WHY MANY FEMALE ARCHITECTS CHOOSE TO REMAIN INVISIBLE WHEN OPERATING WITHIN A MALE-FEMALE ARCHITECTURAL PARTNERSHIP
In the architectural practice, the majority of the women architects have chosen to operate as invisible while operating within the male-female architectural partnership. The women are typically invisible based on leadership, academic success, and merit in practice. The paper will discuss the personal and professional reasons among the females to involve themselves in a male-female partnership. Some people argue that the women devote themselves in the partnerships for romance purpose. Furthermore, the historical timelines of the male-female partnerships will be useful in creating more understanding on the topic. Our argument will be based on those women that who have sought to thrive their recruitment and ranks within the architecture profession as it exists. Moreover, another argument will examine the women who have intrigued the nature of the architectural practice and described their architectural design practice in modes that are different from the existing one. The negative impact as a result of these partnerships is evident because on some occasions it has led to misattribution of the task of the male associate because the male partner is known.
Historical Timeline of the Male-Female Partnership
Aino Aalto and Alvar Aalto partnership become evident in 1923. After Aino got her certification in architecture, she married Alvar. Aino involved herself in designing the earlier buildings such as Villa Mairea in 1937 that was situated in Noormarkku.
Reima and Raili Pietila couple liaised to develop the modernistic style.
The Denmark couples, Inger and Johannes Exner formed a good partnership that was lined with building and renovating existing house. They applied a functional as well as an anaesthetic strategy in their work.
French architect Charlotte Perriand liaised with Le Corbusier to form a partnered that led to the advancement of a functional living pace that majored on deigning interiors and furniture. Perrirand decided to concentrate on furniture design.
Portuguee architect Maria José Marques da Silva and David Moreira married each other and focued on completing building projects in Porto.
Elizabeth Bohm and Gottfried formed a partnership that focused on apartment buildings and other key building projects.
Margot Schürrmann and Joachim Schürmann married each other and were influential on the present German architecture.
Maria Schwarz and Rudolf Schwarz is memorable for reconstructing churches in the city of Cologne. Despite her couple’s demise, Maria operated the family company and carried on the preceding projects.
Elizabeth Close and William Close married each other and liased in establishing a form in 1938. Elizabeth ran the family firm while William was constructing University of Minnesota campus.
Marion Griffin married Burnley Griffin and they worked in Wright Studio. The coupes are remembered for completing projects individually in Chicago, Canberra and India. Griffin society (n.d) state that an example of the architectural work is the Capital Theatre auditorium.
(Griffin society, n.d.)
Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi found each other at the University of Pennsylvania. Denise was instrumental in the leading civil planning projects and liaising with the Brown’s firm on the organizations project. Architect Magazine (2013) illustrate that Niko Hotel is an architectural work of Denise Scott Brown (Architect Magazine, 2013).
(Architect Magazine, 2013).
UK architect, Amansa Levete married Jan Kaplický and they became a director of the Future Systems Company. Levete preferred to attend the meetings with the customers. Levete is recognized with the capability of allow Future Systems’ organic forms marketable. A perfect example of architectural work of Amanda Levete is the elfrige BirmingHam Building.
(Davie, 2013)
According to Easley (2011, p.228), the class bias of the nineteenth century ignored the plight of the professionals in the construction and real estate industry. The class prejudice ignited a myopic view of women capabilities and their prospects as architects. Hence, the biasedness blocked the women from full participating in the professionals which restrained them to the decorative tasks. The patriarchy views associated women active agents in the home and unpaid household duties. Borden, Penner, & Rendell (2002, p.168) contend that the women who pursued architecture career were forced to begin as designers. Notable architects such as Harriet Agnes and Robert. The men feared that the women will cause in unemployment among the men if they took more jobs. The scholars also narrates that the notion is that the women were intruders in the men’s workplace had a long history after the institutional obstacle had been infringed at the RBA. Additionally, there was only a mere chink in the rigid sexual labor of division which assigned the practice of architecture to men until the terms of the First World War (Borden, Penner, & Rendell 2002, p.167).
At the beginning of the twelve century, the debates had concentrated on the socially responsible sexual difference between the women and architecture. Feminist discussion and analysis have been productive in understanding the argument on women’s difference from men. Spezzano (2014, p.2) argue that women were in need of a psychic transformation and that their oppression required to be examined in a different way. The focus on psychotherapy to curb the differences between the women has received a lot of criticism. He maintain that the psychoanalytic theory is valid in an area of interaction between biological and social definitions of sex and gender differences (Spezzano, 2014, p.3). The sexual difference cannot be interpreted in a way as a result of this psychoanalytic theory. Breggin (2015, p.22) analyses that the psychoanalytic theory offers more comprehension on the insensible way in which persons obtain sex and gender properties, perceptions into the construction of the gendered topic and the numerous descriptions of the associations between the suppressed elements of the unconscious and feminine. Spezzano (2014, p.3) claim that the women’s social role a mother had a differing effect on the psychological progress among the boys and girls (p.3). The female mastered the art to collect the object while the girls learned to separate themselves. Fenichel (2006, p.8) says that feminists that assume that the cause of the women’s oppression and the sexual difference can be identified in material substances analyze the use of psychoanalytic theories for comprehending the construction of the female subject (p.8).
The male and female architecture partnership has offered them a stable and a high profile form of practice. For instance, the associate male eases the routes to access for a male profile elite providing the progress required maintaining a practice while nurturing children. Borden, Penner, & Rendell (2002) views that some people assume that the woman’s duty responsibility is linked to the interior and decorative aspect of the male partner (p. 167) A perfect illustration of such a male-female partnership was between Charles Eames and Bernic Ray, who were spouses. Their collaborations resulted in the progress of modern infrastructure and furniture. Other couples that illustrate these arguments were Jane Drew and Maxwell Fry, Diane Agrest, and Mario Gandelsonas. Breggin (2015, p.21) assert that the terminology patriarchy referred to a particular kind of household organization in which the father was viewed as the ruler of an extend sovereignty and managed the economic production by home . The feminism character resists the theory that was earlier formulated by theorists such as Kate Millett. Millett view male dominance of the scheme that prevails area of sex (Breggin, 2015, p.21). He viewed that the society is a patriarchy in which the treatment of women by men is simply more vigorous than class layers. Breggin (2015, p.21) believe that Millett’s theory view that there were fewer permanent class associations than the males. Millett perspective is that the class divisions are valid only for the men.
For an extended period of time, there has been a dramatic change in architectural history and design. According to Borden, Penner, & Rendell (2002),“ the feminist architectural history has advanced from a recovery of evidence of women architects to embrace the role of theory, specifically critical and gender theory in interpreting architectural representations historically” (p.167). On the one hand, women interested in architecture are divided into two: those who opts to continue as gender neutral, and the ones that target to make explicit their feminist intentions (ibid). Moreover, the practice of architecture entails numerous process, as well as product, drawing, writing, and building. Borden, Penner, & Rendell (2002, p.168) contends how historians have illustrated the approaches of how women had to battle for inclusion in the male-dominated career. For donkey's years, institutions of learning had not welcomed the idea of women to become professional architects.
Architectural history can also be expounded by focusing on a more radical line on the gendered nature of architecture. Borden, Penner, & Rendell, (2002, p.168) examines how the role of males in architecture has been superior in comparison to that of females. For instance, it has been well documented that iconic male figures in architecture have built extraordinary buildings in the past. On the other hand, women have been linked to, “ low-key buildings, domestic, interior and textile design, spaces or practices” which has been viewed as trivial in the public domain (Borden, Penner, & Rendell, 2002, p.168). Because of such biases in the field or architecture, female architects have opted to remain invisible when operating within a male-female architectural partnership. The male fraternity and the society at large have been undermining the role of women in architecture as long as we can remember.
In the practice of architecture, female architects have opted to remain invisible by desiring to operate as architects and not to advocate for a female status. The role of females in architecture has either been a conspicuous role as a professional or as a sole practitioner in their firms. Examples of such female architects encompass Eileen Gray, Truus Schroder, Lilly Reich, and Judith Scheine amongst other. Firms that have been helped by women to maintain their high profile include Koning Eizenberg, Future systems, Werkfabrik, etc. (Borden, Penner, & Rendell, 2000, p 228). The female architects describe above have chosen to remain comfortable with their roles as since they do raise matters of gender concerning their design work unless it is a scenario that engages sexual discrimination during the practice.
Since time immemorial, women accepted their traditional role in a male-female architectural partnership because it has enabled them to achieve stability and maintain a high profile in the practice. An example of such partnerships includes Elizabeth Diller and Ricardo Scofidio, Charles and Ray Eames, Patti and Michael Hopkins, Alison and Peter Smithson, Jane Drew and Maxwell Fry, etc. Disputably, the male-female partnership helps female to access a career dominated by males and also support females to continue with their expected domestic roles without much conflict. But fairly often, the partnership has resulted to a disadvantage because women have been denied the opportunity to operate as high profile architects as they are left to work behind the bars.
The male-female architectural partnership has determined the nature and role of both genders towards the architectural process. For instance, men have assumed that women should work in the interior and decorative aspects of the design, or even implement the schemes and architectural works designed by men. Besides, women have been undermined and also subjected as sexual objects in the partnership. For example, Scott Brown discusses how she was subjected to sexism as a female partner by Robert Venturi, a prominent male architect. Brown also asserts that critics and journalists failed to appreciate her main role in the formulation of design ideas and projects. The existing differences in the male-female partnership prompted female architects like Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Margaret Schutte-Lihoztky to champion for reforms in architectural designs so that the role of women could be realized and appreciated. The decision of women to remain invisible in architectural works is more of a man-made created environments that perceives males as superior creatures. The patriarchal ideology inscribed in space expects women to remain under the authority of men within the society.
Crysler, Cairns, and Heynen, (2012, p.87) described that feminists designers created architectural designs inspired by the female-body. For instance, female architects preferred designing womb-like and curvaceous forms rather than the phallic towers, spaces which focus on aspects of the enclosure, exploring the relationship between inside and outside through openings, hollow and gaps (Crysler, Cairns, and Heynen, 2012, p.87). Women are also said to play a different role in architecture. They have been associated with creating values like connectedness, inclusiveness, and ethics of care, subjectivity, and feelings in design (Johnson, 1994, p.170). Examples of women designers who have used these values include Eileen Gray, Susanna Torre, and Lilly Reich as they depict the value differences in the kinds of spaces which nurture the flexibility vital to women’s social roles within the society.
The Hegel’s gender-specific differences can be applied in the qualities described above to explain why female architects prefer the invisible roles in a male-female relationship. We all agree to the notion that the activities of women in the society have remained in the private realm of children, human relationships, and traditions (Johnson, 1994, p.170). The significance of these perspectives, according to Johnson (1994, p.170) is that “the female experience has been more attuned to the ‘narrative structure of action’ and the ‘standpoint of the concrete other.” The role of women as primary caregivers also reduced the aggressiveness to act in roles and responsibilities that are said to be meant for males. It is, therefore, accurate to conclude that: men universalize, women particularize (Johnson, 1994, p.171).
Furthermore, Ellen Perry Berkeley and McQuaid (1989) agrees with the lighthearted assertions by a female architect known as Joan Goody who contends that, “most have played the female role in relation to their powerful patrons” and that they “have a fair number of the traditional female attributes (i.e. they are sensitive, artistically creative, and malleable) and the traditional female flaws (they are temperamental, spendthrift, and late)” (xxii). Besides, women decide to remain in the invisible role because men feared stiff competition from them. For example, male architects had an apparent desire to remain unassisted in the proactive role vis-à-vis architecture. As a result, the perseverance and nonparticipation of female architects in the submissive roles are attributed to pure paternity. Johnson (1994, p.172) proclaims that much have to be done so that women can become radical if they wish to realign their practices and roles in the profession.
As elucidated above, considerable attention has been shifted to women careers in architecture. According to Grover (2015), Female architects have suffered from numerous challenges in the practice. For instance, they have been subjected to extended working hours, paternalistic culture, poor compensation, sexism, and task restriction. The perceived masculine norm has made women suffer for a long period, making them inferior in most practices that they engage themselves within the field of architecture (Langa, 2013). The cultural assumptions have always worked to the disadvantage of women because men are the ones charged with the responsibility of determining the role of females in this profession (Grover, 2015). Masculinity has prompted the exclusion of females in numerous and diverse roles, and they have been left with no choice but remain invisible in the profession. Throughout history, males have intimidated the female architects, and this has made them inferior. Therefore, most female architects has developed a sense of weakness and accepted to remain invisible while operating in a male-female architectural partnership.
Bibliography
Architect Magazine. 2013, April 5. Mielparque Nikko Kirifuri Hotel and Spa | Architect Magazine | Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates, Nikko National Park, Japan, Hospitality, Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown. Retrieved from http://www.architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/mielparque-nikko-kirifuri-hotel-and-spa
Berkeley, E.P. and McQuaid, M. eds., 1989. ARCHIT PLACE FOR WOMEN PB. Smithsonian.
Borden, I., Penner, B., & Rendell, J. (2000). Gender Space Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: Routledge
Breggin, P.R., 2015. The biological evolution of guilt, shame and anxiety: A new theory of negative legacy emotions. Medical hypotheses, 85(1), pp.17-24.
Crysler, C.G., Cairns, S. and Heynen, H. eds., 2012. The SAGE handbook of architectural theory. Sage.
Davie, C. 2013, April 3. The architect designing world's iconic buildings from a warehouse - CNN.com. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/03/world/europe/amanda-levete-architect/
Easley, A., 2011. Literary celebrity, gender, and Victorian authorship, 1850–1914. University of Delaware.
Fenichel, O., 2006. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. Routledge.
Griffin society. (n.d.). Walter Burley Griffin Society - Australia. Retrieved from http://www.griffinsociety.org/Lives_and_Works/australia.html
Grover, A. 2015, August 7. Women in Architecture | Gender Equality Architecture Reform, Architects. Retrieved from http://www.zingyhomes.com/latest-trends/women-in-architecture-gender-equality-architecture-reform/
Johnson, P.A., 1994. The Theory of Architecture: Concepts Themes & Practices. John Wiley & Sons.
Langa, A. (2013, August). Architecture's Lean In Moment - Metropolis Magazine - July-August 2013. Retrieved from http://www.metropolismag.com/July-August-2013/Architectures-Lean-In-Moment/
Spezzano, C., 2014. Affect in psychoanalysis: A clinical synthesis. Routledge.
