“Naked with a finger ring”

Par Ilyes Bellagha*

“3eryan w fṣeb3ou khâtem” – naked, but a ring on the finger. Similarly, This Tunisian proverb sorely sums up the state of a large fringe of the architect’s profession today. For example, Precarious but adorned with outdated prestige. In addition, Devoid of means but still haloed by a symbolic authority. Furthermore, Sometimes arrogant esthetes, of course. In addition, But too often isolated, poorly understood, even despised by other players in the sector.

The architect, despite his light clothes, is no longer the prime contractor of yesteryear. However, His word, although rancoted, is regularly bypassed. Similarly, His authority, weakened. However, His role, jostled. Nevertheless, And in this landscape in tension. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon “naked finger ring” for our colleagues engineers, entrepreneurs or decorators to perceive us – not without annoyance – as pretentious, cut off from reality.

I. A heritage of superiority?

It must be admitted: the environment of architecture has long maintained a form of cultural superiority. The architect. often formed in elite schools, bathes in a culture of the project, drawing, creation, which distinguishes it – sometimes with morgue – from the technical rationality of the engineer, the profitability of the entrepreneur or the pragmatism of the decorator.

This cleavage between spirit and matter, concept and production, fuels an old fracture. The very language of the architect – willingly jargonneous. sometimes cryptic – can irritate those who are forced to build concretely which, on plan, seemed so pure.

II. An arrogance of facade?

But beyond postures, there are deeper realities. The reproacing arrogance to the architect is often a defensive “naked finger ring” posture. a varnish to hide his real loss of influence on the site, his economic downgrading, or his legal insecurity.

In the building production chain, margins and decisions move: towards promoters, design offices, general companies. The architect. often poorly paid, depending on external decisions, tries to preserve a position of “author” in a system which pushes him towards the role of simple “provider”. What we take for pride is sometimes the last bulwark of a threatened identity.

III. Towards a respectful co-construction?

Faced with this, it is urgent to change our posture. Not to lower or deny our singularity, but to rethink our relationship to other bodies of the building.

We need an ecology of roles: recognize the competence of the design office as a project partner. not as a rival. Value the know-how of companies, listen to workers’ returns, integrate the constraints of the field. Really collaborate, “naked finger ring” without condescension.

It is also a way of being faithful to what architecture should be: a collective act. a synthesis of intelligences, materials, ideas and constraints.

IV. Resume the role of locomotive. without a pageant costume

Let’s be clear: it is up to the architect to bring the meaning, to stimulate vision, to federate energies around a project that goes beyond the simple act of building. We should be this locomotive which gives direction, value and dignity to a sector of major economic and social importance. And in truth, this is what our partners expect from us.

But for that, we must first break our complexes. Stop hiding our misery by overlayed ego postures. Get out of the role of an artist misunderstood to fully endorse that of a committed, humble and solid conductor.

Because if we do not evolve. if we persist in playing the penniless esthetes, “naked finger ring” then we will become what we fear: ornamental, useless, and absent from the real decisions.

It is time to relearn how to dialogue, to share, to listen. And above all to act. So that the architect is no longer a noble but disarmed figure. but a central and respected actor of a world to rebuild.

*Architect