Bridge the Gap: In Conversation with Jesús Vassallo
Jesús Vassallo, Affordable housing proposal for the L.A. Low Rise Competition, 2021.
Jimmy Bullis (JB): How important is "style" in your work? Do you value having a consistent or recognizable footprint?
Jesús Vassallo (JV): I think “style” is a very old-fashioned word. For contemporary practice, it is an obsolete approach. This doesn't mean that there is no need for consistency in practice. There must be an internal consistency for an architectural practice because, in the end, a practice is part of the larger field of cultural production. We are, and architecture is, entangled in pragmatic matters, which means that there is a lot that we do not control in our work. We are—to some extent—problem solvers, but we are also cultural producers. In my mind, what matters is conceptual consistency in the topics, processes, and values of our practice. There should be a consistent sensibility to how we interface with the world. Then, almost as a byproduct, that sensibility ends up manifesting itself in something recognizable in outputs, something like a “style.” But “style” is not an end in itself.
Pouya Khadem (PK): From your essay “Documentary Photography and Preservation, or The Problem of Truth and Beauty”1 to your book Epics in the Everyday2, the relationship between architecture and reality plays a prominent role in your thinking. Architecture—alongside photography—is a discipline that unquestionably engages with reality. The comparison between the two disciplines led to examining each relative to the idea of realism. Instead of replacing real with ideals, this comparison takes this engagement for granted. Since photography is always representing something outside of the camera, realism in photography aims to present images that are as identical as possible to the real state of the subject. However, generally speaking, architecture is rarely about the representation of an outside subject. Recognizing that realism in architecture cannot mean the same thing as realism in photography, what does “architectural realism” mean? And how is it different from architectural pragmatism?
JV: I can start with the photography part that I discussed in those texts. Basically, photography and architecture both have a close connection to reality. This becomes problematic when people try to understand them as art. When modern art started in other disciplines—painting or sculpture for instance—the overarching idea was about moving away from the representation of reality into abstraction as a way to liberate the medium and embrace its essence. Photography could not do that because, by necessity, you're going to photograph something in the world. After much struggle, photographers decided that the way to be modern was to emphasize this prerequisite to photography: the direct relation to reality. To become modern for a photographer was to disappear from the process of image-making. Creating a system of work that would give the viewer direct access to the object as it appears in life with no trace of the photographer as author. That's how the relationship with modern art was complicated for photography.
Architecture is different. On the one hand, like photography, architecture cannot escape reality. It is the backdrop of everyday life. On the other hand, architecture is assumed to be the creation of something new. When I started crafting these ideas in the late 2000s, architecture had become a machine for late capitalism and the glorification of wealth. In that context, novelty was the primary currency. I found that deeply problematic. I started thinking about realism as an antidote, and the idea developed over a series of texts and books. Initially, the easiest way to think about it was through an art history argument. That approach is different from pragmatism in a very clear way because it focuses on movements and the underlying conversation among them. Once I finished the research project, the question became: how does the art history argument translate to an actual practice? This problem of translation is normal in the career of an architect. For instance, Aldo Rossi wrote the Architecture of the City3 and then he asked: what do I do with my practice? Because the book didn’t give him any hints. So he came up with a second wave of ideas in The Analogous City4 which are more geared towards application. What I'm trying to say is that after figuring out a historic or theoretical argument, the translation to practice is not direct. There are still too many possible ways to interpret those ideas in practice. How is pragmatism different from realism? I think they're intertwined but different. I don't think you can be a realist as an architect if you abandon pragmatism entirely, but pragmatism is not the same as realism. Realism is a larger concept with the baggage of a rich intellectual history.
JB: In your own work, what are some of the ways you’ve addressed this question of realism? Is it about foregrounding the end result as a place where life will unfold?
JV: You can approach any type of project in that way. I've tried to channel my efforts in areas that are conducive to work on realism. For instance, working on affordable housing and construction materials are conscious decisions. It’s an attempt to focus my efforts on what I consider to be 99% of the built environment as opposed to the 1% in which architecture is an spectacle. I try to choose programs, topics, and clients which bring me closer to thinking of architecture as something that is not necessarily unique but replicable.
PK: In your book, Epics in the Everyday, you point out how realist artworks, like the paintings of Gustave Courbet, were critical of nineteenth-century elitism, cultural hierarchies, and academic value systems. They were also an empiricist exploration of middle or lower class life. Does realist architecture operate in the same way?
JV: A realist approach is always anti-elitist or anti-academic to some extent. As a society, we construct a scaffolding of ideas to explain how the world is organized. Maybe at the time this scaffolding is built, it is a fairly accurate picture of the world, but the world keeps changing, and those codified ideals become obsolete. Realism is like a wrecking ball. Courbet’s paintings—The Stone Breakers for instance—show something real that is completely neglected by these cultural hierarchies. It makes evident the disconnect between the actuality of things and cultural construction of how we explain the world to ourselves. That's why I thought realism would be a useful term to use to express what I feel needs to happen and what I think is happening.
PK: In projects with minimal budgets, affordable housing for instance, there are often compromises in realizing the design. These compromises and the realities of building introduce external forces that will affect the final outcome. Do you think those external forces produce an outcome that is architecturally less valuable?
JV: I think it goes back to this question of what is the mission of architecture? I think there is not a right or wrong answer to the question and different projects require different things. As architects, we need to push the boundary and be ambitious with setting up the problem the right way. Then, in the thick of the design, working with the qualities of the available construction technology has a crucial role as well. If we become too fixated on the acceptance of conditions as they are, we will just affirm the status quo, but if we lose traction with reality in our efforts to advance the status quo, we will render ourselves completely irrelevant. If I had to produce a general prognosis, I would say that today in the United States, the bulk of the profession is too beholden to the status quo and, in academia, we are probably too detached from reality. People in academia—who should be intellectual leaders of the field—cannot perform their role because of the gap between profession and academia. There is a lot of escapism in academia and there is a lot of fatalism in practice, and in both cases for understandable reasons. We should all really work to bridge the gap and realign profession with academia to strengthen our capacity to do something relevant.
PK: Abandoning ideals in favor of reality might raise concerns about reducing the discipline into a reactionary one, into a discipline without the capacity to criticize the real. Being reactionary also threatens architecture’s ability to produce knowledge. How can we imagine an architecture practice that engages with reality while maintaining its distance from it?
JV: You have to speak the language, it just boils down to that. Once you speak the language, you can do whatever you want with it. You can insult someone or even seduce them. But you basically need to speak the tongue first, and be aware of the mechanisms by which architecture is produced, with all the ugliness and difficulty that comes with it. We already talk more about the process of producing architecture than in the past. We talk about issues of labor and the relationship with clients in a more political and open way. We should be willing to engage those subjects and once we engage them, it becomes easier to be critical. It is in our nature to be critical of these issues and act on them with progressive agendas. For me, being critical is not the difficult part. As someone who is primarily an academic, the effort is to meaningfully engage with those issues in practice, so I can actually make some change.
JB: Many practices cultivate a public image that aligns themselves with some of these concerns, such as sustainability and labor, but the actual work doesn’t demonstrate any real engagement. It's just a business to attend to. Do you see any avenues that might keep our field on task with these issues?
JV: That is why I referred to the idea of realignment. We live in a very polarized world and I believe it is the defining trait of our time. What you're describing is part of the disconnect as well. We need to rebuild trust, goodwill, and accountability as a profession. All of these simultaneous crises that we're facing now are so extreme that they may trigger architects to engage these problems more authentically. What you are describing also shows how everything gets commodified. Like how sustainability becomes a commodity, for the client who can claim that the building has a certification, and for architects who can claim they're certified to do the work. We have a tendency to commodify everything. Maybe slowing the speed of commodification would be a way to make progress and be more authentic.
JB: You mentioned the importance of speaking the language of architecture. I wonder if there is a dangerous side to that, where people learn to talk the talk without really walking the walk. So, people can say the right words to navigate these things with clients and check the boxes, but not actually do the hard part.
JV: I think a related issue is how the current system attempts to externalize these issues. A certification, in a way, takes the responsibility off your shoulders. I think issues of responsibility in architecture need to be more integral than that. More specifically in the US, the government has to do more, it has to set standards; you cannot leave the market to regulate itself, ever. Instinctively the market follows the path of least resistance. As architects, we have to think of the issue of responsibility in a more holistic way.
PK: Do you still believe in the agency of architects in this system of production? You stated in PLAT 9.0 that “architecture for too long has been all about the architects.”7 Does that mean the agency of architects should be reduced?
JV: No, it should be increased. The statement is more of a self-criticism. We are too focused on ourselves. In architecture schools we have symposium after symposium about architects’ new roles and figures and unconventional practices. I'm not saying it's unnecessary but I find it problematic that we only ever look inward. When we talk about architecture in schools, we are actually talking about the cultural products of a very small group of people, the 1% of the built environment. We're not talking about the bulk of construction, where 99% of people live. So we have a very narrow view of what architecture is and it leaves us powerless when we confront big topics like global warming or inequality. We need to look outward to redirect ourselves towards reality.
PK: It sounds like you’re saying architects need to calibrate their presence in their work. This reminds me of the conversation about realism in photography. For instance, Bernd and Hilla Becher have relatively erased subjectivity from their work, yet they remain highly present and the work maintains a clear sense of authorship. How could architects achieve this balance of objectivity and authorship in their work?
JV: I agree with your description of being able to modulate and carefully assess how much presence is required. It is related to the idea of the photographer removing herself or himself from the equation. In architecture, different situations require a different degree of authorial voice, authorship, or presence as you were saying. There are a lot of architects that have done it very successfully: Álvaro Siza for instance, he can do a neighborhood of workers’ housing in Portugal and if you drive through it you would say, wow, this is really nice, but you wouldn't necessarily see Siza if you do not know it beforehand. However, he can do his famous Borges & Irmao Bank building or Saint-Jacques de la Lande church that are essays on authorship. It is important to have empathy toward the current conditions in each situation. To use psychological terms, there has to be acceptance. You cannot just arrive with something pre-ordained and pre-constituted and just drop it into a given situation. It does not mean that the work must be contextual. Oftentimes the work benefits from having a certain contrast with its context, but at the deeper level there should be empathy and a level of acceptance of the world, ourselves, and other people.
JB: In “Bartleby, The Architect”8 from PLAT 9.0, Inaki Abalos suggests a surface level engagement with Herman Melville’s Bartleby character, and his infamous mantra that he "would prefer not to." You mention in your own piece that we can no longer afford to keep working for the one percent of society (or at least not only). Could this "I would prefer not to" from Bartleby also suggest an argument that architects might turn down commissions that are morally questionable whether for ecological, social, or political reasons? Do architects have enough power in the industry to support such a denial?
JV: I absolutely think we do. We've been lacking so much in this department, but there's a lot that we could actually do. There is a lot of room for improvement within the AIA and other professional organizations. Even going beyond architecture, as a person, it is always ultimately your choice whether you engage a situation or not and to what degree. There may be times when you decide to engage and try to make the best out of a bad situation. And there may be occasions when the situation is so extreme that the only ethical answer is to not engage. It doesn't matter if we have power or not. As people, as individuals, we have to do the right thing. We are not exempt from doing the right thing because we are architects.
JB: You mentioned cases where architects choose to take on a potentially problematic project and make the best out of a bad situation. Do you think it’s better to take the project and engage in these situations, knowing that someone else will take the project if you don’t?
JV: It is true that if you don't take the commission, someone else will. Still, your refusal could still have an impact. In that regard, I think people who hold the most responsibility are the people at the top of the food chain in the profession. Big projects are only offered to top offices in the world. When somebody comes to Frank Gehry with a project, he has the power to explain to the client that the framing of the project is wrong and that it would be advisable to look at the problem differently. We all have responsibility, the greater our power, the more responsibility we have. People in academia also have more responsibility because we have economic independence from the industry and we can speak truth to power.
Jesús Vassallo is a Spanish architect and writer. Based in Houston, Texas and Madrid, Spain, his work interrogates the problem of realism in architecture through the production of design and scholarship. He is the author of Seamless (Park Books, 2016) and Epics in the Everyday (Park Books, 2019). Some of his areas of interest include housing, construction materials, and the range of scales between architecture and urbanism. Vassallo studied architecture at Harvard GSD and Madrid ETSAM and is currently an Associate Professor at the Rice School of Architecture.
1 Vassallo, Jesús. “Documentary Photography and Preservation, or the Problem of Truth and Beauty.” Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism 11, no. 1 (2014): 15. https://doi.org/10.5749/futuante.11.1.0015.
2 Vassallo Jesús. Epics in the Everyday: Photography, Architecture, and the Problem of Realism. Zurich, Switzerland: Park Books, 2019.
3 Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2007.
4 Rossi, Aldo, Eraldo Consolascio, Bruno Reichlin, Fabio Reinhart, and Dario Rodighiero. The Analogous City: The Map. Lausanne: Editions Archizoom, 2015.
5 Venturi, Robert, and Vincent Scully. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2019.
6 Venturi, Robert, Scott Denise Brown, and Steven Izenour. Learning from Las Vegas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2017.
7 Vassallo, Jesús. “Broad Spectrum Architecture.” PLAT 9.0 (2020): 138–39.
8 Abalos, Inaki. “Bartleby, The Architect.” PLAT 9.0 (2020): 108–11.