ACAarchitecture    

                                                                                                                                  by A.C.Antoniades, AIA

Introduction                                                                                                            

Toshio Nakamura , Donald Canty , Andrea O'Dean, Bruno Zevi and Peter Papademetriou, were among the editors of Architectural magazines who contributed enormously , in my opinion, in the promotion and shaping of architectural ideas, during the last quarter of the twentieth century, with Andra O'Dean still active at the dawn of this century. More so than architects in many respects, they were gears to meritorious architecture, critical giants not mentioned by history textbooks, yet agents of civilization through architecture , with  strong positions and beliefs, who motivated and coordinated others to participate in the refinement of ideas and the pursuit  of substance through critical debate and promotion of the meritorious .In the piece below, I try to put an order to thoughts and experiences I had , regarding "what it takes" to approach such colossei , and how to collaborate with them and participate in the civilisational task of meritourious architecture through the international debate. By 1986, following my experiences with Toshio Nakamura of "A+U",  I had felt I was ready for that, so I gave a lecture at my university ,within the framework of the faculty weekly lectures, during which each of us was trying to expose his most recent "extra" university scholarly activities, which of course included Lectures, participation in conferences, publications , aside from the teaching activities, the students evaluation on his teaching , the service to the University and the Service to the community, all of which were part of the anual evaluation by the Dean, on which vital issues of promotion in rank, sallary increase and most important awarding of tenure were dependent.

I gave the lecture «What it takes to participate in the debate”, on Feb.21st of 1986. Even though the circumstances for publication in architectural magazines have radically changed , and become even more difficult, due to the advent of the Internet, and its unfortunate negative impact of qualitative, peer reviewed and disciplined academic and critical discourse, I believe this lecture is still valid, as I believe the electronic architectural magazines will soon become passe, and serious scholars and architects will require that a peer review process will have to be adopted, in which the importance of the "enlightened" , "educated" and " intuitive" editors such as those mentioned above  will come back . I copy what follows from the handwritten notes im my personal Archives. 

“ WHAT IT TAKES ….to participate in the Debate”

1. Wait for the right opportunity and approach them.

Approach them positively – not criticizing their past work, but making your offer in a way that may suggest to them that their past work can be improved with your participation and the ideas you will bring to them.

2. Establish credibility.

Start very broadly . If they do not know you, include your resume, although you do not have to state in your letter you are enclosing it.

Work out statements about your credentials that are always relevant to your topic – in order to show them you are the person they are looking for if they want to improve their work in the field you propose. Use the ammunition of your credentials for later occasions. Do not overwhelm them with all your publications, buildings, etc.

3. Be extremely polite but not brownnosing.

Some genuine flattering may come later.

4. In case you receive a positive answer to your first letter, and they suggest to you that you are welcome to submit a work for consideration, start to work, but work hard. Put many hours and  spend money so that you can educate the editor first on what you have to say. Do not just  send them a few pictures; . Just sit down , squeeze your brain and make the case. Your next correspondence with them should aim to the real body of work you are about to present. If it takes you time, then write to them a short note, letting them relax, that your are working on the task, but focus on the work itself.

When you are ready, then you are on the offensive. Send  them a strong and concrete letter, justifying your approach and why you believe this is the best thing you have done for them. Of course, do not let them think that this was your only preoccupation, but let them believe that you did them a great favor, taking time out of your “busy schedule” , working for them.

5. The visual material is very important. The more you send them , the more you

prepare yourself  , pictures, drawings etc. the better off you are. The more you avoid pictures  taken by others and the more you concentrate in eliminating delays and legalities that may  involve  “visuals”, “photographs” , or “drawings” the better off you are. It is especially cumbersome when you deal with photographers, who, having in most instances no idea of the great amount of work and task that is necessary to put together an article, they may believe , in their own minds , that one photograph they took is worth more money than your architectural commission or the time you spent researching , traveling and the personal expenses you went through in order to write one page critique. Architectural photographers have been already paid for their photographs by the architects of the buildings they were sent to photograph, so, when the time comes and if your work is accepted,   you or the magazine contacts the architects for copies of such photographs, and if need be, it is up to these architects to pay their photographers again , and they will most certainly do, as it is always significant for them to have their buildings published and commented by third parties, in critical and independent ways. . For this reason, I believe , there should be no architectural scholar who should not be a photographer or an architectural draftsman of shorts. Relying completely on the pictures of others may make your  efforts to participate in an architectural argument impossible. I am not an “architectural photographer” but I have taken photos through the architect’s eye and have often taken compliments about my photography that does not certainly represents the core of my preoccupation. My points on “photography” will become more clear later  .

6. Your presentation doesn’t have to look like a “book” or a report. It has to be 

 complete and sketchy . There is a misconception here, especially by many among academics who in most cases have never published anything in beyond the University media, and think their submissions have greater potential for acceptance and publication if they are submitted in report form, as finished products , well composed etc. as it is demanded by Thesis and PH. D  dissertations. There is of course a reason for the Theses and Dissertations, as they usually remain for ever on the shelves of the Universities, for at least five years after submission under University Copyright, and the Universities want to have them in strong and “finished” conditions on their shelves. In the real world however, a “finished product” submission to a publisher (particularly a magazine publisher)  does not help; on the contrary, it may have negative effect; Editors may think they may encounter problems in the future with you, perhaps in delays during the page layout stages of the production and that their in house “Art” and graphics department may encounter trouble from you. Submit your work sketchy, yet clearly and carefully written, exhaustively labeled; this will be appreciated ; concentrate in saying clearly and in understandable language what you have to say; Don’t try to impress them you are a Dostoyewsky or Walt Whitman…if this is the case, it will show without effort.

Here I will throw parenthetically some thoughts related to similar misconceptions about papers, thesis projects and various student reports required by professors in universities, which pose certain “format” requirements and expect for instance “theses” , even in many occasions some of the most “unworthy”, to meet  “finished” publication requirements of comletion.  Such requirements I believe , divert the energy form “substance” to “image” and “conformity” and are unhealthy both for students (who get deceived that a good hard cover with golden letter makes the thesis) as well as institutions. I’d prefer a legible and sketchy typescript thesis with hand corrections in spelling or suggestions here and there, yet of research and thought substance , to a shallow one even in finished book form. The final publication outcome , article , essay or book, is a whole different discipline. 

7. If your submission has something to say, then be prepared and feel happy to listen 

carefully to all the comments they have to make. If they do not like your positions, as being totally contrary to their editorial philosophy, and if they are honest enough, they will immediately reject your submission; If they accept it, it means you are within the same wave length with them and there is well–conceived criticism on their part. So , become humble and listen-avoid ego trips and primadona attitudes at this stage; If you are “professor” or “academic”, forget about this dimension and leave home your “professorial demeanor” if you have not already done it in your efforts to break the ice and become a “good teacher”, loved by your students. You will hardly find better critics to the good and seasoned editors of the journals you are writing for ; they perform a task that even if you go to the best Universities you may not be lucky enough to find,  as , good , honest and to the point critics, are rarities. I have found the editors of the AIA Journal and the JAE most representative and invaluable in this respect. I have yet to find open and constructive critics among university colleagues. There you find either praise, or silence; and certainly silence kills, while praise is not necessarily always constructive. Up-tightness doesn’t help improvement, nor does an “ill-conceived” “gentleman’s behavior” favors critical discourse.

It is at this stage , after the first criticism that the really hard work starts. Any decision based on “ego” can be detrimental and might become prohibitive of any chance to pursuit your argument if you take the attitude: “ who are they to tell me how I ought and at what sequence I ought to say it ?”.

In the instance of my recent article with the AIA Journal , I had to write it three times. I believe it was worth the effort and time spent, because of one thing I definitely wanted to say, on which I persisted throughout and which eventually made it to the final publication.

Once again , when you work and re-work your editing product , be prepared to focus the attention of the editor to the rational advantages of each alternative you have submitted, in what way alternative 1, you think is better to alternative 2 , etc. It is very probable that they may eventually agree with you on your preferred submission and it is indeed possible that your preferred one is indeed the best, as it is the product of comparative critical discipline-comparing critically no.1 to no.2.

Once the collaboration to this level is successful, then the door is open for the discussion of the other subjects, preparation of the ground for future publications (as was for instance the case with Andrea O’ Dean who asked me information about the architects, which lead me to subsequent submission of articles on the names she had inquired and about which she first heard more by me).

8. It is an extraordinary time consuming , expensive and yet “cathartic process” that sometimes is manifested through very few final pages, some very few photographs, and perhaps even some mistakes, that might make your future life more difficult. It is however worthwhile, especially if you have to say something you believe in and you would like to see it having a broader effect. Personally,  I  believe a lot in the possibility of the subsequent effect of argumentative publications and I do and will always do the best I can to participate , in-spite of all the difficulties and adversities , that is , the cumbersome , expensive and monetarily unrewarding process.
9. Now I want to present one more case where the difficulties, time span between first submission and publication , as well as expenses in my personal budget became exponentially disproportionate to the immediate result gained, that is , nothing came about in the first run of efforts , but it opened the doors for something substantial years later, when I   had come up with something really strong ,a discovery, a  unique and authentic subject to present. I believe this case is significant because it was an exercise in discipline within the constraints of the top official Journal of my romance with architecture, the official Journal of Architectural Education, the JAE. Now , the fact that Peter Papademetriou was of Greek descend and had a Greek name, also speaking Greek, had nothing to do to my decision to submit work for publication in the Journal he so successfully edited at that time. None of that had anything to do with the subsequent event.  

I had met Peter when he first came as a guest to SAED, the School of Architecture and Environmental Design, as was the Name of my school prior to becoming “Architecture UTA”. He came at a time when I was the Director of the Environmental Studies program. Todd Hamilton had invited him, as he knew him from Houston, when Papademetriou was teaching at Rice University, also associated with the Taft Architects. We met again in the ACSA conference in Eureka Springs Arkansas. He made there a call for papers for the Journal and  I grabbed the occasion- sending him , not one but several possibilities of proposed articles for his consideration.

Peter proved to be one of the smartest , severest and kindest editors I ever worked with , despite his constant East Coast , Princeton/Yale elitist mentality and his sort of “inner-circle” humor/mannerism, which characterizes him and his classmates, group of the “Perspecta” and the “Harvard review”. Working with Peter and the JAE anonymous group of peer reviewers, for over a period of three years, was indeed an experience in discipline and Teacher/architect catharsis, something like a mid-life interval for a new degree that required three years of intensive discipline devotion. None of my initially submitted articles was accepted. Yet , when I discovered “The Architecture of the Italians in the Dodecanese”, and upon my return from Greece I submitted to Peter an approx. 100 pages document, with scores of Black and white photographs I had taken , sketches  I had traced from Italian architects drawings and blueprints, in Leros, Rhodos and Kos, Peter smelled the original, an architecture about which even Bruno Zevi had no idea it existed as it is testified by his letter below  :

Yet Peter had "smelled" the original and had  immediately said, "yes, submit";  and he passed my work around for “expert feedback” by people I had no idea who they were, but who offered invaluable written criticism and suggestions,all of whch was communicated to me by Peter anonymously, part of the peer-review process. . As I learned following the publication of my article, enriched by some original drawings I had been encouraged to make, I found out they were among the top world experts of the fascist period in Italy, John Milton and Diane Ghirrardo. I am grateful to them as well. None of us made any money out of all this. It was a scholarly work, that took me over three years since the discovery. I’ll be always grateful  to Peter Papademetriou for this  particular publication, as I have been and will always be grateful to all the others I mention in  my opening, Toshio Nakamura , Andrea O' Dean and the late Donald Canty and Bruno Zevi,  for they gave me the opportunity to weave into the debate of Modernism-Postmodernism-Historicism, the "inclusivity" argument, which I believe "GREEK" architecture, as encountered in Knossos, the Greek islands, Mount Athos and selective late 20th century examples represented , and for which I had been struggling on my own, in times when most Greek architects instead of looking inward were looking abroad via copies of the fashionable...! 

© A.C.Antoniades

BACK