Prominent Women in Architecture - Coursework Example

Introduction

Imagine of a situation whereby shared built environment – schools, public places, theaters, homes, hospitals, and even office and business buildings – involve more females in their design. It is a pity that only a small percent of females are involved in the designing of buildings in the global scale. Gender specialists believe that if more females were involved in design, then they would change the manner in which cities feel, look, operate, not due to their gender, but due to the additional contribution with respect to human creative intelligence which they would add to the manner in which cities are designed and address human problems. History is not a social system which power goes for individuals with superior intellects. It is a narrative of the previous written facts and revised by people with agenda. For the thousands and hundreds of years ago, there is nothing new in history. Women are known to have significantly created important contributions in the modern architecture from the past period to the present. But it is unfortunate that women architects have been forgotten, and there are complex and varied reasons of this fact. It is only recently when women started being recognized as practitioners in architecture.

Forgotten Women in Architecture

In the past, historians believed that there were no women practitioners in architecture before the mid-20th century and therefore they did not concern studying the contributions of female architects in the architectural field. It was not the female architects would stumble upon architectural designs by chance. Their work remained unrecognized because institutions and historians had been sluggish to collect women’s work (Karen, 2011). Milka Bliznakov (a Bulgarian architect) created the “International Archive of Women in Architecture” (a house at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg) in 1985 as a result of frustration at the huge loss of materials from the initial group of female architects. Few archives were in need of materials of female architects, and as these females died, consequently their records, designs, and materials ended up in waste. Forgetting the contributions of female architects also has been rooted in the models used for writing the history of architecture. The design of architectural monograph design that has long prevailed in the industry influenced to celebrating the quality of a male figure like vigor, toughness, independence, and boldness, which have been coded in the western culture as masculine qualities (Yasmin, Eva, and Carlos, 2017). Furthermore, the architectural monograph is normally seen as kind of lineage that puts the architects in heredity of “great males”, identifying the “masters” from whom they have descended down to the great followers.

Early historians, who wrote about the contributions of female architects, utilized the monographic design to create narrow criteria of great females, but they failed to challenge the ideology that best architecture is created by male individualists. The monograph ideology emphasized on great superman individualism, a phenomenon that barred histories to put into account of collaborative work in the archives since the work of a team was considered to decrease individual contribution of male architects (Stead, 2012). This has significantly led to the overlooking of female architects since it is common for women to work in partnership (for individual and professionals interests). Females stood firm on their own contributions, but majority of prize evaluators and historians follow the traditional ideology of glorifying or celebrating individual supermen architects; consequently overlooking the contributions of female architects regardless of talents.

Sometimes, it can be admitted that females have contributed to their own fate (i.e. their disappearance). According to Gill (2014), men architects do not hesitate to take proactive role in preserving their contributions and legacies by keeping safely their correspondence, drawing, and models and writing memoirs. Females, who were taught that self-promotion is an unattractive trait, have created fewer efforts to narrate their stories. Where are female architects? Whereas other professions have progressively been feminized, architecture has barely progressed since the Second World War about 19% of architects are females, and it is not what women want. Yasmin, Eva, and Carlos (2017) explained that early architects have been portrayed as lone practitioners or objects of curiosity who battling discrimination. But with time, the participation in and entry into the architecture profession experienced less resistance since many factors allowed entry and tolerance within the profession. Factors which encouraged entry of females into the architecture profession included the end of World War I, the gradual formalization of architectural training, and others. A changed status of women was seen from 1880s, when they were given admission to universities. They are gradually accepted into the profession.

More than 130 years ago, females have been struggling to secure a foothold in the profession. In 1879, Mary Louisa Page managed to become the first female to graduate with an architecture degree in North America. However, several architecture schools declined to admit females until the 1972 enactment of Title IX prohibited gender discrimination in federally funded education programs (Gill, 2014). Women who persisted found employers doubtful of their skills and skeptical that they could excises authority on the building site. Also, bosses believed females would quit after going for marriage, something that relatively justified paying them fewer salaries compared to what their male counterparts got. Regardless of more than 20 years of research work and publications on the historical contributions of female architects, the traditional architecture has not incorporate the contributions of these women in the traditional record of great buildings. Although, feminist architects wanted their contributions to be complied separately with that of the traditional records, the records remains inconsistent and is frequently confused with study of other feminist and gender issues in architecture (Heynen, 2013). It indicates the challenges related to the recording of the contribution of female architects to both the mainstream records in architecture and to the feminist principles which virtually now work has been made on the history of female architects.

The inclusion of females’ contribution to architecture can be categorized into a five-phase process: (1) the absence of female from the curriculum; (2) the inclusion of notable females as defined within traditional frameworks; (3) the definition of females as “minority” or “problem” so that to explain their absence; (4) the inclusion of less-traditional sources and inclusion of females’ perspective of experience as a subject of study; and (5) a reconceptualize vision which makes history reconsidered or transformed curriculum (Yasmin, Eva, and Carlos, 2017). Investigation of the history and contributions of female architects based on the five-phase process has been vital because it aimed to answer questions such as where were the great female architects, why were they so few in the field of architecture? And why are they so invisible in the field of architecture? The history of mainstream architectures believed that there were no women architects nor did they make fundamental difference in terms of contribution to architecture than males.

The studies to the history of female architects are frequently motivated by a desire to develop role models for the modern female practitioners and to recover the contributions which females have created to architecture. A presumption that there were few female architects before the 1960s has created a typical historical reviews of female architects who have been unable to define the level of women’s contribution to architectural practice and design. More recently such typical reviews have paved way for comprehensive assessment of individual women (Heynen, 2013). The consequent monographs investigated the contribution of individual women to architecture and therefore presented woman architects as consistently unsuccessful architects as individual practitioners, in their own right or partners in successful firms. They were conceived within the traditional and conventional framework of historical discourse and their contributions did not matched those of men practitioners highlighted in the mainstream architecture. These studies limited the discussion of female architects, disproving the number of female architects and their achievements in architecture.

Architecture is a profession that does have a history of welcoming females and continues struggling with their integration. Architecture remains a complex profession for females to crack. Though a female accounts for 50% of the U.S architecture graduates, they only represent 17% of licensed practitioners and even lesser partners of architectural firms (Gill, 2014). The reasons more females than males leave architecture are not effectively understood, but the culture of this profession is known to idealize male architects while dismisses feminine traits. Women architects are invisible in history books and popular culture, but they have practiced in the U.S for more than 130 years. Young women who seek to enter architectural practice know the history of great females who created an anchoring sense of roots. Lloyd (2016) viewed that given lesser career opportunities, confronted with lesser salaries, and lack of mentors, women architects leave the professions in alarming high numbers. How is this detrimental? In law and medicine (other historically male disciplines), 30% of practitioners are females – about twice the rates of female architects. Furthermore, today full-time women architects earn 20% less than men architects, according to the report by the U.S Bureau of Labour Statistics.

Female critics in architecture

Even today the design and architecture industry still does not provide the same opportunities for women. The sector has been at the forefront of gender parity. Women are still fighting for gender equality in the sector. It is the 21st century, but the problem is the same story as in the past (Stead, 2012). Women architects talk about their sufferings at work because of gender biasness facing them in the sector. They renew the concerns of the extreme lack of women representation in the profession.

It is not just females in science who face it rough. Women architects encounter the same sexism at work. At least 70% of women architects reveal experiencing bullying, harassment, and discrimination at work. This form of wide discrimination could explain why few females pursue the profession. Stead (2012) identified that the reason for leaving the profession is that women architects with children have less time to commit themselves to the highly competitive profession and are known to struggle to break in after taking some time off the career. There is a big stigma for quitting the profession because as many women leave they never get back in. It is extremely rare to get females in architecture who have children. About 87% of women architects reveals that having children is a set back to their careers.

Many female critics (such as Yen Ha, Farida Abu-Bakare, Amanda McNally, Zaha Hadid, and others) have raised the issue of women’s status in architecture. They condemn persistent gender gap in status and gap in the profession and see the integration of the profession is still unfinished and fraught business (Lloyd, 2016). Yen Ha identified that women absolutely encounter obstacles in the profession. She said that the profession is largely a white male-dominated career and seeing a woman in a meeting with developers or in a job site is rare. Each day she had to remind somebody in the construction site that she is an architect because she was not white, male, tall, nor wearing black, funky glasses. Every time she had to introduce herself as an architect. But the contrary was that she was approached to answer architectural problems whenever such issues arose. Besides that, Farida Abu-Bakare recognized that black American women constitute less than 0.3% of the architecture industry. She was concern with this phenomenon because of inadequate demographic representation in the profession.

Amanda McNally recognized that always she stepped into a new construction site, she was considered as an intruder in a “boy’s club”, but this quickly disappears as soon as she treats them with respect. But she identified that being a woman has certain advantages because clients normally feel comfortable working with a woman during design process. Also, Zaha Hadid was a strong critic of the traditional architecture (Troiani, 2012). She identified that is very difficult for woman to go alone in architecture since the profession is still a man’s world. Hadid frequently said that she did not intend to serve as a symbol of progress for women in her profession. However, she was inevitably forced to do due to the prevailing circumstances.

Hadid was born in 1950 in Baghdad to a father who was one of the founders of the Iraqi Democratic Party as well as a mother who was an excellent artist. It is evident that Hadid was born in a setting that promoted path to success (Abdullah, Said, and Ossen, 2013). She left Iraq and completed her studies in Beirut, aspiring architect 22 years old who later relocated to England and studied at the Architectural Association School of Architecture. Her teachers and peers noticed her outstanding talent. Rem Koolhass (the influential architect and former professor) even identified her as a “planet in her own orbit”.

After her graduation, Hadid worked in Netherlands for her former professors, and finally in 1980 established her own firm identified as “Zaha Hadid Architects”. She taught architecture and often documented her sketches in artistic journals (Troiani, 2012). Though these works rarely materialized, she worked hard to remain on the forefront until the rest of the world noticed her work. She did not make her success on a silver plat. She worked hard for it. She was a woman from Arab roots and therefore working in a conventionally male-dominated industry through her journey to the peak was challenging. In her entire career, Hadid felt excluded and sidelined from what she identified as the “Boys Club”. This implied, being left out of activities her peers participated in – they go golfing, fishing, going out and having drink (Abdullah, Said, and Ossen, 2013). But as a woman, Hidad was excluded from such bonding. It was a huge difference. Hadid was not only excluded from camaraderie activities of colleagues, but also she was discriminated against a professional level.

Mirroring the gender inequality in architecture, there are few female role models in the profession. Zaha Hadid may be the lone living female celebrity in the field. She was a great woman who put herself in the field. She made a huge difference. She was the only and the first sole female winner of the Pritzker Prize, the most prestigious honor in the profession. Hadid died at the age of 65. She was a luminary in the field of architecture. She was a celebrity whose buildings, face, and name are known by millions (Troiani, 2012). She was one of the most talented and celebrated architects in the world. She created a practice with at least 200 employees and worked whole over the world. She complained that she was judged more harshly because she was a woman. Hadid reported that breaking through such a barrier had been a long time struggle for her.

Hadid’s death contributed to great loss of an outstanding role model in the architecture industry. This is not to claim that there are not excellent several inspirational and talented females in the architecture. But no woman has accomplished Hiadid’s reputation just like few male architects have made. Against all hindrances and prejudice in the field, Hadid broke record from one to another. In 2014, she became the first female to win the Pritzker Architecture Prize. After two years, she became the first female given an award in the Royal Institute of British Architect (Abdullah, Said, and Ossen, 2013). Hadid was a role model in the profession. She boosted self-identity of women by helping to counter damaging stereotypes which cast doubts on the women’s capabilities to create excellent work in the industry. She increased motivation for the career success and advancement and fostered on sense of identification with the profession, combating alienation.

Due to these reasons, the shortage of women role model in the profession can be extremely damaging. A recent survey showed why females dropped out of the profession. About 30% of women architects who left the career said that the lack of role model as the deciding factor. Therefore, the profession should concentrate on removing the challenging barriers which continue hindering women from rising to the top (Troiani, 2012). The media also has a significant role to play to pay attention to the excellent work being performed by female architects across the world. Just like journalists treated Hadid for every positive line about her contribution appeared to attract women who cast doubt on her integrity and work.

Several women in the profession knew the toughness of Hadid as her refusal to be prejudiced or discriminated. Currently, the many young women in the profession lead grassroots movements to demand that the profession become more egalitarian and diverse (Abdullah, Said, and Ossen, 2013). Hadid become outspoken on the challenges that women face within the profession and she had an authority to speak about discrimination facing women in the field. Hadid left great legacy to women architects around the globe, a responsibility to carry, which light forward for the future generation of women to fight for.

Conclusion

The feminism activism highlighted in the study is important to advocate for change in the architecture profession. Women architects are all available, but they are frequently invisible. Architecture is a traditionally male-dominated field. However, without female architects, the world looks completely different. It is clear that female critics in the architecture as illustrated in this study played a crucial role as efforts to enhance the status of women in architecture profession. They provide significant views to help and encourage the practicing women architects to advance their careers in architectures and advocate for their dignity and status.

Sometimes, it can be admitted that females have contributed to their own fate (i.e. their disappearance). According to Gill (2014), men architects do not hesitate to take proactive role in preserving their contributions and legacies by keeping safely their correspondence, drawing, and models and writing memoirs. Females, who were taught that self-promotion is an unattractive trait, have created fewer efforts to narrate their stories. Where are female architects? Whereas other professions have progressively been feminized, architecture has barely progressed since the Second World War about 19% of architects are females, and it is not what women want. Yasmin, Eva, and Carlos (2017) explained that early architects have been portrayed as lone practitioners or objects of curiosity who battling discrimination. But with time, the participation in and entry into the architecture profession experienced less resistance since many factors allowed entry and tolerance within the profession. Factors which encouraged entry of females into the architecture profession included the end of World War I, the gradual formalization of architectural training, and others. A changed status of women was seen from 1880s, when they were given admission to universities. They are gradually accepted into the profession.

More than 130 years ago, females have been struggling to secure a foothold in the profession. In 1879, Mary Louisa Page managed to become the first female to graduate with an architecture degree in North America. However, several architecture schools declined to admit females until the 1972 enactment of Title IX prohibited gender discrimination in federally funded education programs (Gill, 2014). Women who persisted found employers doubtful of their skills and skeptical that they could excises authority on the building site. Also, bosses believed females would quit after going for marriage, something that relatively justified paying them fewer salaries compared to what their male counterparts got. Regardless of more than 20 years of research work and publications on the historical contributions of female architects, the traditional architecture has not incorporate the contributions of these women in the traditional record of great buildings. Although, feminist architects wanted their contributions to be complied separately with that of the traditional records, the records remains inconsistent and is frequently confused with study of other feminist and gender issues in architecture (Heynen, 2013). It indicates the challenges related to the recording of the contribution of female architects to both the mainstream records in architecture and to the feminist principles which virtually now work has been made on the history of female architects.

The inclusion of females’ contribution to architecture can be categorized into a five-phase process: (1) the absence of female from the curriculum; (2) the inclusion of notable females as defined within traditional frameworks; (3) the definition of females as “minority” or “problem” so that to explain their absence; (4) the inclusion of less-traditional sources and inclusion of females’ perspective of experience as a subject of study; and (5) a reconceptualize vision which makes history reconsidered or transformed curriculum (Yasmin, Eva, and Carlos, 2017). Investigation of the history and contributions of female architects based on the five-phase process has been vital because it aimed to answer questions such as where were the great female architects, why were they so few in the field of architecture? Read More