Besides being the title of a Brian Jonestown Massacre album, “Thank God for Mental Illness” also represents one dimension to the ethos of contemporary architecture, a discipline often prone to psychological extremes in the pursuit of great, paradigm-breaking buildings. But, is this really necessary? Do we need to be self-destructive and extreme to pursue our dreams?
Now that it is common knowledge that many architects are crazy or dysfunctional “geniuses” I think it’s time to reconsider this paradigm and to possibly overturn it. This image has become so romanticized that it has crossed the line of cliché. When something becomes a paradigm, is canonized, or institutionalized, it needs to be challenged.
More after the break.
Recently, a prominent figure in the profession stated that the pursuit of architecture is not intended to be compatible with or supportive of good mental health. Something to the effect that your psychologist might advise you to avoid unstable and dangerous circumstances, but good architecture depends on this. This might just be a provocative way of saying architecture is no place for those who wish to avoid creative challenges. But the context of this message is telling. It speaks to the broader architectural imagination as one that thrives in the midst of uncertainty, instability, and pain. Oh, the poor suffering architect, dying for his art.
How did architecture get this way and where does this come from? In part, it comes from the history of architecture, which tends to deify seemingly eccentric, driven, single-minded “heroes” who sacrifice everything for their “vision.” As students, we are bombarded with such narrowly-defined hero narratives.
Deified architects, both living and dead, are rarely discussed outside the context of their spatial or creative production. It is as if they were not really human beings. They are merely characters for the communication of larger architectural ideals that have become institutionalized in the academy and in practice as “modernists” or “postmodernists” or other “-ists”. The overall effect is the production of a culture based on the logic and madness of extreme psychologies—extremes that are at once revered yet feared—especially if you have ever worked for this type of mad architect-genius.
The moral of these institutionalized narratives is that everything must be subservient to the pursuit of great architecture, everything must be willingly sacrificed. All things must burn, including one’s self, to fuel the flames of creative genius necessary to produce…buildings. That’s right. All this sacrifice and insanity to make buildings.
The hidden element to all this sacrifice is an extreme self-centeredness or even narcissism. Architecture is one of those disciplines that has plenty of room for narcissists. There is also a lot of insecurity built into this. When you take a bunch of fragile, sensitive, creative people and gang them together to make a profession there is bound to be some dysfunction on a broader level—similar to Wall Street, except they make more money on that street then we do on ours.
Most people who pursue architecture are not eccentric geniuses. They are baseline normal people who are compelled to enter a field that celebrates eccentrics and the supposed dysfunctional emotional worlds that both haunt and propel them toward “greatness.” This has become the narrative of great architecture.
Let’s do something to change this. We can keep the creativity and the intensity without all the immature, self-indulgent dysfunction. Architecture would be much stronger as a profession and as a culture of success if we could just get rid of some of our over-identification with psychological extremes.
As for sacrifice, it should be clear that what we are talking about is the sacrifice of life on the outside: family, friends, health, and financial gain. Other professions accommodate the complexity and richness of life. Architecture often has it backward. It assumes that architecture is life and that other dimensions to living intrude or detract from the necessary “focus” or “intensity” required.
Architects experience high rates of divorce, alcoholism, drug use, and early mortality due to stress-related diseases like cancer and heart disease. Many architects also suffer from depression due to the unceasing pressure, long hours, low compensation, and unstable job security. Clearly, there has to be a better way to produce paradigm-breaking architecture.
The profession can do more to promote a culture that balances work with life rather than simply assuming work is life. The responsibility for developing a culture that values existence on the outside, or acknowledging that there is indeed an outside to value, rests with each individual. After all, if there is nothing outside of architecture then what can we then bring to it?
The Indicator, a weekly column focusing on the culture, business and economics of architecture, is written by Guy Horton. Based in Los Angeles, he is a blogger for Metropolis and frequent contributor to GOOD, Architectural Record, The Architect’s Newspaper and Architect Magazine. He is also a contributing architecture critic for The Huffington Post. Follow Guy on Twitter.
The opinions expressed in The Indicator are Guy Horton’s alone and do not represent those of ArchDaily and it’s affiliates.
“Architects experience high rates of divorce, alcoholism, drug use, and early mortality due to stress-related diseases like cancer and heart disease.”
Are the any genuine sources for this information? I would like to read more on it.
Doubt it. You could say this about a lot of professions.
No, seriously.
Are there any sources for this or did you just pull this out of a hat for sensationalism?
I am still waiting for an answer.
While I could perfectly understand that, I actually found opposite results: “Engineering, architecture, and surveying were the occupations with the lowest rates of depression (4.3 percent) last year, according to a report by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)”(as of 2008). But I guess that doesn’t apply if you’re self-employed.
The only paradigm that should be broken is paradigm of always having to break paradigms. This article is sophomoric.
Amen, brotha’! This is the first article I’ve ever seen discussing this topic, and I couldn’t agree more. Why does nobody seem to notice that the culture of architecture is one of self-indulgent narcissism? The “oh-my-god-I haven’t-slept-for-days…isn’t-that-cool” culture absolutely drives me nuts!
I was an artist before I was an architect and I can vouch that mental instability is NOT a prerequisite for creativity. But because people believe it is, they strive to be so.
I think the most detrimental thing to architecture right now is its academic realm. Although my perspective is definitely limited, from what I have seen, professors of architecture on the whole seem to perpetuate the self-involved, “architecture is everything” notion. In fact I would even go so far as to say that they brainwash their younger students into believing this. However, the reason architects can’t find jobs right now is (in my humble opinion) because they’ve dug themselves into a hole where their profession is supposed to be about genius and creativity and beauty—rather than about solving problems.
Maybe if we change the culture of our profession to one that is centered outside of our discipline, instead of in our own laps—in other words, solving real problems, for real people—then architects could find more work.
And as for the prior comment, I really don’t think you’ve got much of an argument to back up that put-down, man.
This article is a great. I’ve been living abroad working on humanitarian projects for the past couple of years, and as I continue to gain distance from the academy, I can say that the most striking thing about archi-culture is how absurdly insular and dysfunctional it is. Seriously—when I think about the number of critiques that revolve around a trefoil knot circle jerk or farcically complex computational forms—the more I think that the academy misses the point entirely. Architecture is ultimately about facilitating human experiences and interactions. More often than not people would like their architectural experiences to be enjoyable and delightful. Instead there is this tendency to treat people as the byproduct of architecture rather than its riason d’terre. You need to live in the world in order to design it.
“You need to live in the world in order to design it.”
such a great quote!
who doesn´t live in the world?
great article, thank you! well said
Great article-I couldn’t agree more. However, I am fortunate enough to be studying architecture at a school where this paradigm is questioned and the more cogent questions in architecture are addressed. I don’t think the myth of the solitary mad genius will ever go away but, in my experience, the existence of this phenomenon in practice is definitely a fringe occurrence. As architecture and building becomes more complex, the collaborative nature of practice will be the dominant paradigm.
what school? im jealous
University of Waterloo School of Architecture in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Great great article, I love how all these “secret-architect-society” rituals are coming to light with these series of articles.
“Clearly, there has to be a better way to produce paradigm-breaking architecture.”
I would argue that “breakthroughs” in architecture are most always the result of “knowing”, that is, having an innate understanding of the paradigms currently in place, thereby having the ability to part from them logically. The problems of architecture and urban planning are inherently multifaceted, which dictates research that spans across multiple disciplines, something that aside from being extremely time consuming, one does not encounter in many other “occupations”.
Look at any of the most influential contributors to architecture in the past 100 years, Corbusier or Koolhaas for example. They did not change the world by guessing at solutions, they knew where the institutions of the time stood and were able to make a conscious, logical departure from those paradigms. Publications like Le Modulor, Delirious New York, or S, M, L, XL were not a result of 9-5 workdays 5 days a week, these groundbreaking works were the products of years of research and then years more spent applying that research. Hence it is my argument that architects are not self-depraved maniacs, but simply people that understand, want, and like to do what it takes to push the limits of their field. Furthermore, I would posit an outward appearance of “insanity” is really just a telltale sign of an architect who has done their homework, no one is trying to go insane to be a better architect, that would not lead to better architecture.
It would also seem as if you are suggesting that architects need more of a “life”. But just as you differentiate between “eccentric” and “baseline” people, so too is it possible to differentiate between definition of “lifestyle”. I think we would all agree that it is up to an individual to determine their own “lifestyle”, thereby making it improper to impose your own ideals and lifestyle choices on those of another. Perhaps these “eccentrics” just prefer reading and working to socializing or other ways of spending time. It’s not like they are forced to do what they do, and you should not fault them for it or complain when they receive recognition because of it.
I know it is common among architects to resent the amount of time it takes to produce “good” architecture, but that is the reality of our chosen profession, and fortunately for us, we have a choice over how much time we spend “working”. What you are advocating for already exists – If you consider yourself a “baseline” person, then work baseline hours, just don’t expect any sort of special recognition for it. Architecture does not, cannot celebrate mediocrity.
Work as hard as you want, but do not try and discredit people that work harder and longer than you do by claiming that they are somehow mentally unstable, it’s just not fair or true.
Loved both the article and this response.
Great points are being brought out all around but kudos to you my friend – some great points above.
This article says to me: live better ……. stop thinking
The “oh-my-god-I haven’t-slept-for-days…isn’t- that-cool” culture absolutely drives me nuts!
Couldn’t agree more man.
amen. i’m glad someone is trying to write this article. architecture culture truly underestimate the value of rest and repose and the resulting clear-mindedness and efficiency.
however, while architects (especially in academia) perpetuate poor and hypocritical practices, there are larger economic and cultural factors that also fuel the malaise in which our profession finds itself today. we desperately need to redefine what it means to “pursue our dreams.” our institutional and professional narratives need to privilege ethics, community and craft over individual acts of genius.
BUT, you can’t overlook the fact that there are many “mentally ill” people in architecture and the creative professions. this is not simply the product of a maniacal culture but rather a reliable link between creativity and illness (there is plenty of empirical data out there to support this claim). i certainly wouldn’t classify the serious anxiety disorder i struggle with as “immature, self-indulgent dysfunction”. it’s not a choice. anyway, we could benefit from being open and transparent about mental illness. what architecture really needs is a huge dose of compassion. after all, it’s about people, right?
Thank you! Thank you for saying this. I am ready for the revolution and to reclaim a place for architecture and architects that encourages health, collaboration, cleverness and beauty over starving competition, insecurity and the narcissism of so-called genius.
Im a student studying architecture and agree with alot of these comments, especially the ones about the tutors encouraging a total immersion into the world of architecture. We were told in an introductory meeting that we wouldn’t be seeing our friends, wouldn’t socialize and would essential have to live architecture. How much of this is down to the final-year-in-architecture school mentality and how much of this is the reality of architecture as a profession I dont really know, all i do know is we are encouraged to destroy ourselves for architecture, and as a result it drives many people away from it. surely there’s a better way of doing things.
Architects are competing eachother untill death and the market is using it with great appreciation, not noticing the fact there’s more as paying the lowest fee possible.
There’s less design-budget to build a building, which means less time, which means that when to reach a certain level of ambition: more and more overhours, no pay, early death.
I would like to refuse being part of this, but also I have a certain ambition, and also I need to make a living.
Maybe it’s time to get on the barricades, and say: NO MORE! yes is NO MORE!
Or return to your desk tomorrow morning and start another 14 hours working day. Also quite comfortable. Just you and your desk, who needs money, it’s all about the art.
Good article, completely agree.
I think the idea is not to work less. When you work on something you beleive and like you might forget about working hours. I think this is passion. I love it. When it happens I feel alive. But when long frustating underpaid hours with egocentric architect boss are spent only to achieve a “suferring geniuos mode” it’s just shame. It realy encaurages narcisism. I can see it in people around me in the profession. Industry who hires architects very much uses this situation. What it does is actualy killing lively and natural creativity which is so human. I chose this profession because of it. It is sad because architectural profession is so filled with lively people who strive on creativity.
Great article, complete agreement, but where are the solutions, the suggestions? Saying something is problematic is easy. You have fallen into your own trap, producing an ‘iconic’ blog entry, a work of literary genius, but have not offered anything truly beneficial to society, the architecture profession in this literary case. Having received my masters over a year ago, remaining unemployed for that year, and just started an acceptable job two weeks ago, I do not yet have the experience to offer solutions either. But that makes me all the more frustrated to read articles like this that simply complain or point fingers. How can I contribute to change that is requested by such articles when I am not given the slightest hint of where to begin?!
“How can I contribute to change that is requested by such articles when I am not given the slightest hint of where to begin?!”
Where to begin…? For a start, there’s so much that architects and planner have NOT done, look around at all the problems plaguing the city. Seems as someone who is interested in humanity’s ills, I should have tried to become a doctor instead! No doubt a lot of them are due to political and social forces, but we are also responsible for ignoring the larger societal context as we genuflect at the altar of shrill icons, garish municipal trophies and supernova architects, a lot of hot air fueled by extraordinary economic bubbles.
Realistically, design is very much dictated by the market, unfortunately, but as a collective, we do have the power to influence professional directions in the way we express our approbation, Thumbs Up or Down.
Articles like these is a step closer to the return of an Architecture that is more connected with the compulsions of society.
It is impossible not to wonder if the practice of architecture became this or if it was purposefully made into this. I would guess it was some sort of a natural process and so once you begin architecture school they just warn you about it. But what I wished to be the case is that once you are in school you are actually bad at managing your time and developing an efficient design method. But once you go into the job market, you still get lost in your ideas, conceptual development and still things take more time than initially estimated. And deadlines. The client wants everything for yesterday. Time is always money. One day remodeling your business can cause a catastrophic deficit in profit. People have meetings with investors, partners and they just need a whatever section cut to show the project exists…And then there is the whole other side of the culture: free internships, competitions beyond paying hours, working in highly acclaimed offices 16 hours a day getting paid a pathetic stipend because we are all that vain (and we like cool things). But here is the bottom line in my opinion: Life goes in phases. You might be in you crazy I breathe, eat and dream (whenever I sleep) architecture. I think it’s an awesome state to be in if you are, deep down inside, enjoying the ride. If you are not, do the minimal, get outside and allow yourself to have other experiences. Then one day, you might miss that chaos again, and dive right back into it. You really can´t do everything at once. We get bored easily. Allow some change to take place. About the actual architectural culture…well…we wouldn´t have to change architectural practice per say, but the external forces that control and demand it. Fast.
It is impossible not to wonder if the practice of architecture became this or if it was purposefully made into this. I would guess it was some sort of a natural process and so once you begin architecture school they just warn you about it. But what I wished to be the case is that once you are in school you are actually bad at managing your time and developing an efficient design method. But once you go into the job market, you still get lost in your ideas, conceptual development and still things take more time than initially estimated. And deadlines. The client wants everything for yesterday. Time is always money. One day remodeling your business can cause a catastrophic deficit in profit. People have meetings with investors, partners and they just need a whatever section cut to show the project exists…And then there is the whole other side of the culture: free internships, competitions beyond paying hours, working in highly acclaimed offices 16 hours a day getting paid a pathetic stipend because we are all that vain (and we like cool things). But here is the bottom line in my opinion: Life goes in phases. You might be in you crazy I breathe, eat and dream (whenever you sleep) architecture. I think it’s an awesome state to be in if you are, deep down inside, enjoying the ride. If you are not, do the minimal, get outside and allow yourself to have other experiences. Then one day, you might miss that chaos again, and dive right back into it. You really can´t do everything at once. We get bored easily. Allow some change to take place. About the actual architectural culture…well…we wouldn´t have to change architectural practice per say, but the external forces that control and demand it. Fast.
I feel that is among the such a lot vital information for me. And i am glad studying your article. But wanna remark on few common things, The web site style is great, the articles is in point of fact great : D. Just right task, cheers
Random Thought: Given what colleges stand for shouldn’t those professors that have been in the field prepare students more. I.E. teach them about the politics involved in architecture and how an architect wanting high profile projects has to damn near be a politician himself (meeting mayors, governors, committees i.e. influential people). And teach the students how to deal with pressure and crazed owners of companies who have no patience. Or at the very least introduce the students to an architect that is living off of the winnings of design competitions. Architecture and Art are married and they both have so many sub-categories that there is room for everyone.