With John Morris Dixon, Connecticut, 2007.
© All Rights Reserved.
Following
my appointment with Robert Ivy and Suzanne Stephens at the editorial office of
Architectural Record (McGraw Hill Company in NYC 2007), Suzanne Stephens kindly
helped me to contact John Morris Dixon, a graduate of MIT-Architecture and former editor
of Progressive Architecture. On May 8th 2007, I met him in Connecticut and we talked
about his editorial experience at Progressive Architecture, Pencil
Points, (professional) in the field of architectural journalism and the architecture profession
in general. When I was an undergraduate architecture student, Progressive Architecture was one of the leading professional architectural journals at the the Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture library. At that time, I could not have imagined a conversation with its editor! John Morris Dixon was very kind, came to the train station in Connecticut, invited me to have a lunch together and then, we continued our conversation in his home with his wife. This unpublished interview is my first detailed conversation with an editor in the U.S. and I really thank him for that very lovely day! Without encouragement by Suzanne Stephens and Robert Ivy, I could not have made this interview...
Meral Ekincioglu: You are an architect graduated from M.I.T.
and worked as a chief editor of Progressive Architecture, one of the leading
architectural journals. In addition to this, you published many books, articles
and served as a jury member of some architectural awards. First of all, I would
like to ask some questions about Progressive Architecture. This leading journal
was born as Pencil Points. Could you define briefly its historical background
and some major / intellectual shifts? How did this journal begin its
publication; and what was its role in the progress of architectural journalism?
John Morris Dixon: P/A had no relationship to Pencil Points,
except a continuity of ownership and –to some extent- management. But those
too, evolved over the years. I wrote extensively about Pencil Points in the introduction
to the Pencil Points Reader (Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 2004). It
started in 1920 as a magazine for architectural draftsmen, when most draftsmen
had not had an architectural education, draftsmen had not had an architectural
education, but learned on the job and where draftsmen for life. As the structure
of the profession shifted, toward professionally educated people serving as
draftsmen on the path toward being architects, the magazine evolved from a
largely “how to draw” publication to one covering broader aspects of what
architects do. Throughout its life, Pencil Points supported “traditional” vs.
“modern” architecture – although it had occasional article on modernism, some
approving, most disapproving. By 1945, it was obvious that Modernism was going
to dominate. Editors and management realized that the magazine’s future was a
magazine for architects, supporting Modernism, and decided to change the name,
as well as the editorial direction. “Progressive” seemed at the time an ideal
word to represent what the magazine stood for, although within a few years the
idea of “progress” would be widely questioned. For that reason – and the fact
that Progressive Architecture is an unwidely name – the magazine presented
itself increasingly as P/A. It wasn’t until 1990, however, after years of
pleading, that management allowed us to feature P/A on the cover.
M.E.: From today’s perspective and under your
editorship, what would you like to say about the role of Progressive
Architecture in the progress of architectural journalism and the intellectual
profile of the architectural journalist?
J.M.D.: We were in a different ear, addressing a
very different audience. I am not sure P/A, per se, affected the “progress” of
architectural journalism or the intellectual profile of the journalist. There
has been a tendency, at P/A and elsewhere, for journalists to be better
educated (more years of education, broader knowledge) than in, say, 1960, when
I entered the field. More journalist have become familiar with the theoretical
and conceptual discourse that has become much more common at universities since
1960. (There were no Ph.D.’s in architecture until the late 1970- right?). This
theoretical discourse has had only a minor, derivative effect on architectural
practice and journalism. Sharp journalists know some of the jargon, but these
magazines must have the broad audience of practitioners, so must focus on
reality.
M.E.: The position of the architectural
journalist who controls the flow of information is very critical. At that
point, I would like to know the role of editorial staff of P/A in its Annual
Design Awards Program and its process? Do you think that the editorial staff of
P /A had a critical position the outcomes of these awards in addition to jury
members?
J.M.D.: The staff chose the jurors. And the
magazine solicited the entries. There were general calls for entries, but
personal letters went to architects whose work we admired in an effort to
assure some entries from known architects. One of the purposes – and successes
– of the P/A Awards was to introduce previously little known talents (I don’t
like the fuzzy term “emerging”). But I always insisted that there work was
validated only if the winners included some by people already recognized – so
they’d be some of the best work, not just the best work by little-known
architects. We chose jurors with considerable diversity. We didn’t want a
“clubby” jury where everyone thought more or less alike. We wanted a range in
age. Early juries (before I was editor) had always included an engineer, but
that reflected a period when technology was seen as the way toward “progress”
in architecture. Under my editorship (1962-1995) we always wanted some
expertise in urban design, in architectural research (usually sociological /
psychological ); we wanted people from large and small firms. We wanted
geographical diversity, and in the later years always had one juror from abroad
– but only people who had a deep understanding of America from studying or
doing work here. We included at least one woman per year. (From 1954 through 1972,
only two women –total- had served on these juries). For a decade or so, we
always included at least one African-American, then we drifted away from this
commitment. There were too few strong African-American candidates, and we
didn’t want to include one simply as a token. (The representation of African-
Americans in the profession remains terribly low – and we did write repeatedly
about that; we also wrote frequently about the status and accomplishments of
women in architecture).
For a few years, we had an 8 person jury made up of
3 teams, for architectural design, urban design, and architectural research.
(We were strongly promoting research, taking the position that architecture
needed a stronger scientifically and statistically provable base. We may have
stressed this too much; in any case, research has a modest –and apparently
dwindling – role in the schools and the profession. For a couple of years,
these 3 teams worked independently, seeing each other only for meals. Then for
several years we had each team come up with candidates for awards, which were
presented to the other teams, after which all 8 would vote. This was very
interesting. It produced stronger winners, with stronger arguments behind their
recognition. But it took much time and energy, and the jurors were, after all,
volunteering. At some point, we stopped including research (briefly sponsoring
a separate competition for that) and merged the urban design and architecture
into a single jury of 5, which is what the program began with in the 1950s.
Once the jurors assembled, we exercised no influence over their decisions. We
always had staff editors helping to organize the effort, moderating the
discussion, often pressing for a decision, so the jury could move on.
We did have other parameters. While early juries
considered bulky drawings, with names of the architects clearly visible, in my
years we established anonymity, poring over the material submitted (now limited
in size) to blot out any firm identity, and we asked jurors who happened know
who designed a project – as often happened- not to let other jurors know the
identity. Also, in early years, the entries were virtually always for real
projects. But by the early 1970s, architects were dreaming up fictional
projects and submitting designs that were not conditioned by real clients, real
site conditions, etc. Architects who submitted real projects felt – rightly-
that it was unfair to compete with fictional ones. So we required signed
statements that the project had a real client – who intended to carry it out
(not some early scheme the client as rejected as impractical) – and a name and
phone number for the client. He jury’s choices were conditional until we
contacted those clients and got their confirmation. It was common to have typically
one selected project per year fail this test and be deleted from the winners
list and the issue.
M.E.: Do you think that there are some differences
between the architectural journalist and architect to criticize an
architectural design project? Why?
J.M.D.: We had ample opportunity to compare our
editorial choices of outstanding projects with the choices of architects. The
decisions of our (chosen) juror differed, of course, from the editors’ – but
usually not radically. (I should note here that one of the most important roles
of the P /A Awards was in informing the editors about 100s of project a year
–which did not make the jury’s final cut – that we could publish as designs and
pursue for publication when completed. It was a great, efficient way to gather
intelligence on new designs). It is perhaps more telling that on the many, many
occasions when I or other editors served on awards juries or design competition
juries with architects, we never detected a split between us and them. (In
these cases, of course, we had no selected the other jurors). Personally,
having visited many projects with architects, I find the architects more
interested (even fixated) on details (whether it’s their own work or someone
else’s). I think editors tend to focus on the strength of a concept and the
overall execution; we’re more willing to forgive clumsy detail –even leaks –
while architects seem to me to often focus on them excessively. This does come
up occasionally as an editor / architects difference if we are both on juries.
(This comes up even with my current volunteer service on my town’s
Architectural Review Committee. And it doesn’t just involve architects focusing
on poor details, but sometimes they will want to approve a project serious
overall flaws because the details are so good).
M.E.: In your opinion, does an architectural
journalist has an authoritative position within the intellectual network; or is
s/he an outcome of social / economic / cultural factors in an architectural
society? What are the main differences between these two profiles?
J.M.D.: Yes, architectural journalist is respected
in the profession (if not necessarily “the intellectual network” depending on
what that means). Respect comes with perceived power, more so if that power is
perceived to be exercised responsibly. And of course we all outcomes of the
social / economic / cultural milieu in which we develop and operate. I don’t
see an either / or here.
M.E.: In her book, Larson pointed out “....John
Morris Dixon says that the only selection rules are serious reputation and
regional balance. Yet a former member of the editorial staff insists that the
magazine adopted parameters that are not merely geographic, but stylistic and
technical as well, no more than two avant-garde designers, as long as they were
well known, and always one juror to represent concern with social issues, user
needs, or technical solutions. Geographic spread used to mean a West Coast
architect, until the Californians became too avant-garde. Then balance had to
sought elsewhere, and such questions as “Does anyone know somebody in Arizona?”
started pooping up at editorial board meeting....
What would you like to say about these sentences?
(selection rules, reputation, regional balance, geographic parameters....) From
today’s perspective, how does the regional context affect the editorial
decision making process and the dissemination of architectural knowledge?
J.M.D.: I wrote at length about the jury selection
above. I don’t know which former member of our staff Larson was referring to.
Anyway, much of what that unnamed editor said is more graceful phrasing of what
I wrote above. I (we) did recognize that
our audience would have less confidence in our juries (as would we) if they
included only Northeasterns and Californians, with an occasional Chicagoan. I
don’t think we tried to find “somebody in Arizona” except half in jest, but we
did want someone outside those favored areas. (I think, incidentally, that
high-profile, recognized talent has tended over several decades to concentrate
even more than before in the Northeast – notably in New York (with Boston
and Philadelphia losing some of their
former eminence) and California (with San Francisco also fading) and Chicago
has lost some of its prestige as a center of architectural creativity).
M.E.: There is an exhibition in New York organized
by Beatriz Colomina and her Ph.D. students at Storefront Art Gallery : Clip /
Stamp /Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196x-197x. One of the
start points of this exhibition was to provoke a similar intensity of 60s and
70s. As an editor whose career is in architectural journalism began since 60s,
what would you like to say about the common and different points between the
printed media practice in 1960s and 70s and 2000s. For you, is it possible to
provoke a similar intensity again, why?
J.M.D.: I feel guilty that I missed that exhibition.
No, I don’t think it is possible to invoke a similar intensity today- but it
may be tomorrow. In the 1960s, there was a general revolt against the social
constraints of the past, against the misguided governments then in power, etc.
In architecture and urbanism, there was a strong revolt against the dogma of
the Modern Movement. It took numerous directions – back to nature, into community
effort, into Post Modernism, in the presentation movement. – all ass
alternatives to the perceived mistakes of bureaucratic planning and the
deadening effect of orthodox Modernism applied rather thoughtlessly on a large
scale. Most of these counter – movements have faded away – although
Post-Modernism is actually thriving in the real world, outside the “serious”
architecture world that is concern of the magazines and the schools.
Post-Modern planning is the only kind of planning taking place in the US and
many other countries, because the concept of walkable, mixed-use communities
with traditional street patterns simply works better than the isolated uses and
vehicle dependency propagated earlier in the name of Modernism. The
preservation movement has, of course, become dominant almost everywhere and is
perhaps too slavishly respected. (It is often used by those narrow-interest
“communities” to flight off any change.)
M.E.: Thank you for this interview.
© All Rights Reserved.
Connecticut, May 8th 2007.