The critic Martin Filler has acknowledged a significant error in a scathing article he wrote for the New York Review of Books about the architect Zaha Hadid. — artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com
Full statement to New York Review of Books...
In my review of Rowan Moore’s “Why We Build: Power and Desire in Architecture,” I quoted comments by the architect Zaha Hadid, who designed the Al Wakrah stadium in Qatar, when she was asked in London in February 2014 about revelations a week earlier in The Guardian that hundreds of migrant laborers had died while working on construction projects in Qatar. I wrote that an “estimated one thousand laborers … have perished while constructing her project thus far.”
However, work did not begin on the site for the Al Wakrah stadium, until two months after Ms. Hadid made those comments; and construction is not scheduled to begin until 2015. There have been no worker deaths on the Al Wakrah proiect and Ms. Hadid’s comments about Qatar that l quoted in the review had nothing to do with the Al Wakrah site or any of her projects.
I regret the error.
Previously: Zaha Hadid sues architecture critic Martin Filler over book review
30 Comments
Man, is this guy from the South? Factually precise, actually scathing, all perfectly polite. Well done.
He was quoting the Guardian, he says. Have they retracted or corrected their story ?
Oh, so Martin Filler is full of shit? Good thing I will not be reading any of his garbage. Clearly he has no concern for good criticism and unashamedly writes down his brain farts.
So let me get this straight. Martin Filler made an error and not a single other architecture critic or journalist called him out on that? Doesn't that indicate a dangerous degree of groupthink and lack of serious criticism in Architecture?
I can't tell what is going on here. I think it is not what it sounds like in that there is no specific "mistake".
In the linked article describing the suit, it doesn't refer so much to a particular mistake as what may traditionally be called "slander" although I doubt this case would have passed in the US as MF was merely quoting Hadid herself to make her look bad....
Yes davidd i agree. Archanonymous the mistake he is admitting to is technical - workers have died but had not at her project, as it had not began construction yet. Although minor at first glance it supports his out of context quotes from the Guardian, which is also why the Guardian has not had to retract anything since in same article they also qoute her saying she is concerned, did not edit or remove from interview to skew perspective, which of course no webzine or blogger is interested in covering or relaying........................additionally, since Filler is of reputation and his publication that included said text has a presumed duration as a published piece beyond fleeting internet browsing, it is intelligent of Zaha to sue to ensure that in the future when she is not alive or in the condition to defend herself published documents do not misrepresent the past and her person; moreover Filler may also be the most significant critic of her work representing the circle of architecture critics as davidd suggests and therefore out of principle has been taken to court to make a statement. We all know how Miles Jaffe feels about her and a zillion anonymous forum posters.....
This was a factual error. Construction deaths occurred but not at the location Filler understood. The mistake has nothing to do with the discipline of architectural criticism, or with groupthink, whatever that means.
There were many prominent critics tweeting or retweeting snarky Zaha bashing comments like "she should sue workers who die on her projects." And worse. It was very groupthink...I follow all of the critics, they just see the drama. The notion that the critic is always right and Zaha, playing the evil starchitect ego maniac who doesn't care (if you read the quote she says she does care but it's out of her power-then presses the government to look at it--very different than Filler's implication) is so dangerous and blind. Hitler was a critic too... It's what you are saying that counts. Architects are critics too, just with more substance. You'd think archinect of all places would understand the complexities of the situation.
While Fillers retraction turns the tide against him, it still doesn't address the quote out of context. I defend critics but not outright lies. In the age of twitter, it's sad to see this kind of groupthink turned lynch mob.
And god forbid the idea that great Architecture at its best has benefits for the people that use it. If architecture is political, it is both in how it's made and how it's used. If you have to pick between Hadid and joe shmo building to live in, it's Hadid every time. You know it's true.
Donna,
Did you know before Filler's apology that is was a factual error?
Its not the error by one person that surprises or troubles me. Its the response by respected critics and the inability to check one of their own. It was a surprising lack of criticism or skepticism when it was needed most.
Moving forward, I'll certainly be more skeptical of the top architecture critics.
Filler checked his work, found the error and issued a retraction. But Hadid's comments on working conditions and deaths still stand, uncorrected and unretracted.
As for groupthink, that is corporate media. It's a food chain.
Filler makes a leap from a quote about limited power, out of context to "Zaha doesn't care." The factual error shows that he is creating a story and bending the facts to fit that.
Here's another gem, complete with "voluptuous form making..." And people say I'm a sexist because I say leave gender out of it?
http://www.metropolismag.com/Point-of-View/August-2014/What-Can-Hadid-Gain-from-Her-Lawsuit/
davvid, I did know already that it was a factual error, but I can't recall how. I had lunch with someone last week - someone whose work is deeply involved in architectural/social issues - and I think he's the one who told me, but I may have even read it on Archinect. I think I commented on the original post about this issue that I thought maybe her words *were* taken out of context, and that AFAIK the construction on her site hadn't started yet.
But as Miles and tammuz and others have said: recontextualized or not, the content of Zaha's words remain. She thinks it is not her place as an architect to try to ensure safe working conditions on jobsites to which she is contracted. Many in this profession - not all, but many - feel that, even if she has no contractual obligation to it, she should use her position of power to try to enact positive change.
Veering into an area I admittedly don't know much about: one would assume that if Filler's article had been a news article rather than a book review - i.e., reportage, not criticism - that it would have been fact-checked. I don't know if the NYTimes Book review uses fact checkers or not.
Criticism as a discipline (i.e., not the everyday complaining we all enjoy doing here) is a pretty broad-ranging area of writing, it seems; I'm thinking of some of my favorite art critiques, like Peter Scheldahl's article calling concrete the sluttiest of materials or Dave Hickey's comparison of Santa Fe's sunsets to a casino's interior lighting or Geoff Manaugh's many wild diversions into bizarre imagined scenarios. One of Zaha's complaints is that a book review ended up being a review of her personality. But hasn't criticism of buildings (or art) frequently focused on the personality of the designer (the artist), as a way of further exploring the creative drive that led to this particular product? I'm curious how our well-known architecture critics feel about this lawsuit - from what I've seen on twitter people think a lawsuit is going too far.
Oops, now I'M the one issuing a retraction over a factual error: The New York Review of Books, not the NY Times Book Review. Don't sue me, Times!
"Many in this profession - not all, but many - feel that, even if she has no contractual obligation to it, she should use her position of power to try to enact positive change."
I also feel that way. But I'm not sure if turning Zaha Hadid into a villain is the best way to improve those working conditions. I think its just the easiest thing for us to do because we know who ZAHA is, we generally dislike starchitecture and we excel at snarky online commentary.
Architecture criticism can help to show us who the real villain is and exactly how chummy Zaha or Patrik are with them. It can work with real reporters to hold accountable those who actually are directly responsible for working conditions. It can highlight the corruption by government officials and FIFA. It could name names. The Guardian is really in the lead on this but its still hard to get a good sense of names and timelines. Our best architecture critics in the US can't seem to see beyond Zaha.
Personally, I'd like for a major newspaper to give us a sense of how these figures collaborate and personally interact. What is the conversation like when Zaha meets with her Qatari clients. Has she ever personally met with a representative of the construction company? Has she ever had a conversation about working conditions with her client?
Same goes for Gehry, the Guggenheim and NYU in Abu Dhabi.
What about trade unions? Is there a strategy to address these labor problems in this part of the world?
"Architecture criticism can help to show us who the real villain is,"
I think architecture is inherently related to politics, but it isn't politics itself--there has to be some separation of terms here just for clarity's sake--perhaps this is a generous reading of what Zaha and Patrik are saying, that political correctness has overwhelmed the genre to the point that we get press-release factoid architecture written from a PR release describing all of the qualities of the building so that we feel warm inside. All of this matters, but so does how it looks and how its built and how its experienced.
Perhaps i'm already tired of this Michael Kimmelman era of feel-good--politics above everything--architecture criticism that has little to say about aesthetics and how that relates to context and use.
" But hasn't criticism of buildings (or art) frequently focused on the personality of the designer (the artist), as a way of further exploring the creative drive"
Thats true. But the nature of celebrity, "personal brand" self promotion, tabloid journalism and public feuding has really changed a lot in the last 10-15 years with the internet and social media.
Maybe the phenomenon of Starchitecture and the backlash against it are just two sides of the same personality-obsessed TMZ-esque media coin.
We're getting to the point where every decision made by an architect starts to become "Architecture". And whether we like or dislike someone personally, starts to shade our view of their architecture. We feel the need to know about their values and whether we share their values.
In my opinion, when the NYTimes lurched from Ouroussoff to Kimmelman in 2011, it captured the struggle with architecture and values.
Why was my post taken down? What the f archinect?
Donna, since when did you get so PC?
Perhaps the Kimmelman view is an overcorrection--Ouroussoff got a bad rap after a hit piece on him, but he was more focused on the thing itself than the politics surrounding it. Kimmelman is all politics all the time.
It's the typical design debate--what's lacking in architecture criticism is an authoritative voice among the pretenders. Koolhaas is the closest to that, as he has no fear--though he veers too often to the shock or punchline I.e. Toilet exhibitions.
sameolddoc, PC meaning what?
I'm trying not to demonize anymore since Quondam called me out on it in reference to Diller Scofidio tearing down the Folk Art Museum.
Zaha Wins Defamation battle, Loses Reputation War James S. Russell sums it all up quite nicely.
Nice that Russell uses Huffington Post to qualify "lost reputation," before dismissing such things clickbait.....
Perhaps everyone loses their reputation for speaking their mind when the PC twitter lynch lob is listening.
I wish we lived in a world were the heroes and villains were clear cut but it's hard to tell without any real facts on the matter, when all we get is "celebrity architects work for people with money!! Omg!!!" This could be said about all architecture...
Great piece by Russell. My only caveat is with:
If I don’t do it, they rationalize, someone less talented will.
which should read:
If I don’t do it, they rationalize, someone else will.
Got it. I had to read the article about it on Curbed since the one linked above is really unclear.
Link: http://curbed.com/archives/2014/08/26/zaha-hadid-sues-critic-explain.php
He implied the workers had lost their lives/ the quote was about the Qatar project when the quote really refers to worker deaths on other projects, including the Heydar Aliyev Center. It seems in his gleeful race to bash her (justifiably) he mixed up some facts.
An architecture critic (with more published work than I) needs to write a categorical take-down of Hadid and her Lieutenant's design philosophy and politics that is well-researched, watertight and completely defensible from censorship through litigation.
would it include the phrase "stay indoors and only play with legos?"
I mean, fuck, why bother with a false premise which can easily be fact checked and disproved when all you really want to do is shit talk about how much you dislike Zaha? No grounds necessary! Go for it Martin! you can get some regular space on gizmodo. Pathetic.
What is Twitter? Who reads Huffington Post? And no there is not another Lebbeus Woods, and I am not sure there ever will be..........have not read anything since Ourousoff........this whole Politically Active Architect gig is starting to play out like Architects mis-representing the Philosophy of Derrida....is it trending? Are we in over our heads now? Davidds suggestion that journalist or critics could help us better understand the common and practiced politics of being an architect including but not limited to the things that go on behind closed door meetings and work process - I would suggest would be more fruitful than pretending an architect could stop wars and out smart the NSA or something. ...t-quare ninjas!
"Moving forward, I'll certainly be more skeptical of the top architecture critics. "
"Architecture criticism can help to show us who the real villain is and exactly how chummy Zaha or Patrik are with them."
Keep hope alive!
Perhaps this is the end of starchitecture and the new age of the hypocritics
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.