inevitably produce enigmatic signifiers of varying quality”.124 In analysing the application of symbolism within architecture, de Botton compares it to the use of metaphors or quotation within the written or spoken language. He suggests that symbolism, like metaphors, demonstrates the ease with which the human psyche can connect the sensory and physical worlds.125 In his interpretation of architecture, de Botton believes that enigmatic symbolism communicates to its audience by prompting memories, and indirect associations, from past experiences or settings.126 Jencks concurs with this view by proposing that, when confronted by a shockingly different building, there is a natural and largely subconscious tendency to relate “the new and unusual shape to the old and familiar [visual] code”.127 These psychological theories suggest that symbolism can be interpreted as a means of interaction with the deep and highly personal subconscious of an audience. In this context, the values or messages iconic architecture should convey, particularly when targeting a presumably diverse global audience, becomes an important question.
Understanding the Contemporary Architectural Icon | 12
Because ideals and values are in their nature so personal and often so subjective, one option for avoiding contention is to follow the strategy of many transnational architects by instead opting for a pragmatic, and often superficial, context response. This isn’t to suggest that global icons must value their context necessarily (as reality shows that most could just as easily belong anywhere in the world) but rather, as Jencks argues, it is merely a way to justify any contentious design issues.128 Sklair also agrees that in ‘transnational social spaces’ symbolism should stand to represent a specific sense of belonging within the local context, but with an added disclaimer that in doing so, it must not offend the sensibility of audience members from within the wider global community.129 This demonstrates the contemporary conflict (and confusion) surrounding the symbolic gesture that, according to Jencks and de Botton, has resulted in the chaos of today’s global architecture.130 Where architects were once considered the purveyors of fine style, an overwhelming availability of both emotional and aesthetic global influences has made it increasingly difficult to preside over the difference between good architecture and bad. Gehry would suggest that the difference “ultimately comes down to the talent of the person who creates it”, to which this thesis then argues; that such talent must lie not only in the ability to compose a visually satisfying building, but also in the skill of understanding the values that the architecture might imply.131 If icons demand a strong symbolic gesture but no longer have the sanction of an agreeable ideology or context, Jencks proposes two alternative ‘guidelines’ that he claims lie at the surface of almost all contemporary architectural icons.132 First is a ‘self-conscious’ strategy that can be identified within both the chapel of Notre Dame du Haut by Le Corbusier and the Walt Disney Concert Hall by Gehry.133 Citing the acoustic parabolic curves of Le Corbusier and for Gehry “the billowing skirts of Marilyn Monroe (among other things)”, Jencks alludes to the idea that iconic images can, and often are, developed as a symbolic gesture of a building’s programme or function.134 This is a topic that would benefit from further research in itself, however within the scope of this analysis it must simply be acknowledged that not all building programmes or functions offer the aesthetic opportunities of an acoustically conscious chapel or concert hall. A second alternative to the symbolic gesture therefore, is what Jencks describes the application of multiple enigmatic signifiers that, in the absence of any
13 | THESIS
obvious ideology, can instead allude to complex metaphoric references and meanings.136 It is further observed that such enigmatic signifiers more often than not draw on images that relate to either nature or the cosmos: as Jencks explains, “if you scratch an iconic building hard enough, it bleeds… overtones of the sun and water; fish and animals; crystals and our body parts; rhythmical growth forms of plants and galaxies”.137 Here one can draw on the shells of the Opera House, the spiral form of the Guggenheim New York and the suggestion of fish scales within that of Bilbao, as but a few of the many examples where architects have sought symbolic inspiration (as opposed to scientific in the case of biomimicry) from nature or the cosmos. Jencks suggests that such symbolism has become popularised in recent decades in response to a heightened ecological consciousness and concern across many parts of globalised world.138 De Botton on the other hand notes that the Western world has had a taste for the natural in all major art forms since the late eighteenth century.139 He suggests that such enthusiasm should not be misconstrued as inhabitants of the West becoming any more ecologically conscious in themselves, but rather, “they were falling in love with the natural in their art [and architecture] precisely because they were losing touch with the natural in their own lives”.140 Whilst Jencks and de Botton both present equally compelling hypothesis, a third approach to rationalising symbolic references to nature and the cosmos can be made through revisiting the notion of architecture as a context response – whilst drawing on the adage by Dr Thomas Berry on the universe as the only text without a context.141 In this sense, much like a region’s architectural identity can be understood to have traditionally evolved from the physical and climatic limitations of its local context, the unique biology of the local context itself, must be understood not as an isolated natural phenomena – but rather, as an adapted, evolutionary variation of a greater global biology.142 This suggests that regardless of local diversity, nature and the cosmos should be understood as a globally (or universally) relevant context, thus fitting as the symbolic basis to an architecture that seeks relevance within a global audience.
A Self-Defeating Prophecy: Iconic as a new Architectural Genre Whilst so-called iconic ‘guidelines’ could provide a useful reference point to those that seek to manufacture an instant icon, the suggestion of common qualities within such architecture contradicts the very nature of contemporary (Iconic II) icons as unique, one-of-akind entities. In this sense, such icons would in fact be better identified as Iconic I representations of what could be considered a new architectural style – with common characteristics that include, as Jencks suggests, an aesthetic reference toward programme, or to metaphoric meanings that may allude to nature and the cosmos.143 The degree of inconsistency and vagueness to Jencks’ summation however, indicates that iconic is perhaps best understood not as a style per se, but rather as an architectural genre based on global recognition and some form of unique and symbolic aesthetic gesture. Sklair & Gherardi go further to suggest that, “if the individual icon expresses uniqueness, the condition is not unique”, and as globalising cities compete to accumulate more and more architectural icons, the unique qualities of each individual icon diminishes exponentially.144 Jencks and Knox also acknowledge that, “the serial reproduction of would-be iconic buildings by celebrity architects… will eventually homogenize the visual identities of cities and attenuate any advantage accruing to their competitiveness.145 This application of the law of diminishing returns to iconic architecture can extend also to the iconic nature of architects themselves. As Knox explains, “starchitects… may be faced with the conundrum of how not to upstage their own buildings as they win more commissions in the front regions of major world cities”.146 The overproduction of manufactured icons has therefore become an increasingly pressing issue in the context of capitalist globalisation. As Sklair explains, the TCC “has a delicate balancing act to perform in its efforts to feed the stream of iconic buildings… in the knowledge that too few means the loss of profits but too many means the devaluation of the currency of iconic architecture”.147 This is the consequence of iconic having become an over determined genre and is an issue that will not go away simply because the patrons or architects of existing iconic stock do not like it. Iconic architecture can now be considered a product and, as the result of a culture-ideology in which this thesis argues it promotes, it too has become victim to its own consumer capitalism.
The Crises of Capitalist Globalisation In understanding the production (and proposed destruction) of the manufactured icon, one might begin to reconsider other modes of iconic architecture beyond the realm of capitalist globalisation. With the recently not-quite-so-fanciful suggestion that the current global system might in fact be proving unsustainable, speculating on the transcendence of consumer capitalism raises some interesting questions for the future of the architectural icon. First however, it is important to understand the context in which capitalism might be considered unsustainable, through a brief introduction into what Sklair identifies as “the twin crises of capitalist globalisation – namely, class polarisation and ecological ‘unsustainability’”.148 As identified by Sklair, class polarisation includes “widening gaps in residential, educational and occupational segregation between the richest and the poorest (with groups in the middle experiencing higher levels of economic and spatial insecurity)”.149 Such disparity has become increasingly apparent across many parts of the globalised world in recent years, with the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement one example of an activist campaign aimed at highlighting an increasing social and economic inequality. The second crises – ecological ‘unsustainability’ – has also been the subject of activist demonstrations for quite some time, with awareness heightened recently as the result of a growing consensus over the realities of climate change. Whilst these ‘twin crises’ provide useful insight into the social and ecological limitations of capitalist globalisation, this thesis argues for the introduction of a third and fourth crises that centre on economic and cultural constraints. In the economic context, it is argued that events such as the recent Global Financial Crisis demonstrate the shortfall of a capitalist system that relies on a culture-ideology of overconsumption; fueled by a denial of the unfortunate realities of actual (as opposed to borrowed) spending power. This dilemma is then further exasperated by the fact that in the event of a tipping point (as in the case of 2008-09), the most plausible solution to balancing the global economy is to stimulate increased consumption through further debt.150 In the cultural context, it is proposed that the fourth crisis could derive from the inability of capitalist globalisation to ever completely obliterate cultural pluralism. As the prospect of a global society combines with the apparent shortcomings of capitalism, is it suggested that many parts of the developed world are beginning to experience resilience
against such influences, with a subsequent resurgence towards regionalisation and the protection of cultural values. These four challenges directly correlate with what have recently been identified as the four pillars of sustainable development: economic, ecological, social and cultural. With each crisis also directly related to the expansion of capitalist globalisation and the ideology of everincreasing consumption, it is concluded that capitalism cannot prevail as the dominant global system in the context of a sustainable future. Conclusion: Speculating on the Future of Iconic Architecture Speculating on the prospect of a noncapitalist global system is not to suggest that iconic architecture will ever cease to exist. The history of architecture shows that icons have an ability to transcend even the most unpalatable political and economic systems, and in this sense, it is recognised that iconic architecture will almost certainly prevail, regardless of the global (or local) systems at play.151 By introducing the possibility of a post-capitalist existence, the intention is to instead discredit the “hegemonic coupling of consumerism and emancipation”, on which the attraction of most contemporary icons is argued to rest.152 Whilst it is unlikely that architects or their patrons could ever forgo the desire to produce instantly iconic buildings, it is hoped that as the culture-ideology of consumerism fades away, so too might the misconception that iconic architecture must depend on a unique and provocative visual identity. Instead it is argued that icons might return to being celebrated for their archetypal consistency, for our current existence is already inundated with more than enough chaos and disorder. It is suggested that in the post-capitalist future, iconic architecture might return to honour such restrained qualities of order, composure, harmony and the like whilst, at the same time, consciously work to celebrate, rather than suppress, the characteristics of local context. As history, culture, climate and geography provide architects with countless opportunities to develop a tailored response, a truly iconic building might therefore come to be defined not by the ability of the architect to be provocative, but rather through the sensibility in which they were able to convey the most desirable qualities of a place, time, type of building or style. Icons of today might not have a recognisable ideology to defend; but they still possess the capacity to influence their audience. From this perspective it would be unwise, and most likely impossible,
to ever extirpate propaganda from iconic architecture altogether, as creative forces will always find ways to bypass any attempt at architectural rules or aesthetic regulation. Instead, it is suggested that one might endeavor to demand more honourable architecture, through policy that encourages more thought behind the iconography and more coherence in the use of metaphors.153 With economic, environmental, social and cultural considerations also likely to play an increasingly important role in the architecture of a post-capitalist future, it is acknowledged that the iconic genre as currently conceived does not represent a very sustainable form. In order to retain relevance, it is therefore suggested that the architectural profession would be wise to orientate away from promoting the starchitect, toward instead the starkitect – with a commitment to architecture that is sensible, contextual, honourable and sustainable. If iconic consensus is subsequently achieved, it is then a tribute to the skill with which the architect coaxed an audience into reminiscing upon personal values through his or her eyes.
This thesis was submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture (Design), Deakin University, October 2012.
Understanding the Contemporary Architectural Icon | 14
ENDNOTES 1
“icon, n.”, OED Online, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
2
Leslie Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29, 3 (2005), 485-500.
Leslie Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, City, 10, 1 (2006), 21-47.
Leslie Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’, Theory, Culture & Society, 27, 5 (2010), 135-159.
Leslie Sklair and Laura Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’, City, 16, 1-2 (2012), 57-73.
3
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’
4
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 27.
5
“Chiswick House”, (http://www. english-heritage.org.uk/content/ properties/chiswick-house/ gallery-for-chiswick-house/ gallerylchiswick02.jpg), retrieved 23 September 2012.
6
“Mohamed-Ali-Mosque” (http:// tantawi.deviantart.com/art/ Mohamed-Ali-Mosque-I-74875208), retrieved 23 September 2012. “Washington National Cathedral” (http://richardschwartz.files. wordpress.com/2010/07/ washington_national_cathedral_ lg.jpg), retrieved 23 September 2012. Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 28.
7
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 28.
8
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 28.
9
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’
10 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 25. 11 “Guggenheim Museum Bilbao”, (http://istevie.files.wordpress. com/2010/12/guggenheim-bilbao1. jpg), retrieved 23 September 2012
12 Kieran Long, ‘David Chipperfield”, Iconeye: Icon Magazine Online, (2003), retrieved 28 August 2012 (http://www.iconeye.com/ read-previous-issues/icon-008-|december-2003/david-chipperfield), retrieved 18 September 2012
Leslie Sklair, ‘Commentary: From the Consumerist / Oppressive City to the Functional / Emancipatory City’, Urban Studies, 46, 12 (2009), 2703-2711.
Sharon Zukin, Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).
13 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 31. 14 Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’
William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900, (Londres: Phaidon, 1996).
Maria Kaika & Korinna Thielen, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, City, 10, 1 (2006), 59-69.
15 Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’, 57. 16 Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900, 351. 17 Alain de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness, (New York: Vintage Books, 2008), 145. 18 de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness.
Neil Crombie & Alain de Botton, The Perfect Home, (Sydney: ABC TV Australia, 2006).
19 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’. 20 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, 59. 21 Denis E. Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984). 22 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, 59. 23 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’
Hubert Damisch, Skyline: The Narcissistic City, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001).
Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, (Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 1991)
15 | THESIS
24 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’
Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’
25 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’ 26 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, 61. 27 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, 61. 28 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, 62. 29 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, 62. 30 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, 62. 31 Siegfrid Giedion, ‘The Need for a New Monumentality’, Harvard Architectural Review, 4 (1984), 5361. 32 Charles Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’ City, 10, 1 (2006), 3 33 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, 62. 34 “The Seagram Building”, (http://farm1.static.flickr. com/218/480120119_ ae163065bb_o.jpg), retrieved 23 September 2012.
“John Hancock Centre” (http:// www.gothereguide.com/ john+hancock+center+chicagoplace/), retrieved 23 September 2012
“Sears Towers”, (http://www. ritchiewiki.com/wiki/files/thumb/ Sears_Tower_-_looking_up.jpg/ 296px-Sears_Tower_-_looking_ up.jpg), retrieved 23 September 2012.
35 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’.
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’
36 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’
Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’
Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’.
Sklair & Laura Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’
Mona Domosh, ‘Corporate Cultures and the Modern Landscape of New York City’, Inventing Places: Studies in Cultural Geography, (1992), 7286.
Jeb Sprague, ‘Transnational Capitalist Class in the Global Financial Crisis: A Discussion With Leslie Sklair’, Globalizations, 6, 4 (2009), 449-507.
Charles Jencks, The Iconic Building, (New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 2005).
Paul Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, International Handbook of Globalization and World Cities, (2012), 275.
37 Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’
Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’. Andrew Smith, ‘Monumentality in ‘Capital’ Cities and its Implications for Tourism Marketing’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 22, 3-4 (2007), 79-93.
38 Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 279 39 Kaika & Korinna, ‘Form Follows Power: A Genealogy of Urban Shrines’, 63. 40 Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’
Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’.
41 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’
Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’
42 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’
43 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’
44 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 485. 45 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 22-4
47 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’
Sprague, ‘Transnational Capitalist Class in the Global Financial Crisis: A Discussion With Leslie Sklair’
Leslie Skalir, The Transnational Capitalist Class, (Hoboken: WileyBlackwell, 2001)
48 Sprague, ‘Transnational Capitalist Class in the Global Financial Crisis: A Discussion With Leslie Sklair’, 505 49 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 24 50 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 24 51 Kees van der Pijl, ‘Transnational Classes and International Relations, 1 vols, (Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 1998).
Peter Dickens, Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, (New York: The Guildford Press, 2007).
Sanjeev Khagram & Peggy Levitt, The Transnational Studies Reader: Intersections and Innovations, (New York, Routledge, 2007).
Sprague, ‘Transnational Capitalist Class in the Global Financial Crisis: A Discussion With Leslie Sklair’
53 Robinson & Harris, ‘Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalisation and the Transnational Capitalist Class’ 54 Robinson & Harris, ‘Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalisation and the Transnational Capitalist Class’ 55 Skalir, The Transnational Capitalist Class.
46 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 24
William Robinson & Jerry Harris, ‘Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalisation and the Transnational Capitalist Class’, Science & Society, 64 (2000), 1. Jason Struna, ‘Towards a Theory of Global Proletarian Fractions’ The Nation in the Global Era: Conflict and Transformation, (2009), 120.
52 Richard Appelbaum & William Robinson , ‘Towards a Critical Globalization Studies’, Critical Globalization Studies, (New York: Routledge, 2005), xi-xxxiii.
56 William Robinson, A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production Class and State in a Transnational World, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004) 57 Skalir, The Transnational Capitalist Class. 58 Sprague, ‘Transnational Capitalist Class in the Global Financial Crisis: A Discussion With Leslie Sklair’, 504. 59 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 485. 60 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 486. 61 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 486. 62 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 486. 63 Robert Gutman, Architectural Practice: A Critical View, (Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988). 64 Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’ 65 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 486.
Understanding the Contemporary Architectural Icon | 16
66 Kris Olds, Globalization and Urban Change: Capital, Culture, and Pacific Rim Mega-Projects, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 67 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’
Olds, Globalization and Urban Change: Capital, Culture, and Pacific Rim Mega-Projects
68 Donald McNeill, ‘In Search of the Global Architect: the Case of Norman Foster (and Partners)’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29, 3 (2005) 501-515.
76 Guy Debord & Ken Knabb, Society of the Spectacle, (London: AK Press, 1983).
Jean Baudrillard, The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, 53 vols. (London: Sage Publications, 1998).
George Ritzer, Enchanting a Disenchanted World: Revolutionizing the Means of Consumption, (London: Sage Publications, 2005).
Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 276.
77 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 11.
Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’
78 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’, 142
69 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 488.
79 John Vlovine, ‘Multicoloured Frock Shop’, Guardian, (2003), 12-13.
70 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 496. 71 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’
Sklair, ‘Commentary: From the Consumerist / Oppressive City to the Functional / Emancipatory City’.
72 Jon Goss, ‘The “Magic of the Mall”: an Analysis of Form, Function, and Meaning in the Contemporary Retail Built Environment, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 83, 1 (1993), 18-47.
Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’, 141.
73 Patrick W. Jordan, ‘The Dream Economy: Designing for Success in the 21st Century’, CoDesign, 3, S1 (2007), 5-17. 74 Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 276. 75 Thomas Frank, The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).
80 Joan Ockman, ‘The ¥€$ man’, Architecture, 91, 3 (2002), 76-79. 81 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 5-6. 82 “Prada NYC & Tokyo” (http://www. rdlrblog.com/?p=199), retrieved 23 September 2012 83 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’, 139-40. 84 John Fiske, Reading the Popular, (London: Routledge, 1991). 85 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’, 140 86 Colin Campbell, The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism, (London, Writersprintshop, 2005). 87 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 24. 88 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 136. 89 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 152-3. 90 Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’
17 | THESIS
Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’
Grant Gibson, ‘Not Everyone’s a Starchitect’, BD 2008 World Architecture, (London: Building Design, 2008), 6-11.
91 Stephen Kieran, ‘The Architecture of Plenty: Theory and Design in the Marketing Age’, Harvard Architecture Review, 6 (1987) 10313
Gutman, Architectural Practice: A Critical View, 487.
92 Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’, 58. 93 Miles Glendinning, ‘The Last Icons: Architecture Beyond Modernism’, The Lighthouse Scottish Architectural and Design Series, (Glasgow: Graven Images, 2004).
Deyan Sudjic & Allen Lane, The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World, (2005).
Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’
94 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 10. 95 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 10. 96 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 12. 97 Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’ 98 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 26 99 Juhani Pallasmaa & Peter Mackeith (eds.), ‘Towards an Architecture of Humility’, Encounters: Architectural Essays, (Helsinki: Rakennusteito, 2005). 231. 100 Glendinning, ‘The Last Icons: Architecture Beyond Modernism’, 10. 101 Jencks, The Iconic Building
Chuihua Judy Chung, et. al., Project on the City 2: Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping, (Cologne: Taschen, 2001).
Audrey Kirby & Anthony Kent, ‘Architecture as Brand: Store Design & Brand Identity’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19, 6 (2010), 432-439.
102 Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’, 66.
103 Donald McNeill, ‘Office Buildings and the Signature Architect: Piano and Foster in Sydney’, Environment and Planning A, 39, 2 (2007) 487501.
120 Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown & Steven Izenour, Learning From Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form, (Boston: The MIT Press, 1977), 87.
104 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 9.
121 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 30.
105 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 9.
Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 280.
106 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 10. 107 Sklair, ‘The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities’, 21. 108 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 12. 109 Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’. 110 Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 279. 111 Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 279. 112 Edgar Tafel, Years with Frank Lloyd Wright: Apprentice to Genius, (New York: Dover, 1985), 65. 113 McNeill, ‘In Search of the Global Architect: the Case of Norman Foster (and Partners)’. 114 Witold Rybczynski, ‘Architectural Branding’, Appraisal Journal, (2008).
Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 278-9.
115 Gutman, Architectural Practice: A Critical View, 93.
Stuart Ewen, All Consuming Things: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture, (New York: Basic Books, 1988).
116 Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 281. 117 Sharon Zukin, Point of Purchase: How Shopping Changed American Culture, (New York: Pyschology Press, 2004). 118 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’, 136. 119 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 26.
Ewen, All Consuming Things: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture.
141 Dr Paul Collins, Thomas Berry Interview, (Sydney: ABC Radio National, 1995). 142 de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness, 34. 143 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’. 144 Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’, 64.
122 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 30. 123 Sklair & Gherardi, ‘Iconic Architecture as a Hegemonic Project of the Transnational Capitalist Class’.
140 de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness, 159.
145 Jencks, The Iconic Building.
Jencks, The Iconic Building.
124 Jencks, The Iconic Building, 196.
Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 282.
125 de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness, 90.
146 Knox, ‘Starchitects, Starchitecture and the Symbolic Capital of World Cities’, 282.
126 de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness.
147 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization’, 37.
127 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 13.
148 Sklair, ‘Commentary: From the Consumerist / Oppressive City to the Functional / Emancipatory City’, 2704.
128 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’. 129 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’, 135. 130 de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness, 44.
Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 11.
131 Jencks, The Iconic Building, 172. 132 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 13. 133 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 13. 134 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 13. 135 “Notre Dame du Haut”, (http:// www.thearchitectureroom.com/ IMAGES/Ronchamp.jpg), retrieved 23 September 2012)
“Walt Disney Concert Hall/Marilyn Monroe”, from Charles Jencks, The Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma, (London: Frances Lincoln, 2005), back cover.
136 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’.
Sprague, ‘Transnational Capitalist Class in the Global Financial Crisis: A Discussion With Leslie Sklair’, 501.
Skalir, The Transnational Capitalist Class, 6.
149 Sklair, ‘Commentary: From the Consumerist / Oppressive City to the Functional / Emancipatory City’, 2704. 150 Sklair, ‘Commentary: From the Consumerist / Oppressive City to the Functional / Emancipatory City’.
Sprague, ‘Transnational Capitalist Class in the Global Financial Crisis: A Discussion With Leslie Sklair’.
151 Sklair, ‘Iconic Architecture and the Culture-ideology of Consumerism’, 136. 152 Sklair, ‘Commentary: From the Consumerist / Oppressive City to the Functional / Emancipatory City’, 2703. 153 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 16.
137 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 13. 138 Jencks, ‘The Iconic Building is Here to Stay’, 13. 139 de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness, 159.
Understanding the Contemporary Architectural Icon | 18