Two weeks ago, I used this column to discuss the role of fame in contemporary architecture.I could not have foreseen that an object lesson in architectural fame, or more precisely infamy, would present itself in such short order.

Over the past week, The New York Sun and several other publications have reported that Richard Rogers, the main designer of the proposed expansions of the Jacob K. Javits Center and the Silvercup Studios in Queens, allowed Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, a group to which he was closely affiliated, to meet in his London headquarters to discuss a boycott of Israel. This position, quite aside from being inherently reprehensible, is especially ironic in view of the fact that Jacob Javits himself was an indefatigable champion of the Jewish state. It will be interesting to see what happens when Mr. Rogers comes to New York this week to explain himself to Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, which is overseeing the expansion.

In the meantime,Mr.Rogers has stated,”I abhor boycotts of any kind – of Israel or any other place … I unequivocally renounce Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine and have withdrawn my relationship with them.” This statement is pleasant, whichever way you take it. Either Mr. Rogers is being candid and we should be relieved to have his clarification. Or he is an opportunistic hypocrite, in which case it is nice to know that he is willing to abandon all his principles for the sake of a plum assignment. As to which is true, I can only speculate, though it is difficult to imagine how he could be so closely associated with an organization whose core convictions he did not share or even know about.

My hunch is that, once Mr. Rogers meets with Mr. Gargano and clamorously insists that he has rejected the anti-Israel lobby, the latter will either declare that he is satisfied or, if necessary, will claim that the other firms already involved at the Javits Center have taken over from Mr. Rogers but will continue working according to his designs. In other words, absolutely nothing will have changed and everyone can claim victory.

What complicates the whole issue, as regards the Javits Center, is the question it raises about the role of the individual in creating architecture – and culture in general. My assessment of Mr. Rogers’s design for the Javits Center is this: Without being magnificently accomplished, it is rather good, and certainly better than the existing structure based on, if not entirely faithful to, the designs of James Ingo Freed.

Now suppose that Mr. Rogers did indeed share the convictions of the anti-Israel group and that his association with it had come to light prior to his work on the Javits Center. In that case, a strong argument could have been made for denying him the commission. For though he has had some worthy achievements in his career, he is not so brilliant, nor does he rise so far above his competitors, as to mandate being considered for the job.

There is no sense in which Mr.Rogers compares with, say, Richard Wagner, whose music is so great that one listens to it in spite of what one suspects about his character. But just as no one, I imagine, would listen to Meyerbeer over Wagner simply because Meyerbeer was by all accounts a nicer man (and not a bad composer), it would seem odd to withdraw the commission for the Javits Center and risk giving it to someone less accomplished than Mr. Rogers, simply because some other architect is a better human being.Yet that is explicitly the point being made by Rep. Anthony Weiner: “This is not just any project. This is a building that’s named after one of the foremost fighters for the state of Israel.”

I accept the logic that, all else being equal, a disagreeable person should not be rewarded with a highly desirable project. But I feel more strongly opposed to the notion that, all else not being equal, a less talented architect should get the commission, indeed, that the entire plan should be reconceived, simply because Mr. Rogers may be a creep. If King Solomon himself could enlist the godless Phoenicians to build his temple in Jerusalem, then we can probably tolerate Mr. Rogers over on Eleventh Avenue.

The Rogers affair sheds light on architects’ paradoxical position in the world. In ancient Greek, the word “architect” meant “master builder” or “master carpenter.” Far from being a messianic figure like Howard Rourke in Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead,” the architect was a hired hand who could get the job done.

But today’s architect shows up in Vanity Fair and Vogue, and his profession has attained the luster of fashion. His personality has become paramount and is imagined to be inseparable from his work. How the architect looks, what glasses he wears, what his life story is – all have become essential elements of his art and of our reception of it.

Without wishing in any way to dismiss as unimportant the allegations made against Mr. Rogers, I would assert as a general principle that the less we know of architects and the more we know of their work, the better off we will all be.

jgardner@nysun.com