Women: The Language for the Future

With the ‘mirroring’ phenomenon of Megalia in 2015 and the femicides at Gangnam station in 2016 acting as the catalyst, discussion of feminism and gender issues that had been limited to those among professionals and certain organisations in Korea, and settled down quickly to become a popular theme of the lips of those in the Korean art world and more widely in movements such as ‘#MeToo’ and ‘sexual_violence_within_sentences’. Words like ‘women’, ‘gender’, and ‘queer’ quickly became a part of daily conversation. Disclosure and confessions were disseminated through 140-word Twitter posts and the headlines of newspapers and magazines, and with a rapid increase of numbers in art works and forums that highlight such issues, one cannot but observe that a certain level of social empathy has been established. One can also see how recently released movies like ‘Kim Ji Young: Born 1982’ and the ‘House of Hummingbird’ are receiving critical attention and are being consumed through perspectives and approaches that had not existed before.

Against this robust feminist wave, however, there was a realm that stayed relatively unmoved - that is, the Korean architecture scene. The keyword ‘female architect’ had been brought to the table fairly frequently, but it is also true that there had been a lack of follow-ups to engage with it as a theme for discussion. To be honest about it, the number of issues that covered the word ‘female’ not merely as a prefix but in relation to feminism total only four since the establishment of SPACE magazine in 1966. In the May issue of 1967, the German writer Ingeborg Drewitz wrote an article titled ‘The Trials of a Female Architect’, and in the June issue of 1976, Lee Sinok, Jang Yangja, Cho Gyesun, Chi Soon, Chun Byeongok, and Choi Euija featured in a panel discussion on the theme ‘A Suitable Architectural Space for a Charming Life’. In the October issue of 1990, the architect Park Yeonsim wrote an article titled ‘And, the Arrival of Feminism?: What Architecture Means to a Woman’, questioning why ‘feminist criticism is about making modern critical theory into something female while bearing its own political message. As a critic once said, having traversed across structuralism and deconstruction in western critical theory, have we now arrived at an era of feminism?’ In the October issue of 2002, a panel discussion on ‘Korean Architectural Culture and Women: Women, Will They Be the Center of Upcoming Architectural Culture?’ was held as part of the celebration for the 20th anniversary of Korean Institute of Female Architects. The magazine Architecture and Environment (currently known as C3) also covered architecture and its relation to feminism via three issues in 2000 through contributions from Lee Kangheon, Lee Sunyoung, Kim Hyejeong, and Lee Geonseob. In the magazine ‘KIRA Monthly’ published by Korea Institute of Registered Architects, records of meetings regarding competitions for female architects in Korea from 2004 to 2011 were preserved with the discussion ‘The Female View on Revolutionizing the Architecture Scene’ in 1994 as the start. In 2013, the magazine also covered ‘The True Superwoman of this Age: Female Architect’. In the magazine Architecture and Culture, an article that featured female architects was published in 1986, and a story on ‘Female Architects as Female + Architect’ was covered in 2009. Also, the magazine Poar did a cover story on a female architect in 2004.

While this list reveals on the one hand how the development of feminist discussions in the architectural field have been meagre and lackluster, it also shows that feminism was not something that had really arrived in serious critical discussion in 2015.

In the international world, however, professional architecture magazines are adding impetus to topics related to the recent rise of feminism. Architectural Review established its ‘Women in Architecture Awards’ in 2012 and has published feature issues on it annually. It is assumed that this decision began with the self-imposed question, ‘To whom does the Architecture Award belong?’, and that this momentum is being encouraged by others in order to bring about a change in the understanding towards architecture awards. Also, in order to dismantle the fixed mentality that ‘creative production and human reproduction cannot coexist’, Despina Stratigakos, author of ‘Where are the Women Architects?’, participated in the ‘You Can Be Anything’ Barbie series presented by Mattel. The introduction of ‘Architect Barbie’ in 2011 was an attempt to overthrow the strong preconceptions in the architecture scene.

In recent years, there were also other attempts made in the Korean architecture scene such as ‘Building Role Models’ and ‘SPACE of W-Architects’ to call out and collate the names of female architects. However, extensive discussions on ‘women’ and ‘architecture’ have not yet materialized and the influence from such efforts remains minimal.

We know very well that the relatively short Korean architectural narrative was always given from the male perspective, but we also know the names of female architects who have managed to squeeze their way in and have come to establish their own personal narratives in its wake. With the first female Korean architect Chi Soon at the start, architects such as Min Seonju, Park Helen Juhyeon, Seo Hyerim, Park Yeonsim, and Kim Jin-ae have made their names known. Whether in college, or in society, they were always the rare breed in a male-dominated world. They were probably either looked down upon or were very conspicuous. When they went out to visit other practices or clients, they had to bear attitudes such as ‘you bring bad luck’ (Kim Insook, SPACE, October 2002). Hence, they asserted that ‘there were no women of status in architecture until now’, and that ‘it is now the time for female architects all over the country to come forth and secure their respective powers and status’ (Chun Byeongok, ‘Architecture and Environment’, May 1990). Unfortunately, most of these women who had fought so hard for respect and their positions have now mostly disappeared from the architecture scene.

Having the baton passed to them, however, the next generation admits the following: ‘there were three female architects that acted as my role models during my junior years. (…) My first-hand observations of their struggles have helped me to identify such obstacles preemptively as I work’ (Kim Jeong-im, ‘Architecture and Culture’, April 2009). They succeeded in commanding others, giving orders and managing offices by themselves. This list formed by individuals such as Kim Jeongim, Chung Hyuna, Cho Jaewon, Shin Hyewon, Jungg Sujin, and Lee Eunkyung can now be found easily in the architecture scene. However, their successes come from the result of denying their femininity and struggling with a male language in order to survive in the architectural world dominated by male-focused perspectives. Having rose to orbit as established architects, these architects now bear the responsibility to explore and manifest the previously oppressed femininity and invent a new female-focused architectural vocabulary for the future generations of female architects.

With a rise in the number of new female architecture students, we now find ourselves in an era where it is strange to assume that a woman is not capable of performing certain tasks. These students who are just entering the architecture scene do not experience discrimination, whether in school or in the architecture office. Recently, architect offices composed of just two or three women have been founded. As such, in contrast to the past, it is presumed that the walls that had rejected and oppressed the female frame have now been almost fully demolished.

However, we know that this is not true. Still, the gender ratio of most clients, full-tenured architecture professors, architect offices, members of associations, list of prize winners, and participating architects in large projects remain permanently skewed to one side like a broken seesaw. Also, we know for fact that the responsibility of final decisions of major organisations and projects are often not given to women. Moreover, we know subtle forms of restriction still exist in terms of how women—not only as producers of architecture but also as its users—can use space.

To contend with architectural discussions in which women were either non-existent, erased, or marginalised, it is important to try to piece together the personal narratives of female architects. Regardless of their original intentions, the numerous attempts to call these architects as ‘women’ have now turned into precious records. However, I wonder if the reason why this hasn’t yet brought about a critical discussion or practice is due to the lack of opinion exchanges from various perspectives that it can base itself on. The task of highlighting personal narratives, or the task of displaying struggles for regaining the female status, or the yet-premature task of diagnosing ‘Feminism in Korean Architecture’ or ‘Femininity in Korea Architecture’ were temporarily put aside. Instead, the attempt to place ‘female’ and ‘architecture’ in parallel, to approach and connect the relationship between them from multiple angles and to extend the issue to a wider horizon, was all prioritised. Under a fragile thin layer of ice, there were many professionals that have quietly explored the relationship between women and architecture over many years.

Jang Mihyun (principal, Gender & Space) gave an overview of the role of female space in architecture, and Jeong Hyunju (professor, Seoul National University) explained the status of women in urban space more generally. Sarah Allaback, an architectural historian, sent us an inspiring text that discusses issues revolving around historicising the activities of female architecture organisations in the US and around education. Park Kwi-cheon (principal, Ewha Women’s University) provided her insights from a legal perspective on what meaning does it have for a woman to work in a professional field in Korean society. Lastly, Yang Hyosil (aesthetician) gave her advice regarding the future trajectory for feminist activities in cultural arts in relation to architecture by investigating its developing trends. The short pages attached to each of these essays provide supporting information for each issue while functioning as a place for rest between the blocks of text. Also, female architects of various generations came together to give their honest views on their identity as women.

While planning this project, I came across many who expressed discomfort with or outright rejected the classification ‘female’. As the project designer, I also had to question this term continuously, and this was because it felt as though the individuality that couldn’t be classified, or the woman who was finally (and seemingly) ‘purified’ became marginalised the moment the prefix ‘female’ was added. This, however, is also a limitation of this project. Still, if we don’t work hard to renew this female self-identity and language by ourselves in this architectural world where male-dominated choices and compositions have become set in stone, the female anonymity that has been ignored and lay buried for a long time will never be recovered in the future. This is not a fight for hegemony, and an architecture that has lost women and femininity cannot but be unstable. It is hoped that numerous and variegated languages will one day in the future produce a substitute for the word ‘female’.