Click images to enlarge.

Banana Republic’s new ad portrays some curiously fresh, well-kept architects lounging about a table with a small model on it. Is this the public image of architects? Andrew Payne, undergraduate program director of architectural studies at the faculty of Architecture Landscape and Design (al&d) at UofT, surveys Banana Republic’s satin tanks and concludes that, “I’ve never seen an architect dressed like that”. However, he concurs that architects are “fashion conscious” though “restrained” in their clothing choices. Indeed, al&d has some of the best-dressed professors on campus, with graduate program director An Te Liu making The Toronto Star’s Best Dressed List for 2006. His wardrobe is a blend of MiuMiu, Gucci, Costume Nationale, Junya Watanabe and vintage wear, with a lot of attention to fit.

In January 2005, starchitects Martin Finio, Daniel Libeskind, Richard Gluckman, Matthew Baird, James Corner, Brian Healy and James Slade posed for Esquire magazine,dressed in Salvatore Ferragamo, Louis Vuitton, Hugo Boss, Valentino, Dolce & Gabbana, and Prada. It seems that the combination of celebrity architects and haute couture creates the perfect image to stimulate consumerism beside an afternoon cup of tea. Perhaps there are many similarities between the architecture field and the fashion industry, more so than ever in recent years. As Andrew Payne says, “We expect buildings to reflect who we are, and architecture distinguishes itself from the building industry in large part due to architecture’s ability to express the moment that we are living in.” There is a common expectation that people have for both architecture and fashion: buildings and clothes are supposed to express individuality and the progress of the society as a whole. But Payne also suggests an important distinction: “Architectural fashion changes more slowly and it responds to much more complex and practical problems and demands.” Nevertheless, artists, fashion designers and architects all represent a small group of innovators and often “eccentric” individuals who advance our ideas and culture through their creations on different scales. Hence, there seems to exist a glamorous aura of chicness and sophistication around the profession of architects.

Architects have acquired a stylish appearance in film portrayals over the last few decades. The list of well-groomed actors playing architects ranges from Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men to Richard Gere in Intersection (list courtesy of al&d faculty member Mason White and his well-stocked Flickr page. A crisp, conservative suit and tie seem to be the staple garb, but is this what an architect really looks like? Architecture students know that Corbusian glasses usually mark a successful architect. Adolf Loos, Siegfried Gideon, Phillip Johnson, Louis Kahn, Sigurd Lewerentz, Buckminster Fuller, I.M. Pei, and more recently, Ken Smith and Daniel Libeskind, are just a few who are guilty of donning incredibly thick, black-rimmed glasses. Black turtlenecks, black blazers and sombre-coloured dress shirts complete their ensembles, justifying the chic image of architects on the silver screen and in common assumption. There is a framework in which architects express a sense of sophistication and intelligence – an archi-style.

The idea of a style raises the important issue of image. It is a question of representation and perception - how do we choose to represent ourselves in public and what do we want others to see us as? Clothing choice has become an overwhelming part of the establishment of a person’s image. In a society where nothing is original and everything seems to have been done before, how can one still provide personality and uniqueness? Perhaps one could also argue that how we dress can never truly reflect our individualities because of mass production and the rise of consumerism and materialism.  Rather, we live in our own false consciousnesses and follow the marketing strategies of manufacturers.  There is really no fashion style, only planned obsolescence. The same issue of representation and perception on a personal level begins to echo with the postmodern focus on the skin or the envelope of a building. The human skin covered by clothing is a boundary which separates and protects the body and the mind. The interaction between the interior and the exterior then becomes the most important part of the human experience. The same can be applied to buildings.

Our senseless wandering in and around the topic of architecture and fashion finally settles at a common ground between the two seemingly separate industries. Whether it is waking up in the morning and picking out your clothes for the day, or drafting an idea on the drawing board, the issue of representation and perception remains a fundamental problem facing the postmodern era, or the post-postmodern era. On the other hand, the increasing rise of the status of celebrity architects begins to coincide with high fashion brands. A building designed by Rem Koolhaas or Zaha Hadid is like a 1000-dollar purse by Louis Vuitton, only a million times more expensive and not replicable. Whether this is good or bad is difficult to conclude. I am only left wondering how aesthetically and formally pleasing Frank Gehry’s jewellery and watch designs really are. Has architecture become simply a product that is packaged and branded for the sake of economic reasons or is it still an expression of artistic innovation and creation? Does today’s architecture truly reflect who we are or does the clothing I choose to wear express who I really am?
For now, I find a great amount of humour and irony in an image made by a friend of mine. He named it – “Architect meets Courvoisier Cognac meets urban PIMP”.