Talk:Starchitect

Raising an NPOV flag--

The content here reads as extremely subjective. The most flagrant problem: the list of American starchitects (which I reformatted the level-2 header of), which is clotted with editorial comments — 'bad boy'? 'white or nothing'? — that prejudge the architects' works without enlightening anyone about why people might lump their creators into the starchitect category.

I agree

I dont think it even needs the commentary so I removed it plus added a few more names

Last time I checked Renzo Piano was Italian and Norman Foster was English. Makes you wonder about the amount of research done,

Ditto. Almost half listed are not American.

Is the concept relative?

Star status would seem to be relative. As this is "English Wikipedia" should it be slanted towards the English-speaking viewpoint? In all my years of architecture I have never even heard of Antoine Predock - who seems to work exclusively within the USA. But this is not say that he is not a star architectect in his own state/country. What could give this whole - almost seedy, tabloid-press - topic a bit more substance? Perhaps 'globalization' - many, but not all, of the architects mentioned have many prestigious projects going on in several countries around the world. One might also attempt to "quantify" the matter by press coverage - how often they feature in the press, both professional and popular. --TTKK 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)--TTKK 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't live in the US but I am certainly aware of Antoine Predock and his work. He is building in Europe and Canada and his name has even been brought up in mainstream hollywood films... Intersection starring Richard Gere comes to mind. At regional levels, there are other categories of "starchitects"- for example, in Italy almost everyone knows who Paolo Portoghesi is. The same is true for Arthur Erickson in Canada and Glenn Murcutt in Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.217.31 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Star here-star there?

There is no doubt starchitecture exists as a term, and the entry is right to point out that it is generally used pejoratively. But then the article goes on to assume that it has historical currency. Yes F.L. Wright was famous, but can we retroactively call him a “star architect?” Probably not a good idea. Anyway compared to Wright, the current stars are really well behaved! And can we really predict future star architects? I don’t think Greg Lynn is a star architect. He is famous within the architectural community (and was once on time magazine -so what), but I doubt anyone – even educated people – have ever heard of him. The whole discussion is quite vague..There is a big difference between star architect, celebrity architect, famous arhitect, admired architect, innovative architect and so on…. Brosi 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)The article could use some editing as well. "the heroes of modern architecture, in particular Le Corbusier, were seen as heroic for generating theories about how architecture should be concerned with the development of society." Who thought that they were heroes and who thought that they were "heroic." Even if one finds a citation, it is all a bit naive.Brosi 14:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

-- I came across this article by accident a month or so ago, and thought it terrible. I hate the neologism of 'starchitect' and it occurs to me that an article such as this in Wikipedia will could actually endorse its use. Nevertheless, like you, I felt I could accept that like in all walks of life a certain celebrity status exists for architects. So I had a go at re-writing the whole thing, starting from Vasari's historical account of the lives of the artists, which probably more than any other book mad known a selection of artists beyond their home boundaries. I was also intrigued about how Time Magazine attempted to give celebrity status to a whole host of people beyond politicians and film stars. And I laso managed to find some good references for th enotion of 'wow factor' - which also has been taken up in university research. In regards to celebrity status Saarinen is a case in point because he was one of the first to have a PR rep., his wife, an ex-New York Times journalist. And today an architect like Steven Holl distributes "press releases" with each new commission or competition win! Anyway, since re-writing the article others - of course - have added to the article. I'm particulalrly upset about the lists for previous stararchtects such as Le Corbusier, Loos and all, but not that these two architects did not partake of news-media events! It all smacks of fashipnability! And of course predicting future starachitects or pushing forward minor characters beyond their actual significance will always be a huge problem. The google and newspaper hits at least gave some factual basis for the choice - as I again indicated in the re-written section. You may not like it, but I'm going to reinstate Greg Lynn's name on the list. In terms of professional media column inches he gets a lot of attention - though he has built next to nothing. --TTKK 19:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

-- One more thing: you have requested references for a number of things: I had, in fact, provided footnotes, but the footnote markers occur one or two sentences after the position where you have indicated.--TTKK 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday's star architects?

I object to the idea of 'yesterday" given that these people are still alive and practicing! once again can one impose a current word retractively. Venturi is not yesterday's star architect. He is a star archiect of today, I would think, and certainly Eisenman too.Brosi 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Venturi Robert Stern Michael Graves Richard Meier Peter Eisenman

Starchitect=mainstream recognition

Some architects listed, such as Cynthia Davidson, Greg Lynn, and Jeff Kipnis, are known only to an elite and cannot really be considered for mainstream recognition. As a result, I don't think they or some others mentioned qualify for this dubious status. This is a silly, overblown article to begin with (so I'm reluctant to add fuel...), but what do others think? 66.183.217.31 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Cynthia Davidson is only mentioned in regard to The New York Times architecture critic Herbert Mushamp's writings. Indeed, this article may be regarded as overblown in the same way as any of the other Wikipedia articles about celebrity status, be it movie stars or politicians. Is the whole issue defunct and silly? If only! Clearly there is a sociological aspect to celebrity status worth noting. But admitted, the question of who is and who is not a celebrity can be debated. And similarly with the definition of "mainstream" - thus I had added things connected to the popular press, such as Time magazine. BTW, I'm removing the dates someone added to Rossi and Stirling: what are they supposed to signify? When they were 'famous'? Stirling was already prolific in UK in the early 1960s, and Rossi was a well-known theoretician in Italy in the 1960s. Dates removed. --TTKK 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am with you. I think a lot about this article is bizarre, not to mention retroactive 'star' architects. etc. But someone has a pipe to smoke about this and I guess so be it.Brosi 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

unnecessary stuff

Wikipedia would be better without this article. Nobody needs word creations like starchitect. And even if there are persons who like an article about this, they would not like to read a unqualified text of a stylish thinking american college student. --88.72.223.174 09:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

wow this whole article needs to be rethought

-first off i agree with brosi on questioning the "yesterdays starchitects" they are still big names and successful, particularly stern and meier. as for the up and coming starchitects, lets leave this for time to decide, we will all know who they are when it is their time. plus if there is any list here it should be the dominant starchitects of now

-the contemporary starchitects for this list should be quite obvious... gehry, koolhaas, hadid, holl, piano, foster, calatrava to name the practically undisputable ones, there are at least another 8-10 that i think most would agree on like libeskind, rogers, herzog/demeuron, ando, moneo, nouvel, alsop, etc. as for the dead starchitects list, can we just drop this list? sure its all subjective but these were just famous architects not starchitects.

-starchitecture all has to do with contemporary celebrity culture and who can be the most outragous and make the biggest splash. theres also something about being an "elite" group that competes against each other for the same international commissions/awards/prizes and whom are promoted/praised by a handful of powerful newspaper architecture critics. -- Pdxstreetcar 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Portman

Someone has twice removed John Portman from the list of former stars. Rather than re-revert, throwing it open for discussion. With reference to the edit summary when he was re-removed, IMO "starchitect" has at least as much to do with reputation as with actual influence. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)