Conditioning

I enjoy the challenge of making a good comparison, especially when the subjects appear to be distant from one another. 

The first article, published two weeks ago, was a fairly detailed and controversial profile of Rafael Viñoly's Sunday routine : 

"Classical Piano and Modern Design"

The second article, published in today's Times, detailed the culture and evolution of internet startup Zynga, as well as its relationship to the highly competitive tech company industry : 

"Zynga's Tough Culture Risks a Talent Drain"

Aside from its bizarre self-consciousness, the first article is troubling not only for the way it portrays architects, but also because it illuminates the broadly accepted agreement to exploit and be exploited. The relationship between the two lies in the subtext of the second article, wherein it highlights how one industry has enough self-respect to put exploitation to the front of its internal disciplinary conversation. 

Our internal discussion regarding exploitation and professional disrespect seems to remain in the coffee shop, at the happy hour, facebook, at the kitchen table, etc. Hungry architects have ambitions, and "relevant" architects have given us permission to join them. This pattern is rationalized by the tired argument that the agreement benefits both parties. Young architects have been finely tuned to accept this as their fate, and the echo chamber does nothing but reinforce it. 

The point is, the tempestuous character of Zynga, having been exposed and judged by industry insiders and now the general public, is now being rightly cast as a liability. Nevertheless, as I read the article, I caught myself thinking, “So what? Get over it.” 

Obviously, the disciplinary conditioning has been thoroughly successful. 

Here lies the problem. Viñoly's opulence and self-aggrandizement masks the day-to-day tragedy (yes, tragedy) that plagues architecture. The real problem lies beneath the top-heavy public image of the architect. The industry “leader” vacillates between his piano fetish and brazenly abusive office structure and back again. Meanwhile within the boundaries of another group of similarly creative, talented and ambitious individuals there is a willingness to reject the notion that one must suffer to do relevant work. 

Companies on the periphery of Zynga know they can lure talented individuals away from Zynga by merely sending them cookies? I suppose it should come as no surprise I’m dumbfounded that a talented employee would not put up with being undervalued and underpaid and abandon their employer as soon as someone else presented even the slightest interest in their well-being. Our impulse is to look for excuses to stay put, because ... well, I guess the alternative is worse? Who are really being loyal to, anyway? 

When a young architect stands up for themselves they are cast as a “brave” or “admirable,” or even “admirably reckless.” When another talented tech geek puts their foot down they’re seen as “pragmatic” and “normal.” What can we work to alleviate this problem? We cannot solve it overnight, but how can we work to spread awareness? Conversely, is it beneficial to have our responsibilities reduced and our ideas stifled by a rigid hierarchy? Also, have we substituted “pleasure” with “labor”?