politics of the pritzker

SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE, NEW DELHI

|| Guide: Mr. Amit Khanna || Coordinators: Dr. Ranjana Mital & Prof. Jaya Kumar ||

|| External Examiner: Prof. Sambuddha Sen ||

Politics of the Pritzker

2011

Abhiram Sharma A/1970/2007

What inferences can be drawn on the workings of the Pritzker Prize by

analyzing the career and works of previous laureates?


-

―…architecture needs some good press badly... we have to tell people sufficiently loudly,

clearly and repeatedly what good architecture is, even if it means trespassing individual

freedom... right now, it smells like bad marketing..."

-Mr. Manoj Mathur.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have bothered, tortured and frustrated many people in these last few weeks. This is more an

apology to them. I must mention, firstly my family- my parents for supporting me and

encouraging me always. And my sister, for correcting my every little mistake, and reminding

me every day of my pending deadlines. Next- I must thank my faculty, for putting those

deadlines. This project was possible only because of the guidance I received from them. And

lastly, I thank my friends, for always being there when I needed them.

I would like to acknowledge the following people especially: Alkananda Yeshwanth and

Anshu Chaurasia, without whom this dissertation would not have been possible.

Thank you,

Abhiram Sharma


Contents

1. Chapter 1 : Prologue ......................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Need Identification: ............................................................................................................................ 4

Scope And Limitation: ......................................................................................................................... 4

Research Methodology: ...................................................................................................................... 5

References .......................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Chapter 2 : The Pritzker Selection Process ....................................................................................... 9

The Secretive Process ......................................................................................................................... 9

History- The Last 33 years ................................................................................................................. 11

Insider Scoop ..................................................................................................................................... 12

References ........................................................................................................................................ 14

3. Chapter 3 : Architects Honored- A Visual Atlas .............................................................................. 16

Philip Johnson- 1979 ......................................................................................................................... 16

Luis Barragan- 1980 .......................................................................................................................... 16

James Stirling- 1981 .......................................................................................................................... 17

Kevin Roche- 1982 ............................................................................................................................ 17

I.M Pei- 1983 ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Richard Meier- 1984 ......................................................................................................................... 18

Hans Hollein- 1985 ............................................................................................................................ 19

Gotfried Bohm- 1986 ........................................................................................................................ 19

Kenzo Tange- 1987 ............................................................................................................................ 20

Gordon Bunshaft- 1988 ..................................................................................................................... 20

Oscar Niemeyer- 1988 ...................................................................................................................... 21

Frank Gehry- 1989............................................................................................................................. 21

Aldo Rossi- 1990 ................................................................................................................................ 22

Robert Venturi- 1991 ........................................................................................................................ 22

Alvaro Siza- 1992 ............................................................................................................................... 23

Fumihiko Maki- 1993 ........................................................................................................................ 23

Christian de Portzamparc- 1994 ....................................................................................................... 24

Tadao Ando- 1995 ............................................................................................................................. 24

Rafael Moneo- 1996 .......................................................................................................................... 25

Sverre Fehn- 1997 ............................................................................................................................. 25

Renzo Piano-1998 ............................................................................................................................. 26

Norman Foster- 1999 ........................................................................................................................ 26

Rem Koolhaas- 2000 ......................................................................................................................... 27

Jacques Herzog & Pierre de Meuron- 2001 ...................................................................................... 27

Glenn Murcutt- 2002 ........................................................................................................................ 28

John Utzon- 2003 .............................................................................................................................. 28

Zaha Hadid- 2004 .............................................................................................................................. 29

Thom Mayne- 2005 ........................................................................................................................... 29

Paulo Mendes da Rocha- 2006 ......................................................................................................... 30

Richard Rogers- 2007 ........................................................................................................................ 30

Jean Nouvel- 2008 ............................................................................................................................. 31

Peter Zumthor- 2009......................................................................................................................... 31

Kazuyo Sejima & Ryue Nishizawa- 2010 ........................................................................................... 32

References ........................................................................................................................................ 33

4. Chapter 4 : Analysing Possibilities .................................................................................................. 37

Popularity implies Pritzker ................................................................................................................ 37

How Old Do You Have To Be? ........................................................................................................... 40

Geopolitical Breakdown .................................................................................................................... 41

What Do You Have To Build? ............................................................................................................ 42

Be a Man of Letters ........................................................................................................................... 43

Go Back to School ............................................................................................................................. 43

The Classical Faux-Pas ....................................................................................................................... 44

References ........................................................................................................................................ 44

5. Chapter 5 : Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 46

The Pritzker Formula ......................................................................................................................... 46

Indian Architects: Wanted! .............................................................................................................. 47

And The 2011 Pritzker Goes To… ...................................................................................................... 48

Concluding Remarks.......................................................................................................................... 49

References ........................................................................................................................................ 50

6. Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................... 51

7. Chapter 6 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 55

Politics of the Pritzker- Introduction

1

Chapter 1 : Prologue

Introduction

―Writing about music is like dancing about architecture‖ Martin Mull, an American comedian.

Writing this dissertation was not easy. And that is despite the fact that there is probably less

that had to be written on architecture, than on the people involved in its creation. Reading and

writing about people is after all one of the many ways of understanding their work better.

And, considering the people that have been awarded the Pritzker so far, it is definitely an

interesting way to do so.

The Pritzker Prize is undoubtedly architectures highest honor. It needs no introduction. It has

only grown in popularity with each year in the past three decades of its existence. The Prize is

considered to be an equivalent to what the Nobel Prize in architecture would have been. The

Pritzker seeks: ―to honor a living architect whose built work demonstrates a combination of

those qualities of talent, vision and commitment, which has produced consistent and

significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of

architecture". The credo as stated, on the Pritzker prize official site, by the Hyatt Foundation.

In a profession that prides itself on creativity, it could be argued that competitions are

unnecessary, if not harmful. As the architectural critic Martin Filler (1999) pointed out in

good humor, these competitive standards would help in ―prompting feelings of superiority,

envy, and inadequacy among artists already prone to such low and distracting emotions. But

high-priced awards, particularly in architecture, have proliferated in recent decades‖. Despite

whatever shortcomings every competition may have, one cannot deny the fact that they bring

a huge amount of publicity with them, and generate news. They generate an architectural

awareness among the general public.

Politics of the Pritzker -Introduction


2

Architecture as a profession is known for the rivalry among practitioners and their fights for

every commission that might come their way. Competition is a part of every practicing field.

Even though, Piano might shrug and say ―Competition? I don‘t know what you are talking

about…‖ and continue in his charming Italian manner ―I mean, what I do is I steal from

them‖ pointing at the other Pritzker laureates-

Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, and Jean Nouvel on a

discussion with TV show host Charlie Rose

(Nouvel, Gehry, Hadid, & Piano, 2008). Piano

owes much in his career to the competition he

won, along with Richard Rogers, for the Pompidou Centre in Paris at the age of 34. And,

jokes apart, his work are sufficient proof of his ingenuity.

The Pritzker Prize is a recognition conferred on the architect. It does not highlight any

particular work of his. It is similar in this to the lesser known Baburao Mhatre Gold Medal,

presented by the Indian Institute of Architects. Other similar international awards presented to

architects include the RIBA and AIA Gold Medal. The judging criteria for an award of this

category, let it be category A, are of interest here. The other category- category B- of awards

would include those that are given for a particular project. They would include competitions

for design proposals, and also those that evaluate built work. An example of an award

presented annually for the first subcategory is the eVolo skyscraper design contest; while an

example of the second sub-category would be the famous Aga Khan Award. Competitions are

also held to evaluate proposals, before settling on an architect to entrust with the task of

building. Of the above types of competitions, it is only those that fall under category A which

maintain unchanging criteria for selection every time they are held. The Pritzker Prize (a

category A competition) also has a relatively constant jury- one that does not change every

a:Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers at the Pompidou.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01134/arts-

graphics-2002_1134862a.jpg


3

Year. It facilitates in the understanding of what makes an architect successful- according to

the jury- by studying the previously chosen architects. The debate on what really makes good

design is never ending. With there being an infinite amount of uncaliberated yardsticks to

measure from, everyone rightly has his/her own point of view. This dissertation includes a

study of all the winning architects since the inception of the prize. The research question that

this dissertation aims to answer is:

What inferences can be drawn on the workings of the Pritzker Prize by analyzing the career

and works of previous laureates?

While answering this question, there are other related questions that will be looked into, such

as: (a) What could be the reasons for the absence of Indian architects? (b) Are there any

emerging trends in the awarding of the prize? And, lastly, (c) Who is likely to win the prize in

2011?

The Pritzker Prize has influenced the creation of the term ‗Star-chitects‘. There is an

exaggerated image of the architect that is projected by the media. And, it is at this point that

one must read what Sudjic (2006, p.7) has to say in his polemic The Edifice Complex:

'Architecture has always been dependent on the allocation of precious resources and

scarce manpower. As such its execution has always been at the discretion of those

with their hands on the levers of power rather than that of architects. Pharonic Egypt

did not devote the surplus from its harvests to the construction of the pyramids, rather

than to road building or abolishing slavery, because of any creative urge of the

Pharaoh's architects.'

Here Sudjic points to the role architects play as puppets in the hands of those with power and

wealth. He further reasons that it is the ―genetically predetermined destiny‖ for the architect


4

to do whatever is in his reach in order to build(2006, p.8). And that in order to build, he must

bow and produce what the client wants. The fact that the client knows what he wants is

implicit in Sudjic's statements.

This dissertation is an attempt to study the workings of the pritzker prize- The Politics of the

Pritzker. Taking only the pritzker as reference, this is a study of what makes an architect &

his work successful- according to the jury.

Need Identification:

This dissertation looks at the architectural profession from a different viewpoint: that of its

most popular award. The literature survey carried out was based on an extensive study of

material from a mélange of sources. It presented the finding that there have been only three

books that deal with the works of the Pritzker winning architects published so far. Of those,

two of them only carry information about the architects that won in the first twenty years of

the prize. The third book is more up-to-date, and features the architects accounts and

explanations of their work. What is missing is a comparison between the architects. What is

available is a huge amount of documentation. It ranges from published material in magazines,

and books to informal blogs, video interviews and graphics. This dissertation would look into

not only the built work, but also the architect behind the work, ie. The question: what is it that

makes a person win the Pritzker?

Scope And Limitation:

The scope of the research is limited to studying primarily the life and works of the Pritzker


5

prize winning architects. Maybe a few other architects would also have to be studied- those

that are likely to win in the next decade. The study will include all thirty five architects that

have so far been awarded the prize. The limitation in this study would be that the source of

most of the information is secondary.

Research Methodology:

The research has been divided in two parts. The first part concerns itself with documenting

and analyzing the body of work built before the architects won the prize. This is presented

here with the help of photographs and drawings. A brief summary of the general view that is

held of the architect by the critics in the media is presented alongside. Examples have been

drawn, wherever possible from the book Precedents of Architecture, by Clark and Pause

(2005) in which they have shown that certain patterns and formative ideas persist through

time, with apparently no relationship to place.

The second part deals with the analysis of data collected to test certain hypothesis. Using data

available about the 35 previous laureates, the author has tried to draw out any similarities that

might help explain more about the Pritzker prize and the successful architects. Data that has

been looked into include:

Popularity

Age

Nationality

Number of completed projects

Building Typology

Books Published

Style of work


6

There was also n attempt to interview some of the previous and/or current judges. All of the

data collected has been presented graphically as far as possible.

The author would have liked to look at other possible factors of success, for example

similarities in working style and a dependence on drawing for exploring ideas. Brian

Edwards, in his book Understanding Architecture through drawing (2008), puts forward his

findings on a survey conducted on British architects. He writes that a surprising number of

experienced and successful architects (including Lord Foster) kept a personal sketchbook.

There are sure to be many more such similarities, but, owing to the constraints of time, were

unfortunately not looked into.

References

Clark, R. H., & Pause, M. (2005). Precedents in Architecture- Analytic Diagrams, Formative

Ideas and Partis (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Edwards, B. (2008). Understanding Architecture through Drawing (2nd ed.). The Cromwell

Press.

Filler, M. (1999, April 26). Eye on the prize. The New Republic .

Frederick, M. (2007). 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School. The MIT Press.

Goldberger, P. (2003, November 12). Architecture Criticism: Does It Matter? Retrieved

November 2010, from Lecture at the Butler University, Indianapolis:

http://www.paulgoldberger.com/lectures/12

Khanna, A. (2001, February). Architecture: Inconsequenstial. 59. Unpublished Dissertation

School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi.


7

Nouvel, J., Gehry, F., Hadid, Z., & Piano, R. (2008, June 5). A discussion with Pritzker

Winners. (C. Rose, Interviewer)

Sudjic, D. (2006). The Edifice Complex: How the rich and powerful shape the world (2nd

ed.). Penguin Publishing.

Politics of the Pritzker –The Pritzker Selection Process

Politics of the Pritzker- The Pritzker Selection Process

8

CHAPTER 2: THE PRITZKER SELECTION PROCESS


9

Chapter 2 : The Pritzker Selection Process

The Secretive Process

The international prize, which is awarded each year to a living architect for significant

achievement, was established by the Pritzker family of Chicago through their Hyatt

Foundation in 1979. Often referred to as ―architecture‘s Nobel‖ and ―the profession‘s highest

honor,‖ it is granted annually. Many of the procedures and rewards of the Pritzker Prize are

modeled after the Nobel Prize

The prize is awarded irrespective of nationality, race, creed, or ideology. Nominations are

accepted internationally from persons from diverse fields who have a knowledge of and

interest in advancing great architecture.

The Executive Director actively solicits nominations from past laureates, architects,

academics, critics, politicians, professionals involved in cultural endeavors, etc. and with

expertise and interest in the field of architecture.

Additionally, any licensed architect may submit a nomination to the Executive Director for

consideration by the jury for the Pritzker Architecture Prize. Nominations are accepted

through November 1 of any given year. It is sufficient to send an e-mail to the Executive

Director with the nominee‘s name and contact information. Nominations that do not result in

the award are automatically carried over to the following year. The Jury normally undertakes

deliberations early in the calendar year and the winner is announced in the spring.

The independent jury of experts ranges from five to nine members. Jury members serve for

multiple years to assure a balance between past and new members and are entrusted with

selecting the laureate each year. No members of the Pritzker family or outside observers are


10

present during jury deliberations which usually take place during the first months of the

calendar year. The jury members are recognized professionals in their own fields of

architecture, business, education, publishing, and culture.

The most important and first hand source of information is the media kit published by the

pritzker foundation. The media kits are published yearly with the announcement of the

honored architect. They are organised into:

Announcement

Biography

Jury Citation

Essay

Selected works

Although the announcement makes a point to quote the key note of the jury citation, the Jury

Citation itself is written for a more informed audience- and deals only with the architects

work. The jury citation is short and to the point, it rarely exceeds 500 words. The essay

comes next, and this is comprehensive. The essay is usually written by a renowned critic.

People that have written include: Ada Louise Huxtable, Kenneth Frampton, Colin Amery and

Deyan Sudjic. The essay eloquently summaries the entire body of finished work of the

laureate. They are full of praise of the best features of the architects built work. The

description of selected works by the architect is a new addition to the media kit issued by the

foundation.

The award consists of $100,000 (US) and a bronze medallion. The award is conferred on the

laureate at a ceremony held at an architecturally significant site. The presentation ceremonies

move around the world each year, paying homage to the architecture of other eras and/or

works by previous laureates of the prize. As the ceremony locations are usually chosen each

year before the laureate is selected, there is no intended connection between the two.


11

The invitation-only event is attended by international guests and guests from the host country.

The ceremony itself normally consists of welcoming remarks usually from a dignitary of the

host country; comments from the jury chairman; the presentation of the prize by Thomas

Pritzker; and an acceptance speech from the Laureate.

The bronze medallion awarded to each Laureate of the Pritzker Architecture Prize is based on

designs of Louis Sullivan, famed Chicago architect generally acknowledged as the father of

the skyscraper. On one side is the name of the prize. On the reverse, three words are

inscribed, ―firmness, commodity and delight,‖ recalling Roman architect Vitruvius'

fundamental principles of architecture of firmitas, utilitas, venustas.

History- The Last 33 years

The prize has had its share of controversies. Like when in 1988 Gordon Bunshaft nominated

himself, and won the prize, along with Oscar Niemeyer. Three years later, Robert Venturi was

presented with it, while his wife and partner Denise Scott Brown was not. This created quite a

scandal in its time.

The jury is known for throwing surprises, like when in 1997 Sverre Fehn got the prize. He

had built very little, a national pavilion and another temporary structure. And then again in

2006, with Paulo Mendes, who had little international recognition.

It almost points to a forced attempt at including people from different nationalities to its list

of winners.

Apart from the winners selected, it has raised questions on the utility of the Prize itself. Many

argue that the amount spent on conducting the prize could be put to more efficient use if the

aim is to promote the development of the art of architecture. The description given by Bill


12

Lacy, who was on the jury previously is quoted below:

―We would ride in numerous vehicles to see two dozen buildings by architects from Italy,

Switzerland, the U.S.A., Finland, Spain, and the Netherlands. This demanding tour would

include a dramatic snowstorm in Helsinki, a riotous celebration of Carnevale in Basel,

motorboat rides on the canals of Venice and Amsterdam to approach key buildings from the

water, and side trips to spectacular classics such as the restored Chiesa dei Miracoli in Venice

and in the Netherlands the famous Schroder house by Rietveld, a masterful city hall by

Dudok, and the Educatorium by Rem Koolhaas‖.

Insider Scoop

As part of research on the jury, a questionnaire was prepared, and mailed to the present and

previous members of the jury. Unfortunately, there was no response, barring the

communication with Miss Martha Thorne, Executive Director of the Pritzker jury. Miss

Thorne is the only member of the jury who does not vote in its proceedings. She assists the

jury in its work.

Initially reluctant to part with any information, she politely explained that the internal

workings of the prize are private, and that the discretion allowed the jury to conduct its

mission without the interference and pressure of outside sources. However, on further

questioning, she did answer some of the questions, as quoted: (personal communication, Jan

2, 2011)

1. How is the built work of nominated architects put across to the jury? Are they shown

photos, videos, and drawings of the buildings? If only you could provide any hints

regarding how the jury is informed.


13

Miss Thorne: The jury has a wealth of information, as you can imagine. They travel,

they read a lot and of course consult journals, publications, images, videos and other

media. I prepare the documentation for the meetings and try to keep this consistent

and manageable, with the purpose of providing a visual summary of all that has been

gathered and seen throughout the year.

2. Are there any changes, or emerging trends for the future that you see?

Miss Thorne: I think that the basic parameters of the Prize will remain the same, even

if the jury decides to highlight or respond to certain issues from year to year. The jury

citations may become more specific and even longer, so as to explain clearly why the

Jury selected one candidate or another.

-I think that the jury (is) and will look very much more in depth at works from

―distant‖ places. The Jury members travel a lot alone and even together, so I believe

that they are trying to understand what is going on in many contexts around the globe.

I think that we may see more variety in the profiles of the winners. In the early years

it was often one man who won the prize. Recently partnerships ( and many even

teams) may be considered.

3. Whom do you personally think might win the Pritzker this year?

Miss Thorne: I have learned in my 5 years working with the Pritzker Prize Jury not to

predict who might receive the award. (I have usually been wrong.) The jury

approaches the question each year with a fresh and open mind, so it is very hard to

know who might be selected. It is only after the deep and long discussions that a

winner is selected.

4. How was your experience while on the committee? Is there anything you would like

to add?


14

Miss Thorne: I am privileged to assist the jury in its work. As Executive Director, I do

not vote or express my opinion about architects or architecture. I can assure you that

the jury takes its work very seriously and with great dedication. They are a unique,

highly intelligent group of individuals that understands the importance of architecture

and the role of the Prize.

The other questions that were left unanswered included questions relating to the method of

nominating the short-listed candidates, and selecting the winner. What is of particular interest

in her reply is what she mentions about the change in the jury‘s attitude towards considering

more than one architect. They are now likely to give more importance to teams, and

partnerships. They are also more likely to look at architects from countries that have not

featured on the list yet.

There is also some information gathered as to how the discussions are held by the jury. The

meetings of the Jury- where she provides the visual documentation that is shown, likely

happen after November of the previous year, till which time they are open to new

nominations. They probably meet frequently and decide on whom to pick by the month of

February- March, when the winning candidate is declared. The declaration is usually made on

the 31st of March.

References

The Pritzker Architecture Prize. www.pritzkerprize.com

Retrieved on 14 October, 2010.

Politics of the Pritzker- The Architects Honored

15

CHAPTER 3: THE ARCHITECTS HONORED- A VISUAL ATLAS

The roster of Pritzker laureates -- ranging from Richard Meier to Robert Venturi, Frank

Gehry to Kenzo Tange -- has something to offend nearly every taste..

Herbert Muschamp (Architecture critic)


16

Chapter 3 : Architects Honored- A Visual Atlas

Philip Johnson- 1979

―You see, I have no convictions, But do have taste.‖

Extract from Jury Citation: As a critic and historian, he championed the cause of modern

architecture and then went on to design some of his greatest buildings. Philip Johnson is

being honored for 50 years of imagination and vitality embodied in a myriad of museums,

theaters, libraries, houses, gardens and corporate structures.

The jury (which included Cesar Pelli) could not have chosen anyone else but the man referred

to as ―The dean of American architects‖. Johnson could fit anywhere- change colors like a

chameleon. He was The Godfather of Fame among architects, famous for his quotes on being

a whore who was paid very well for high-rise buildings.

Luis Barragan- 1980

―I underline the study of color above all.‖

The jury, which included Pelli, Isozaki, and Johnson had this to say in their citation: We are

honoring Luis Barragán for his commitment to architecture as a sublime act of the poetic

imagination. He has created gardens, plazas, and fountains of haunting beauty—metaphysical

landscapes for meditation and companionship.

Looking back, his oeuvre does not match the scale of other winners. He had built houses,

gardens and a chapel. He had his exhibition at the MoMA, just four years before the prize,

which is said to have brought him instant recognition. His work, although having strong

vernacular influences, would undoubtedly classify as modernistic.


17

James Stirling- 1981

“Like music, architecture should have a whole repertoire”

(―James Stirling, sa conception de musée,‖ Techniques et Architecture, Oct-Nov 1986)

The jury remained the same as the year before, and cited him as the ‗leader of the great

transition from the Modern Movement to the architecture of the New—an architecture that

once more has recognized historical roots, once more has close connections with the

buildings surrounding it, once more can be called a new tradition.‘

Stirling took pride in the fact that his designs did not look consistent, and were changing. He

also took pride in not relying on the use of models during the design process. His work was

the outcome of going beyond the modern movement, by questioning it.

Kevin Roche- 1982

“I was convinced that one had to introduce a series of scales as existed in traditional

architecture, starting with the human scale…”

(Francesco Dal Co, Kevin Roche, Milan: Electa, 1985)

The jury citation praises him He is no easy man to describe: an innovator who does not

worship innovation for itself, a professional unconcerned with trends, a quiet humble man

who conceives and executes great works, a generous man of strictest standards for his own

work.

Roche had trained under the master architect Eero Saarinnen. He was aware of the deep

social implications that an act of building carry. ―The role of the architect is service. You are

a servant of the community―- Kevin Roche.


18

I.M Pei- 1983

―I believe that architecture is a pragmatic art. To become art it must be built on a foundation

of necessity‖- I.M. Pei, Ceremony acceptance speech, 1983.

Excerpts from the jury citation: His concern has always been the surroundings in which his

buildings rise. His versatility and skill in the use of materials approach the level of poetry.

The tact and patience he displays has enabled him to draw together peoples of disparate

interests and disciplines to create a harmonious environment.

Pei was good humored and patient. His corporate methods were similar to Johnson‘s, and

Roche‘s, both of whom were on the jury that selected him. Although his buildings have

simplicity of geometry to them, they manage to settle harmoniously within the context. He

respects nature highly- attributing the character to his Chinese antecedents, and that is evident

in his work, such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Richard Meier- 1984

―…mine is a preoccupation with light and space; not abstract space… but space whose order

and definition are related to light, to human scale and to the culture of architecture.‖

-Richard Meyer, Pritzker acceptance speech, 1984.

The Jury found that his buildings show his single-minded pursuit of the essence of modern

architecture. He has broadened its range of forms to make it responsive to the expectations of

our time. In his search for clarity and his experiments in balancing light and space, he has

created structures which are personal, vigorous, and original.

Meyer is well known for his fixation with white. Winning the prize then came as a surprise to

him; he probably expected it would come later, if at all. His work has remained fairly

constant through the years. He got the commission for The Getty center just months later.


19

Hans Hollein- 1985

―Architecture is… the making of a statement. Within the two poles of architectural activity,

architecture as ritual and architecture as a means of preservation of body-temperature‖

Jury :architect who is also an artist, he has the good fortune to design museums that are then

eager to place within their walls works of art from his hand, whether in the form of drawings,

collages, or sculpture. He mingles bold shapes and colors with an exquisite refinement of

detail and never fears to bring together the richest of ancient marbles and the latest in plastics.

The Viennese postmodern architect had not built much at the time he was chosen. The essay

along with the Pritzker media kit is on Vienna, and not the architect. Choosing Hollein, and

Bohm the next year points to an attempt at including architects from distant countries. The

architect was one of the first postmodern architects to gain international fame.

Gotfried Bohm- 1986

―It seems to me a good thing when a building has not been designed entirely on a moment's

inspiration.‖- Gotfried Bohm, Prize acceptance speech.

Jury Citation: He has taken care to see that the elements in his work which suggest the past

also bear witness to his ready acceptance… of the latest and best in our contemporary

technology. His highly evocative handiwork combines much that we have inherited from our

ancestors with much that we have but newly acquired—an uncanny and exhilarating marriage

Bohm came from a family of architects. He was the son, grandson, husband and father of

architects. His buildings are a world apart. His work stands out from that of the others. It has

a surreal quality of scale and weight, which questions conventional meanings of beauty. He

built two churches in two years that must be seen to be believed: the Neviges Pilgramage

Church (1968), and the Parish Church of the Resurrection of Christ (1970).


20

Kenzo Tange- 1987

―I believe the development of a new architectural style will result from further study and

work on the three elements: human, emotional, and sensual elements; technologically

intelligent elements; and social-communicational structure of the space.‖

Jury Citation: Given talent, energy, and a sufficiently long career, one may pass from being a

breaker of new ground to becoming a classic. His stadiums for the Olympic Games are often

described as among the most beautiful structures built in the 20th

century. In preparing a

design, Tange arrives at shapes that lift our hearts because they seem to emerge from some

ancient and dimly remembered past and yet are breathtakingly of today (The Pritzker Jury,

1987).

Gordon Bunshaft- 1988

His acceptance speech is shortest in Pritzker history- only 58 words.

Described in the jury citation as an architect who made ―modest claims and significant

deeds‖, Bunshaft is remembered for his functional and humane buildings for the corporate

word. Some of his major works till then were the Bienke Library, Lever House,

Manufacturers Hanover Trust, and National Commercial Bank Jeddah. They usually sport

either blank walls, or curtain glazing over their simple form.

This was the second year Ada Louise Huxtable was on the jury, she remained on it till 2005.

The critic Martin Filler points out that she was not in favor of the growing post modern

movement, and was probably the reason for the selection of many modernistic architects,

including Bunshaft. (Filler, 1999)


21

Oscar Niemeyer- 1988

―I am not attracted to straight angles or to the straight line- hard and inflexible- created by

man. I am attracted to free flowing sensual curves.‖ – Oscar Niemeyer (as cited in Architect:

The works of Pritzker Prize winning laureates in their own words, 2010, p. 270).

Jury Citation: His building designs are the distillation of colors, light and sensual imagery of

his native land. Recognized as one of the first to pioneer new concepts in architecture in this

hemisphere, his designs are artistic gesture with underlying logic and substance. His pursuit

of great architecture linked to roots of his native land has resulted in new plastic forms and a

lyricism in buildings, not only in Brazil, but around the world. For his lifetime achievements,

the Pritzker Architecture Prize is bestowed.

Frank Gehry- 1989

The moment of truth, the composition of elements, the selection of forms, scale, materials,

color, finally, all the same issues facing the painter and the sculptor. Architecture is surely an

art,‖ – Frank Gehry, Pritzker Prize acceptance speech.

The Jury praised the architect for his enterprise, attributing his work to be ―refreshingly

original and totally American‖. He was compared to Picasso, for displaying boundless

imagination and careful restraint at the same time. Accepting the controversial nature of his

work, the jury termed his work to be an expression of the society and its values.

There is much to learn from Gehry‘s style of working. There is much that lies beneath what is

seen in the documentary on his work- Sketches of Frank Gehry (director Sydney Pollock,

2005). His biggest achievement is in bringing projects to completion without compromising

on artistic integrity. That is what he states under ‗The organization of the artist‘.


22

Aldo Rossi- 1990

―I have always rejected styles and fashions‖- Aldo Rossi, Pritzker Prize acceptance speech.

The Jury citation praised Rossi for having understood of the principles of Classical learning,

and how he had applied them in his work without direct lifting. They highlighted his skills as

an author, artist, teacher and philosopher. The jury commended him being able to capture

what they called ―the essence of purpose‖ on every design project.

Aldo Rossi has been the only architect selected in over the last thirty years who had built

work that closely resembles classical architecture, in that it does not eschew decoration

altogether. His work is clean on the outside, reflecting his mastery of proportion, and

sensibility of color, and texture. The sensitivity to context is apparent in all his work.

Robert Venturi- 1991

―I get the ideas out in words rather than bricks and mortar‖ – Robert Venturi (as cited in

Architect: The works of Pritzker Prize winning laureates in their own words, 2010, p. 225)

Robert Venturi‘s book Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture seems to have been the

focus of the entire Citation. The jury states that it was this book that changed the course of

architecture, away from modernism.

Filler (1999), in an article on the Prize, lets his readers in on some insider knowledge: He

suggests that Venturi‘s selection that year could be because of the personal interests of Jacob

Rothschild, a juror on the committee. Rothschild was chairman on the board of Trustees of

the National Gallery in London, and they had only just completed the Sainsbury Wing done

by Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates. He was eager to vindicate the controversial design

and so campaigned for Venturi among the jurors.


23

Alvaro Siza- 1992

―I don't work within any theoretical framework nor do I offer a key as to how you should

understand my work‖- Alvaro Siza. (cited in Desperately Seeking Siza. Ole Bouman, Roemer

van Toorn)

The apparent simplicity in his designs was praised by the jury. The Jury stated: ‗Siza's

characteristic attention to spatial relationships and appropriateness of form are as germane to

a single family residence as they are to a much larger social housing complex or office

building. The essence and quality of his work is not affected by scale.‘

His work is highly sensitive to the context, whether the context is defined by a rocky

waterfront, or an old native Portuguese neighborhood. Siza is generally regarded as an under-

hyped genius- who mixed vernacular form with modern material.

Fumihiko Maki- 1993

―When I start to design, quite often I have ideas, not just on the whole, but on parts. I play

with that, and gradually the total picture comes out… in classical buildings, you start with the

totality, then you begin to make the parts to be fitted within this frame.‖- Fumihiko Maki,

(cited in Architect: The works of Pritzker Prize winning laureates…, 2010, p. 211)

Except from Jury Citation: ―Maki has expressed his constant concern for the "parts" and the

"whole‖—describing one of his goals as achieving a dynamic equilibrium that includes

sometimes conflicting masses, volumes, and materials‖ (The Pritzker Jury, 1993)

There is an interesting story behind Maki‘s winning the prize two years before Ando.

According to Gehry's account, the Japanese hosts had explained to him that by right of

seniority, the next Japanese recipient after Tange would have to be Fumihiko Maki (who was

a Pritzker juror before), and only then could the junior Ando be considered. (Filler,1999)


24

Christian de Portzamparc- 1994

―…because architecture is a public art, architects, unlike other artists, do not enjoy complete

personal creative freedom. They are expected to impart a sort of legitimacy to their work by

providing the right answers to the needs of a particular era.‖- Christian de Portzamparc.

Pritzker Prize acceptance speech.

The Jury citation labeled Christian de Portzamparc's new architecture to be of the present,

bound neither by classicism nor modernism. They recognized him as a gifted composer who

gives life to his imagination by using space, structure, texture, form, light and color. And his

designs as a reinvented architecture, which still has its roots in modernism.

Speaking about the Cite de la Musique, he explains his attempt at creating a metaphor of the

city by combining separate buildings in one design.

Tadao Ando- 1995

―What I have sought to achieve is a spatiality that stimulates the human spirit, awakens the

sensitivity and communicates with the deeper soul.‖– Tadao Ando, Prize acceptance speech.

In spite of his consistent use of materials and the elements of pillar, wall, and vault, his

different combinations of these elements always prove exciting and dynamic. His design

concepts and materials have linked international Modernism to the Japanese tradition of

aesthetics.

Ando‘s career has been exiting. Starting out as a professional boxer, he migrated to

architecture, choosing to learn by himself, through observation and apprenticeship. His work

in the field has spawned numerous followers. It is derived from traditional knowledge-

Japanese wisdom, but built with respect to modern material.


25

Rafael Moneo- 1996

―Beauty is not today familiar in an architectural vocabulary. Architects seem to be absorbed

by the idea that architecture is simply the reflection of a culture at a specific time.‖ – Rafael

Moneo, Pritzker Prize acceptance speech.

Excerpts from Jury citation: he believes in the built work, and that once built, the work must

stand on its own, a reality that is far more than a translation of the architect's drawings. He

regards the materials and techniques of construction to be just as important as the architect's

vision and concept.

Moneo is not a starchitect. His buildings are a

Sverre Fehn- 1997

―Within himself, every man is an architect. His first step towards architecture is his walk

through nature.‖ – Sverre Fehn, Prize acceptance speech.

The selection of Fehn that year came as a surprise to many, if not all. Reasons for the jury

having selected him were hard to find in the jury citation. It could point to a forced attempt

by the jury at recognizing an architect who (relatively) had not yet achieved much public

prominence. Also, its attempts to include people of mixed geographical backgrounds are

forced is indicated through the selection of architects such as the Norwegian Fehn- whose

most important building till date had been a Pavillion.

Jury citation excerpts: ―He has avoided fads and fashions, patiently evolving his own

individual style, always seeking improvement… He gives great primacy in his designs to the

relationship between the built and the natural environment & to harmony in the combination

of ancient and contemporary. (The Pritzker Jury, 1997)


26

Renzo Piano-1998

―In my architecture, I try to use immaterial elements like transparency, lightness, the

vibration of the light. I believe that they are as much a part of the composition as the shapes

and volumes.‖ - Renzo Piano, Prize acceptance speech.

The Jury citation was quite predictable. They praised him for being ―equally at ease with

historical antecedents, as well as the latest technology, he is also intensely concerned with

issues of habitability and sustainable architecture in a constantly changing world… The array

of buildings by Renzo Piano is staggering in scope and comprehensive in the diversity of

scale, material and form. Valuing craftsmanship, not just of the hand, but also of the

computer, Piano has great sensitivity for his materials, whether using glass, metal, masonry or

wood. (The Pritzker Jury, 1998)

Norman Foster- 1999

―I think design is as much about an intuitive eye as any mathematical formula‖ – Norman

Foster, (as cited in Architect: The works of Pritzker Prize winning laureates in their own

words, 2010, p. 141)

His designs were noted for their clarity, invention, and sheer artistic virtuosity. His ability to

handle projects of just about any scale was appreciated. The reason stated towards the end

mentioned that the prize was given for Sir Norman's ―steadfast devotion to the principles of

architecture as an art form, for his contributions in defining an architecture with high

technological standards, and for his appreciation of the human values involved in producing

consistently well-designed projects‖ (The Pritzker Jury, 1999)


27

Rem Koolhaas- 2000

―The communities we cannot imagine in the real world will flourish in virtual space. The

territories and demarcations that we maintain on the ground are merged and morphed beyond

recognition in a much more immediate, glamorous and flexible domain—that of the

electronic.‖ – Rem Koolhaas, Prize acceptance speech.

He has demonstrated many times over his ability and creative talent to confront seemingly

insoluble or constrictive problems with brilliant and original solutions. In every design there

is a free-flowing, democratic organization of spaces and functions that in the end dictates a

new unprecedented architectural form. His body of work is as much about ideas as buildings.

The OMA has a reputation for developing on complex intense ideas, and presenting them in a

simple easy to understand manner. It is known for having had architects such as Hadid and

Ingels, who had worked there briefly, before starting their own successful practices.

Jacques Herzog & Pierre de Meuron- 2001

―Interaction- reinforcing emotions- is the most important aspect of all our projects.‖ Herzog

& de Meuron, as cited in Architect: The works of Pritzker Prize winning laureates in their

own words, 2010, p. 111

Extract from Jury Citation: The catalogue of their work reflects this diversity of interest and

accomplishment. The citation included a small description of some of their works, including

the Tate Gallery, London, the railroad signal box, the Rudin House, and their factory building

in Basel. The two members have held teaching positions at various prestigious colleges

around the world.

The Swiss architects are a strong contrast to the only other Swiss architect to receive the

Pritzker: Peter Zumthor.


28

Glenn Murcutt- 2002

―My buildings are a result of looking at where I am living, not trying to design an Australian

architecture, but trying to design an architecture of where I am‖ – Glenn Murcutt.

Jury Citation: Murcutt is a modernist, a naturalist, an environmentalist, a humanist, an

economist and ecologist encompassing all of these distinguished qualities in his practice as a

dedicated architect who works alone from concept to realization of his projects in his native

Australia. His works have sometimes been described as a synthesis of Mies van der Rohe and

the native Australian wool shed.. He uses a variety of materials, from metal to wood to glass,

stone, brick and concrete. He uses light, water, wind, the sun, the moon in working out the

details of how a house will work—how it will respond to its environment. His structures are

said to float above the landscape, or in the words of the Aboriginal people of Western

Australia that he is fond of quoting, they ―touch the earth lightly. (The Pritzker jury, 2002)

John Utzon- 2003

―As an architect I believe it is very important to fall in love with the nature of things instead

of fighting for form and style.‖ Jorn Utzon.

The citation extract: Utzon has a sense of architecture as art, and natural instinct for organic

structures related to site conditions. ―I like to be on the edge of the possible,‖ is something

Jørn Utzon has said. His work shows the world that he has been there and beyond—he proves

that the marvelous and seemingly impossible in architecture can be achieved. He has always

been ahead of his time. He rightly joins the handful of Modernists who have shaped the past

century with buildings of timeless and enduring quality.


29

Zaha Hadid- 2004

―The initial sense of abstractness and strangeness is unavoidable and not a sign of personal

willfulness.‖ – Zaha Hadid, Pritzker Prize acceptance speech.

Jury Citation:.Ms. Hadid has become more and more recognized as she continues to win

competition after competition, always struggling to get her very original winning entries

built. Discouraged, but undaunted, she has used the competition experiences as a

―laboratory‖. The full dimensions of Ms. Hadid‘s prodigious artistic outpouring of work is

apparent not only in architecture, but in exhibition designs, stage sets, furniture, paintings,

and drawings.

Thom Mayne- 2005

―I am captivated by what emerges and develops from the smallest piece of information as it

absorbs the huge number of realities that come to impact it. In this process, the end cannot be

known at the beginning.‖ – Thom Mayne, Prtizker Prize acceptance speech.

The jury citation mentioned as it ended that Mayne was honored for ―an outstanding body of

work and future promise‖. That future promise remains to be seen. Long held as the anti-

establishment bad-boy of the profession, the award comes after a string of many competition

victories in the last few years. He has tried to create an original architecture, one that is

representative of the unique and somewhat rootless, culture of Southern California. His

projects are noted for their loud character, bold designs, and originality—both in their form

and in use of materials. (The Pritzker Jury, 2005)


30

Paulo Mendes da Rocha- 2006

―Architecture is a human endeavor inspired by the nature all around us. We must transform

nature; fuse science, art, and technology into a sublime statement of human dignity.‖ – Paulo

Mendes da Rocha, as cited in Architect: The works of Pritzker Prize winning laureates in

their own words, 2010, p. 47.

Jury Citation: ―inspired by the principles and language of modernism, as well as through his

bold use of simple materials, has over the past six decades produced buildings with a deep

understanding of the poetics of space. He modifies the landscape and space with his

architecture, striving to meet both social and aesthetic human needs.‖ (The Pritzker Jury,

2006)

Richard Rogers- 2007

―I have always believed that a humane and progressive architecture is one that creates beauty

out of function. Not just for the sake of beauty in itself, but because beautiful buildings and

public spaces help people achieve their potential‖ – Richard Rogers, as cited in Architect: The

works of Pritzker Prize winning laureates in their own words, 2010, p. 47.

Jury citation: a unique interpretation of the Modern Movement‘s fascination with the building

as machine, an interest in architectural clarity and transparency, the integration of public and

private spaces, and a commitment to flexible floor plans that respond to the ever-changing

demands of users, are recurring themes in his work.


31

Jean Nouvel- 2008

―I always make architecture somewhere—certainly for someone, but always for everyone. I

refuse to limit architecture to a stylistic field. I am an architect who doubts, who seeks

without thinking I have found, I put myself at risk, I‘m an empiricist who invents architecture

while designing it, and it surprises even me.‖ – Jean Nouvel, Prize acceptance speech.

Jury Citation: The manipulation of light and of layers of transparency and opacity are

recurring themes in Nouvel‘s work. In architecture there is no ―style‖ a priori. Rather,

context, interpreted in the broadest sense to include culture, location, program, and client,

provokes him to develop a different strategy for each project. The jury, recognized an

insatiable urge for creative experimentation.

Peter Zumthor- 2009

―When I like it, you will like it, too, because I‘m not so special.‖ - Peter Zumthor, Prize

acceptance speech.

Zumthor's book Thinking Architecture, 2006 narrates the pritzker winning architects thought

process. The quality of writing is poetic, filled with vivid visual imagery. Clear thinking

crisply written. Although the author touches upon many topics, most of our attention is on the

emotions that he calmly brings out. Zumthor at one point mentions, that good architecture

should receive the human visitor, enabling him to experience it and live in it.(2006, p.32)

Jury Citation extract: His buildings have a commanding presence, yet they prove the power

of judicious intervention, showing us again and again that modesty in approach and boldness

in overall result are not mutually exclusive. Humility resides alongside strength.


32

Kazuyo Sejima & Ryue Nishizawa- 2010

―We have always been attracted by this ambivalence between something and nothing. By this

floating identity of materials and space.‖ – Sejima & Nishizawa, (as cited in Architect: The

works of Pritzker Prize winning laureates in their own words, 2010, p. 13)

Jury Citation: The buildings by Sejima and Nishizawa seem deceptively simple. It may be

tempting to view Sejima and Nishizawa‘s refined compositions of lightness and transparency

as elitist or rarefied. Their aesthetic, however, is one of inclusion. Their approach is fresh,

always offering new possibilities within the normal constraints of an architectural project as it

systematically takes the next step. They use common, everyday materials while remaining

attuned to the possibilities of contemporary technology; their understanding of space does not

reproduce conventional models. They often opt for non-hierarchical spaces, or in their own

words, the ―equivalence of spaces,‖ creating unpretentious, democratic buildings according to

the task and budget at hand.


33

References


The Pritzker Jury, 1979. (n.d.). Philip Johnson: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,

from The Pritzker Architecture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/1979/jury.html

The Pritzker Jury, 1980. (n.d.). Luis Barragan: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1981. (n.d.). James Stirling: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1982. (n.d.). Kevin Roche: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from

The Pritzker Architecture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/1982/jury.html

The Pritzker Jury, 1983. (n.d.). I.M. Pei: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The

Pritzker Architecture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/1983/jury.html

The Pritzker Jury, 1984. (n.d.). Richard Meier:Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1985. (n.d.). Hans Hollein: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1986. (n.d.). Gottfried Bohm : Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1987. (n.d.). Kenzo Tange: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,

from The Pritzker Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/1987/jury.html


34

The Pritzker Jury, 1989. (n.d.). Frank Gehry: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1990. (n.d.). Aldo Rossi: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from


The Pritzker Jury, 1991. (n.d.). Robert Venturi: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1992. (n.d.). Alvaro Siza: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from


The Pritzker Jury, 1993. (n.d.). Fumihiko Maki: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1994. (n.d.). Christian de Portzamparc: Jury Citation. Retrieved October

17, 2010, from The Pritzker Architecture Prize:

http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/1994/jury.html

The Pritzker Jury, 1996. (n.d.). Rafael Moneo: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1997. (n.d.). Sverre Fehn: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from


The Pritzker Jury, 1998. (n.d.). Renzo Piano: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from

The Pritzekr Architecture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/1998/jury.html

The Pritzker Jury, 1999. (n.d.). Norman Foster: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010,



35

The Pritzker Jury, 2000. (n.d.). Rem Koolhaas: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 2001. (n.d.). Herzog & de Meuron: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17,

2010, from The Pritzker Architecture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2001/jury.html

The Pritzker Jury, 2002. (n.d.). Glenn Murcutt: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 2003. (n.d.). John Utzon: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from

The Prizker Architecture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2003/jury.html

The Pritzker Jury, 2006. (n.d.). Paulo Mendes da Rocha: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17,


The Pritzker Jury, 2007. (n.d.). Richard Rogers: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,

from The Pritzker Architechture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2007/jury.html

The Pritzker Jury, 2008. (n.d.). Jean Nouvel: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from


The Pritzker Jury, 2009. (n.d.). Peter Zumthor: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010,

from The Pritzker Architechture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2009/jury.html

Politics of the Pritzker- Analysing Possibilities

36

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSING POSSIBILITIES

Architecture seems to be entrenched in two equally unfertile fronts: Either naively utopian or

petrifying pragmatic. We believe that there is a third way wedged in the no man’s land

between the diametrical opposites. Or in the small but very fertile overlap between the two.

Bjarke Ingels


37

Chapter 4 : Analysing Possibilities

Popularity implies Pritzker

Is popularity the best indicator of the next Pritzker winning architect? It sounds too easy to be

true. It might also hint at a dependence the prize could have on the popularity of its

recipients. Making such an assumption for the initial years of the Prize is valid. Establishing a

global prize and generating the respect is not a small task. But, thirty two years down the line,

it has kept itself on the forefront of public attention.

There has been a long standing debate on whether the public really knows what good art is.

Peter Eisenman is reported to have said ―You can talk to the public, but I don't think they

should say what books should be read, or what is good art or music.‖ upon loosing the

competition for Ground Zero. (The account was by Architectural critic Paul Lieberman of the

Los Angeles Times (2003)). Acknowledging the Pritzker as a promoter of fine taste in

architecture, it would be worth looking at any possible correlation there might exist between

the prize and popularity.

In order to establish whether public popularity and winning the Pritzker have anything in

common, data on internet search volumes was collected. The search volumes are a good

indicator of what internet users find interesting. Although internet users do not uniformly

represent the entire globe, the data obtained by their browsing patterns is presently the best

available indicator of global popularity.

This list, by itself apparently does throw up any conclusions. To draw a comparison, the

Google Trends data for other architects was also studied. That is shown in Table 2 on the next

page.


38

The above data points to a clear difference in the popularity of Pritzker winning architects

over non-winners. The average search volume of all Pritzker winning architects is 14.57. The

average search volume of Pritzker winning architects in the last decade is 17.18. It could be

argued that the winning of the prize itself was responsible in increasing popularity. To check

if that is true, data with reference to time was collected for the last six years since Google has

been measuring. Table 3 shows popularity for the architects awarded the prize after 2004.

From the graph, it can be seen that while Jean Nouvel (in red) has fairly remained constant on

the popularity meter- barring the spike that winning the prize gave him, Richard Rogers

(orange) has actually had a steady decline in numbers. What is surprising is that there is

hardly any indication of his winning the Pritzker in the year 2007 on the graph. Winning the

Pritzker has not had any major affect on Zumthor‘s popularity either (aqua), other than the

spike in 2009. He seems to have remained as popular as he was in the three years before

winning the prize. The Pritzker has made a marked difference only to Thom Mayne and Paulo

Mended da Rocha (blue and green respectively), both of whom were below Google‘s

threshold of measuring search volumes before being honored. Therefore, it is not known

exactly how ‗unpopular‘ they were.

Along with the simple comparison of search volumes, a distribution curve was studied. It has

thrown up an interesting graph, a little different from what might be expected. On plotting the

graph for number of architects (on y-axis) against their popularity (on x-axis), the result is

shown in Figure 4b on the following page:


39

To check for any trends in the last 10 years of the history of the prize, the popularity was

plotted against time. It shows that there is no trend towards or away from choosing popular

architects.

The method employed to obtain the data, and the raw data itself, is discussed in further detail

in Appendix A.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 to 5 6 to 15 16 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55

Expected Curve

Distribution Curve

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Popularity with Time Line


40

How Old Do You Have To Be?

―Architects are late bloomers‖ This is the last piece of knowledge Mathew Freddrick shares

in the popular book 101 Things I learnt in Architecture School. He goes on to say that most

architects do not hit their professional stride until they‘re around fifty.

The average age of the architect receiving the Pritzker points to the nature of the award. But,

here, before coming to any conclusions after having seen data on the age of the recepients,

one must remember that the profession is known for its long and steep learning curve. As

Piano once remarked, you have to learn a lot in this profession, for the first sixty seventy

years. And that is why an architect should live for about 200 years (Nouvel, Gehry, Hadid, &

Piano, 2008).

The data shown in Table 4d on the opposite page correlates with what the critic Ada Louise

Huxtable mentioned on a talk show with Charlie Rose, that they ―gave them the award when

they were at the cusp, just going to start doing great things. She was on the jury for a long

period from 1987 to 2005‖ (Huxtable, A conversation with architectural critic Ada Louise

Huxtable, 2009)


41

Geopolitical Breakdown

It is quite easily evident from the map on the facing page that most honoraries have been

from the developed countries. The exceptions to this are only two architects from Brazil

(Niemeyer, and Paulo Mendes) and one from Mexico (Barragan). A third of them were

practicing in the United States.

For comparison, a map of the world with information on developed, developing and under

developed countries is provided alongside. It was found that the geographical distribution of

previous honoraries matches the world map indicating Human Development Index more

closely, so that map has also been provided underneath.

There seems to be a clear bias towards American architects from first glance. America is a

developed country, and also the world‘s third most populous country. It has about two thirty

thousand architects (2010 Statistical Yearbook of the US Census Bureau). The amount of

construction that has happened there, and the scale of the projects beats all other countries.

The Phaidon Atlas, 2006 quotes some important statistics: Japan leads in the number of

architects as a percentage of population, having 240.4 architects per 1,00,000 people. Britain

has 54.1 architects per 100,000; France 47.7 ; Germany 144.7 ; Russia only 8.3 (which

explains its absence from the scene).

This is what Rem Koolhaas has to say about the profession, and architects: ―They are

confronted with an arbitrary sequence of demands, with parameters they did not establish, in

countries they hardly know, about issues they are only dimly aware of, expected to deal with

problems that have proven intractable to brains vastly superior to their own. Architecture is

by definition a chaotic adventure.‖ – Rem Koolhaan & Bruce Mau. S, M, L, XL. 1995 (from

Architect: The works of Pritzker Prize winning laureates in their own words, 2010, p. 128)


42

What Do You Have To Build?

The famous documentary on Louis Kahn, My Architect, includes an interview with the

Chinese-American architect I.M. Pei in which he states: ―Building doesn‘t mean success.

Three or four masterpieces are more important than fifty sixty buildings‖. Pausing, to

emphasize his point, he continues ―Quality, not quantity‖ and smiles. Unfortunately, Kahn

passed away five years before the inception of the prize. He had to his name only a handful of

projects, but was highly popular. He had built a museum- The Kimbell Art Museum.

It has been observed that museum buildings are the common typology in the work that these

architects carried out before being awarded the prize. Data shown alongside (Table 4e)

indicates the number of completed projects the architects had to their name, and also if they

had designed a museum before receiving the prize.

Museum buildings are public spaces that celebrate culture. The nature of its functions and

requirements leave much freedom in the hands of its architects. They are dream commissions,

and in many ways can be called the Modern cathedrals. They attract the maximum public

attention. The Bilbao effect is what has put the city on the map, and pushed Gehry‘s name to

dizzying heights. Although the museum was completed in 1997, he had to his name the Vitra

design museum when he was awarded the prize in 1989.

These projects also come with their own share of troubles. Public projects involve public

clients- politicians and businessmen. Dealing with them, and ensuring the successful

completion of the project is a feat in itself. Jorn Utzon‘s experience with Sydney is a case in

point. The tragedy robbed the world of the opportunity to witness what could have been the

oeuvre of a highly talented designer.

Data on the number of completed projects is limited. Only the last fifteen years have been


43

studied as reliable sources of data for this field was not available. It has primarily been

collected from the official websites of the architects, wherever possible. At other places

information from websites such as Wikipedia had to be relied upon. Studying the numbers

does not reveal any patterns.

Be a Man of Letters

―I like my architecture to speak for me‖ - Gordon Bunshaft,

(as quoted by Blum, B.J. (1990), referenced from Architect: The Work of the Pritzker Prize

laureates in their own words (2010))

The other architects apparently believed in writing, talking and teaching about their work.

Almost all architects that have won the Pritzker had had their books published since early in

their career. The books typically deal with their philosophy, and explain much about their

work. Many are quite interesting to read, and hugely popular within the architectural

community. Books written- such as Complexity and Contradiction- by Robert Venturi and

Scott Brown; Thinking Architecture- by Peter Zumthor, and S,M,L,XL by Koolhaas, to name

a few- help explain the work and thinking in greater detail.

There are only three exceptions to the list of those that had published matter- Gordon

Bunshaft, Richard Meyer and Kevin Roche. All of them were nominated in the first decade of

the Prize. The architects Paulo Mendes da Rocha and Christian de Portzamparc had books

published in Portuguese and French respectively.

Go Back to School

Another common trend seen was in that the architects had been giving lectures at architecture

schools around the world. This probably helps them grow their network, and stay in touch

with the academic side of the profession. It is also likely to help them be ethical- as they have


44

to maintain a position of responsibility, and serve as role models to their students.

The ‘85 Pritzker winner, Hans Hollein (Architect, 2010) reiterated a common perception,

when he said that it was not possible to teach a student to become an important architect.

There is no secret to it, but just work and ideas.

The Classical Faux-Pas

None of the architects had ever built anything that looked classical, or traditional. There

could be slight exceptions to this- as Aldo Rossi, has made work that can be said to be on the

borderline.

And Paulo Mendes has used vernacular forms quite often, but, in all the work that the Prize

winners have generated, there is hardly any direct usage of classical elements. Save for some

works by Robert Venturi, such as the post-modern Sainsbury Art Gallery extention.

References

Peltason, R., & Ong-Yan, G. (Eds.). (2010). Architect: The work of the Pritzker Prize

Laureates in their own words. Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers.

Phaidon. (2004). The Phaidon Atlas of Contemporary World Architecture. Phaidon.

Politics of the Pritzker –Conclusion

Politics of the Pritzker- Conclusion

45

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

I am not expecting you to be sitting in some dark corner of the world making earth shattering

discoveries for your dissertation

Dr. Ranjana Mital


46

Chapter 5 : Conclusion

The Pritzker Formula

Sugar, spice and everything nice. These were the ingredients chosen to create the perfect little

girls. This is a dissertation. Not a cartoon on pre-teen girls. But, the show must go on. The

data looked into has thrown up quite a few surprises, along with other expected and well

known bits of knowledge. What is worth mentioning before the conclusions drawn from the

research is what has been learnt on the way: that there is more that is responsible for how far

you go in the profession than just the lines you draw. This does not mean that talent and skill

are unimportant. What is equally important, if not more, is publicizing your work and

yourself. In the end, the best designs are the ones that are built- not those that remain on

paper. No matter how superior they might have been if built. The best architects are those that

win.

There are no earth shattering discoveries made. The study suggests that there is much in

common in the professional lives of previous laureates. The fact that all of them had built a

museum by the time they were honored is not coincidental. There are two main reasons for

this: As they are a part of the cultural fabric, these projects give its creators instant public

recognition. And the second reason is perhaps the more important reason: because a

commission for a museum is almost always given on the basis of a competition. One that is

usually open to all. Buildings such as a museum or a church are expected to be sculptural

buildings that reflect culture. Working on such a building also offers much freedom to the

designer- functional requirements are few.

The other findings relate to what the successful architects have been found to do outside of

their studios: teach at schools of architecture, and publish theory. X out of the 35 architects


47

had taught in some or the other college before they received the prize. X of them had teaching

experience in an American university. It would be fair to assume that this helps in

establishing contacts, and also keeps them updated. The books they publish increases their

popularity, and provide explanations of their work. Published books include manifestos,

polemics, catalogues, and such books. Of the many books published by the Pritzker winning

architects- Robert Venturi‘s Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, and Peter

Zumthor‘s Thinking Architecture are well known and critically acclaimed. Others such as

Rem Koolhaas, and Renzo Piano have also written much on the work they have built.

The above findings point to a professional roadmap where one must work at competitions for

museum buildings. And, at the same time publish ideological works/ polemics. Preach at

American universities, and, if possible, also find something to build there. All said and done,

remember to NEVER make the mistake of designing anything visually similar to

classical/traditional architecture.

Indian Architects: Wanted!

Indian Architecture remains off the pritzker radar. Although Charles Correa and B.V. Doshi

have been on the pritzker Jury for three to four years each, there is not much chance for an

indian architect to be selected as the winner. Atleast not in the next decade. The work of

Charles Correa has received some international attention. But it just about ends right there.

His work has not been documented very well either. Similarly, Caesar Pelli has been on the

jury too, and this could be the reason why he- despite having an impressive list of buildings

to his name -has yet not won the pritker.

Laurie Baker had been nominated. His selection would have come as a shock to the entire

community. Nothing should be said of Hafeez Contractor.


48

And The 2011 Pritzker Goes To…

It is expected to find an informed guess on who is likely to receive the pritzker in 2011 in the

concluding chapter. With a reasonable amount of surety now, the data available as part of this

research can be used to predict possible winners. Unless the jury decides to continue on its

spree of picking non-American architects, it seems most likely that Steven Holl will take the

Prize. He scores high on the popularity meter, is at the ripe old age of 63 (exactly Pritzker

average), and has even worked on a book with present jury member Juhani Pallasmaa. Holl

has been on the faculty of Architecture at Columbia University since 1981. He has designed

many museum buildings, and churches. His buildings are clean despite having an

experimental quality to them. All this would make him the perfect candidate for the Pritzker.

Other architects- that are found in public expectations- include Calatrava, Libeskind, Toyo

Ito, Shigeru Ban, Fujimoto, Safdie, Tschumi and also firms like MVRDV and Coop

Himmelb(l)au. It is highly unlikely that some of them will ever win the prize. Daniel

Libeskind will probably never win. This is what was written in the jury citation this year:

―Sejima and Nishizawa‘s architecture stands in direct contrast with the bombastic and

rhetorical‖. The statement appears to be a veiled attack on the work of Daniel Libeskind.

Similarly, for Calatrava, his work has been branded as ‗Kitsch‘ by many, including Huxtable.

Add to that, his firm is only about a decade old- much too young - and is known more for his

engineering skill, than architecture.

The other architects are either too young, or past their prime. Shigeru Ban, Fujimoto and their

colleagues could wait a few more years. The septuagenarians Safdie, Eisenmann and Pelli

have crossed the line. Honoring one of them would be similar to presenting a lifetime

achievement award. Mario Botta, Bernard Tschumi seem to be in the process of crossing the

line.


49

For now, I believe that Steven Holl is most likely to win, but I wouldn't be surprised if Toyo

Ito took the place instead.

Concluding Remarks

Paul Goldberger points that no building can be viewed solely through the lens of aesthetics,

or at least it should not. Architecture criticism, he says, is aesthetics, politics, sociology and it

is culture, and that all these things are intertwined. Every object has an aesthetic presence and

a social one at the same time, every object is both a physical thing and a political thing, and

it has to be understood and criticized as both. It is not one or the other, but both, all the time

A quote from an article by him would be a fitting end to this study:

―Often, indeed, critics portray the story of building as a kind of Western, as a

cowboys-and-indians drama between the good guys - the architects who want to build

great and special things - and the bad guys, who are the developers and the politicians

who get in the way and force compromises and slice budgets and ruin everything… If

only things were so simple, and if only architecture with a capital A were such an

unfettered good, such a noble thing to uplift us all - and if only everyone who makes

money were such an obvious evil… Well, if only it were so simple. I am not naive

about the pernicious effect of money on the culture, and I do not mean to be

complacent about it, but I do think one has to be realistic about the complex forces at

work, particularly in a field such as architecture. I have read some architecture

criticism that seems to suggest that, if only the evil corporate and political forces were

not blocking their will at every turn, then all of the people, left to their own devices,

would be screaming for more buildings by Zaha Hadid and Rem Koolhaas and Diller

& Scofidio - and that if we only had more buildings by them and by other architects,

then we would all be living in paradise.‖


50

References

Goldberger, P. (2003, November 12). Architecture Criticism: Does It Matter? Retrieved

November 2010, from Lecture at the Butler University, Indianapolis:



51

Appendix A

Google Trends is a feature google provides to internet users free of cost to allow them to

view data on google search volumes. This service provides data on global search habits

since google has been up, ie, from 2004 onwards. Google Trends allows you to compare

search volumes for five terms at a time. So, to do a comparison between the Pritzker

Laureates of the last three decades, an architect was kept common to all the search

result comparisons. The architect kept common in all the queries made on Google Trends

for this dissertation was Paulo Mendes da Rocha. The reason selecting him is because the

search volumes for many architects were too low to be measured by google, and, of the

winning architects, Paulo Mendes was found to have had the second lowest recordable

search voulumes. The lowest recordable search volumes were for I.M Pei, who was not

selected for comparison purposes because he was nominated a long time back, in 1983,

the fifth Laureate.

There could be a small amount of inaccuracy in the data, but it is the best indicator of

global popularity till date. Google declares that the data Trends produces may contain

inaccuracies for a number of reasons, including data-sampling issues and a variety of

approximations that are used to compute results.

This is what Google describes its service as

(retrieved from http://www.google.com/intl/en/trends/about.html)

‘Google Trends analyzes a portion of Google web searches to compute how many

searches have been done for the terms you enter, relative to the total number of

searches done on Google over time. We then show you a graph with the results – th

Search Volume Index graph.

Located beneath the Search Volume Index graph is the News reference volume graph.

This graph shows the number of times the topic appeared in Google News stories. When

Google Trends detects a spike in the volume of news stories for a particular search term,

it labels the graph and displays the headline of an automatically selected Google News

story written near the time of that spike.’

The data as recorded is shown in the following pages:


2009 Peter Zumthor Aqua 9

2008 Jean Nouvel Red 37

2007 Richard Rogers Orange 28

2006 Paulo Mendes da Rocha Green 1

2005 Thom Mayne Blue 1

2004 Zaha Hadid Aqua 55

2003 John Utzon Red 0

2002 Glenn Murcutt Orange 1

2001 Herzog & de Meuron Green 31

2006 Paulo Mendes da Rocha Blue 1


52

2000 Rem Koolhaas Aqua 26

1999 Norman Foster Red 50

1998 Renzo Piano Orange 54

1997 Sverre Fehn Green 0


1996 Rapael Moneo Aqua 3

1995 Tadao Ando Red 33

1994 Christian de Portzampac Orange 0

1993 Fumihiko Maki Green 0



1992 Alvaro Siza Aqua 10

1991 Robert Venturi Red 2

1990 Aldo Rossi Orange 9

1989 Frank Gehry Green 54


1988 Gordon Bunshaft Aqua 0

1988 Oscar Niemeyer Red 25

1987 Kenzo Tange Orange 2

1986 Gottfried Bohm Green 0



53

1985 Hans Hollein Aqua 0

1984 Richard Meyer Red 21.5

1983 I.M. Pei Orange 0.5

1982 Kevin Roche Green 0


1981 James Stirling Aqua 2

1980 Luis Barragan Red 8

1979 Philip Johnson Orange 18

2010 Sejima (&) Nishizawa (SANAA) Green 0



Arranged in descending order of Search Volumes: (using Google Trends)

2004 Zaha Hadid 55

1998 Renzo Piano 54

1989 Frank Gehry 54

1999 Norman Foster 50

2008 Jean Nouvel 37

1995 Tadao Ando 33

2001 Herzog & de Meuron 31

2007 Richard Rogers 28

2000 Rem Koolhaas 26

1988 Oscar Niemeyer 25

1984 Richard Meyer 21.5

1979 Philip Johnson 18

1992 Alvaro Siza 10

2009 Peter Zumthor 9

1990 Aldo Rossi 9

1980 Luis Barragan 8

1996 Rapael Moneo 3

1991 Robert Venturi 2

1987 Kenzo Tange 2

1981 James Stirling 2

2006 Paulo Mendes da Rocha 1

2005 Thom Mayne 1

2002 Glenn Murcutt 1

1983 I.M. Pei 0.5

2010 Sejima (&) Nishizawa (SANAA) 0

2003 John Utzon 0

1997 Sverre Fehn 0

1994 Christian de Portzampac 0

1993 Fumihiko Maki 0

1988 Gordon Bunshaft 0

1986 Gottfried Bohm 0

1985 Hans Hollein 0

1982 Kevin Roche 0


54

Those that didn't make it. Yet.:

No. Name Search Volume

1 Santiago Calatrava 30

2 MVRDV (firm) 21.5

3 Steven Holl 16.5

4 Toyo Ito 13.5

5 Daniel Libeskind 12.5

6 Mario Botta 12.5

7 Shigeru Ban 7.5

8 Peter Eisenman 5

9 David Chipperfield 4.5

10 Coop Himmelblau (firm) 2.5

11 Greg Lynn 2.5

12 Caesar Pelli 2

13 Sou Fujimoto 0.5

14 Moshe Safdie 0.5

15 Snohetta (firm) 0.5

16 Bernard Tschumi 0.5

17 Henning Larsen 0.5

18 Lois Kahn* 17.5

19 Geoffrey Bawa* 0

20 Haffez Contractor 0

21 Charles Correa 0

22 Hassan Fathy*, Laurie Baker* 0

(Arundhati Roy scored 21)

.

Politics of the Pritzker- Bibliography

55

Chapter 6 Bibliography

Clark, R. H., & Pause, M. (2005). Precedents in Architecture- Analytic Diagrams, Formative Ideas

and Partis (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Correa, C. (1997). Charles Correa. Thames & Hudson.

Edwards, B. (2008). Understanding Architecture through Drawing (2nd ed.). The Cromwell Press.


Frampton, K. (1997). The Work of Charles Correa. In C. Correa, Charles Correa (pp. 8-16).

Thames & Hudson.

Frederick, M. (2007). 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School. The MIT Press.

Goldberger, P. (2003, November 12). Architecture Criticism: Does It Matter? Retrieved November

2010, from Lecture at the Butler University, Indianapolis:


Holl, S. (2005). Thin Ice. In J. Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin- Architecture and the Senses (pp. 6-

8). Wiley-Academy.

Huxtable, A. L. (2009, April 2). A conversation with architectural critic Ada Louise Huxtable. (C.

Rose, Interviewer)

Huxtable, A. L. (1989). Frank Gehry 1989 Laureate Essay: On Awarding the Prize.

Khanna, A. (2001, February). Architecture: Inconsequenstial. 59. Unpublished Dissertation School

of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi.


KLAUS. (2010, April 7). Pritzker Prize 2010. (NopasSANAA). Retrieved October 16, 2010, from

KLAUSTOON: http://klaustoon.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/pritzker-prize-2010-nopassanaa/

Lieberman, P. (2003, February 23). Building Resolve. Los Angeles Times .

Muschamps, H. (1996, May 19). Pritzker Prize Offers Opportunity to Ponder Foundations of

Architecture. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from Albany Times Union:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-157132315.html

Naredi-Rainer, P. v. (2004). Museum Buildings- A Design Manual. (A. Schnell, Ed.) Birkhäuser.

Newel, C. (2009, May). 60. Play Peter, the Pritzker Peddling Hermit Genius. Retrieved January 8,

2011, from Notes on Becoming a Famous Architect:

http://famousarchitect.blogspot.com/2009/05/60-play-peter-pritzker-peddling-hermit.html

Nicolin, P. (2010, November). Foster Unplugged. Arbitaire , pp. 158-167.

Nouvel, J., Gehry, F., Hadid, Z., & Piano, R. (2008, June 5). A discussion with Pritzker Winners. (C.

Rose, Interviewer)

Peltason, R., & Ong-Yan, G. (Eds.). (2010). Architect: The work of the Pritzker Prize Laureates in

their own words. Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers.

Phaidon. (2004). The Phaidon Atlas of Contemporary World Architecture. Phaidon.

Piano, R., & Pizzi, E. (2003). Renzo Piano. Birkhäuser.

Sudjic, D. (2006). The Edifice Complex: How the rich and powerful shape the world (2nd ed.).

Penguin Publishing.


56

The Aga Khan Award for Architecture. (1995). Architecture Beyond Architecture- Creativity and

Social Transformations in Islamic Cultures. (C. C. Davidson, & I. Serageldin, Eds.) Academy

Editions.

The Pritzker Jury, 1980. (n.d.). Luis Barragan: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1981. (n.d.). James Stirling: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1982. (n.d.). Kevin Roche: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1983. (n.d.). I.M. Pei: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1984. (n.d.). Richard Meier:Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1985. (n.d.). Hans Hollein: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1986. (n.d.). Gottfried Bohm : Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from


The Pritzker Jury, 1987. (n.d.). Kenzo Tange: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1989. (n.d.). Frank Gehry: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The



The Pritzker Jury, 1990. (n.d.). Aldo Rossi: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1991. (n.d.). Robert Venturi: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1992. (n.d.). Alvaro Siza: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1993. (n.d.). Fumihiko Maki: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from


The Pritzker Jury, 1994. (n.d.). Christian de Portzamparc: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17,


The Pritzker Jury, 1995. (n.d.). Tadao Ando: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1996. (n.d.). Rafael Moneo: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1997. (n.d.). Sverre Fehn: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 1998. (n.d.). Renzo Piano: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from The

Pritzekr Architecture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/1998/jury.html


57

The Pritzker Jury, 1999. (n.d.). Norman Foster: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from


The Pritzker Jury, 2000. (n.d.). Rem Koolhaas: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 2001. (n.d.). Herzog & de Meuron: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 2002. (n.d.). Glenn Murcutt: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from The


The Pritzker Jury, 2003. (n.d.). John Utzon: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from The

Prizker Architecture Prize: http://pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2003/jury.html

The Pritzker Jury, 2006. (n.d.). Paulo Mendes da Rocha: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 17, 2010,


The Pritzker Jury, 1979. (n.d.). Philip Johnson: Jury Citation. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from


Unwin, S. (2009). Analysing Architecture (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Unwin, S. (2010). Twenty Buildings Every Architect Should Understand (1st ed.). Routledge.

Venturi, R. (1977). Complexity And Contradiction in Architecture (2nd ed.). The Museum of

Modern Art Papers on Architecture.

Zumthor, P. (2006). Thinking Architecture (2nd ed.). Birkhäuser Architecture

politics of the pritzker

Documents