iKonic ArKitecture  

As someone who has worked in retail for years, specifically in the visual department, my ultimate responsibility was to uphold visual standards to enhance customer experience. It is no secret that “customer experience” translates into “means by which to get a shopper to spend the most money possible, and enjoy that experience so greatly, that they want to come back and do it again”. Thus, the discussion about Tod’s in Tokyo, and the outrageous expenses which go hand in hand with launching and running a Flagship store, were no great surprise to me. Flagships are advertisements. They are interactive billboards. They foster relationships, and I would be surprised if any retailer depends on their flagship to carry the business of the company, or even just support itself.

The great thing about capitalism in our globalized world today is that shopping and the exchange of money for goods can be done in a number of ways. But, before a consumer goes to buy something, they need to be convinced it is something they want or need. This is the true purpose of a flagship store – Marketing. In a sense it is the shallow, beautiful, charismatic business partner whose charm and presence are undeniable.

…Which brings me to Kim Kardashian. (I know, I’m sorry, but just keep reading).  Kim Kardashian is the perfect example of brilliant marketing, whose “professional purpose” is to exist for public consumption of her brand, which translates into millions of dollars being spent by the public to continue to “consume” her public persona. She embodies two important ideas when it comes to iconicity today:

1) Celebrity culture, along with competitive branding, is much more powerful than architectural taste.

2) The decline of religion is a key shift in the veneration of icons, but just as important is the decline in all ideologies and shared public belief systems. “Weak belief” characterizes our global culture. The consequence of weak belief today in art, as Arthur Danto has argued, is that “anything can be art.” (Prospect article).

This obsession with celebrity culture goes hand in hand with the decline of religion. As a community we have replaced one “belief system” with another, and the side effect is that “…anything can be art” and anyone can be a celebrity. Kim may have had a questionable start in the celebrity realm, but she has been able to sustain it because she embraces the capitalistic, global community we live in, she works the system, and has subsequently made much more than a reasonable living off of it.

While at first glance I think most people would deny Kim K. as an icon, what makes her any less of an icon than a theater or sports stadium? All three are “entertainment”, all three generate money, and all three have specifically and carefully crafted exteriors.

I guess this leads me to two questions – Similar to Eileen’s thoughts, is the ability of an establishment to generate funds a new standard for iconicity, however shallow and perverse that may be? Have we become so secular, and capitalist now that anyone can claim anything “iconic” (with the right marketing) or vice versa,  no one can claim anything futuristically as iconic because the era of meaning and value outside of monetary value, has passed?

It makes me think of the SNL sketch with the Kim & Kanye talk show. Jay Pharaoh, who plays Kanye, spends the entire “show” praising Kim for being a genius, being ahead of her time. Imagine that is true –Maybe Kim is the icon of the future. Americans have always held people who worked hard and made something of themselves in high esteem  (rags to riches stories). What if the next incarnation of that is not necessarily hard-working people, but well-marketed, money-generating people? I mean, isn’t that basically where we are at right now with architecture? Are we already rewarding the Kim Kardashian’s of architecture with the label of iconic? Have we moved into a new era of iconic which is dependent upon how that specific thing contributes to the capitalist global community?

Maybe Kanye is onto something…

'Architainment' in a Pluralistic World

Paul Jones’ look into iconic architecture and its ties to regeneration brought up some interesting points to start off this week’s readings. One concept that stuck with me is the idea of  “architainment” as a fundamental tendency within today’s architectural landscape. Jones references Fernandez-Galiano when defining ‘architainment’ as “positioning architecture relative to visual consumption. The ‘surface appearance and visual effect is paramount as buildings are designed from the outside in, from the vantage of an external gaze…“the public” are positioned as consumers of visual imagery” (Jones, 120). At this point in the semester we’ve evaluated and discussed several contemporary buildings and architects that are revered as ‘iconic’ by many (Guggenheim Bilbao, Libeskind, Zaha Hadid, etc.). Within so many of these discussions there always seems to be a mentioning of money and it being the impetus of the building. The idea of ‘architainment’ feels like it revolves around money, as well. After all, as Jones argues, iconic architecture today has such an emphasis on the exterior spectacle of it all: how can the building attract more media, more people, more money? It’s very easy to claim that these new statement buildings are hardly more than methodically contrived attention-grabbers, phony icons.

While I can’t argue that the money-making or fame-seeking approaches are new reasons for constructing iconic buildings, I do find it interesting when considered alongside Charles Jencks’ opinion towards pluralism and our societies today. Jencks argues that the decline of central belief systems and the increasing homage towards pluralism is the dominant attitude and way of life in our world. Interpreting Jenck’s view on our “weak belief” system to mean that it is weak in numbers and unity across a given society (versus a general uncertainty from person to person), it is then understandable why we’ve had such a hard time establishing what “iconic” really means. Everyone has varying opinions and points of view – none of which can really be argued as right or wrong. (However, one could argue that money and its attainment may be one of the most resilient belief systems of all.) Perhaps this is why defining an icon – whether within the architectural field or elsewhere – has become such an elusive and complex task.

Reading Jencks’ blunt breakdown of our global culture was somewhat of a light bulb moment for me – especially since I feel like I’ve had such a hard time defining what iconic truly means and really wanting a clean definition. I continue to refer back to Martin Kemp’s “Fuzzy Formulas” and I think Jencks’ viewpoint pairs nicely with it. There is no exact formula to calculating whether something is iconic or not – most especially in today’s world. There are so many variables and so few central beliefs across the world for any one iconic recipe.

…But could there maybe be one exception in terms of a common denominator – it all comes down to money?

Architecture Sells

Up to this point in our Interior Architecture program, I feel as though we haven’t paid much attention to retail design, so I found it interesting to get to delve deeper into the idea behind flagship retail stores. As a consumer, I have been to a few flagship stores before, but honestly didn’t think much about their design or the experience the companies were trying to create. In Flagship stores as a market entry method: the perspective of luxury fashion retailing, Moore, et al. provide a strong foundation for understanding the characteristics of a flagship store as well as the motivations behind using them as a method of market entry for companies.

Throughout this semester, many of the topics we have covered have related architecture back to the economy in one way or another, but I felt like the subject of retail design has a more direct relationship to consumerism. By attempting to create the next tallest or most unique building, cities and companies have been attempting to establish, re-vitalize or further their brands less transparently; the average person does not necessarily make a connection between architecture and the way they spend their money. Flagship stores, however, are doing the same thing, but more obviously. Everything about the way a flagship store is designed – the store’s location, the materials used, the square footage, the floor plan - is intended to make a statement about the company’s brand, or at least how they want you as a consumer to perceive said brand. It’s an incredibly clever way to get consumers to not only open their wallets, but also buy in to the experience the company is selling.

What struck me about the motivations for companies to establish flagship stores in foreign markets was that they were remarkably similar to the driving forces behind cities who want to bring in celebrity architects to re-vitalize certain areas through architecture. It is all about creating or enhancing a recognizable brand that will attract consumers and tourists. Moore et al. indicate that a major impetus for companies to establish flagship stores is that they are able to recruit new, wealthy customers. Similarly, as mentioned in a few of the articles for this week, the “Bilbao Effect” is employed as a way to attract new tourists to an area via a standout piece of architecture. Essentially, flagship stores use architecture and design as a way to sell a brand and consequently, merchandise, whereas cities use architecture as a way to sell places and increase their revenue from tourism.  There is definitely something to this. I have noticed more and more that when friends or family are travelling to different cities, the first pictures posted on Facebook are those of them in front of the Space Needle in Seattle or the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles despite the fact that most of them are not architecture buffs and couldn't tell you who designed said buildings.

Iconic architecture has mass appeal and whether designed specifically for consumerism, has the potential to translate into big money for cities and companies alike.

The Need for Monumentality

 Every period has the impulse to create symbols in the form of monuments, which, according to the Latin meaning are ‘things that remind’, things to be transmitted to later generations.  This demand for monumentality cannot, in the long run, be suppressed.  It tries to find an outlet at all costs –Sigfried Giedion

According to Lange, a monument is an object whose function is to mark a place, either at the places boundary or at it’s heart.  He goes on to say, “a monument must mark a place of more than private importance or interest.  The act of marking is then a public act, and the act of recognition an expectable public act among the members of the society, which possesses the space,”.  Society takes possession of public places and celebrates it. 

Statues are one form of monument erected to keep alive the memory of a particular person or event in a given culture.  Statues are often idealized works of art that contain ideological, political, or religious representations that many times become eternal features.  They often last many generations and become a symbol for the community around them.  The different symbols being displayed in statues, remind us of the different values of the different cultures.  

As a wave of “statuomania” swept over the world in the 1990s, many huge statues were built.  Most of them are located in Asia and represent the Buddha.  According to Buddhist tradition, sacred objects such as statues provide a uniquely powerful means by which we can bring to mind the positive attitudes that are essential to the development of loving-kindness.  A Buddha’s image is used as an inspiration for creating and spreading positive human qualities like love and peace.  In many ways statues such as this can evoke strong emotion and allow us to experience many feelings. 

Architecture can often provide an important space for remembering.  Architecture has increasingly become a space for the memorialization of socially significant memories, including loss.  An example of architecture that is commemorating loss is the Ground Zero site.  This site shows how powerful a monument can truly be.  In the words of Libeskind, “the project is a “healing of New York”, a “site of memory” and “a space to witness the resilience of America”.  In a way, I think monuments can truly be amazing in that they can serve as a symbol for hope or other such feelings and serve as a significant role in the lives of people all around the world. 

When thinking about the architecture and construction of memorization, I would like to repeat Jones’ question: What memories are fit for commemoration?  What is it about a certain event or person that makes one want to honor them? 

Memorials and Trauma

After reading Paul Jones's "Architecture and Commemoration:The Construction of Memorialization. i feel like memorials should help us consider trauma and rethink and re-actualize the past. As events and circumstances unveils in the present, a memorial's destiny recall the past and provide conditions for new responses in future. Which makes me think Is it possible to conceive of memorials that focus on that warning as the key elements of concern connecting the past and future? Can we build memorials that, while addressing events and honoring victims and survivors, contribute to acts of remembrance, demand proactive engagement, and envision a better world?

The article by Andrea Oppenheimer Dean presents the information on a historical museum and how Moshe Safdie revitalized the whole museum by creating long walkways with side galleries, each providing a chapter the a story. By assigning a deep meaning and experiential space within a structure, I was left with a question in my mind How do we convey the design of the public spaces and memorial spaces? How do we position ourselves as an architect, teacher and student while working on such projects?

To my understanding i think neither art nor architecture can compensate for public trauma or mass murder. What architects can do is establish a dialogical relation with those events and help frame the process towards understanding.