The role of Archinect’s series Cross-Talk is to bring forward the positive aspects of the polemic and allow for the resulting conflict to bring to life an otherwise still and comfortable climate of creativity—if there can be one. Cross-Talk attempts—if to only say that it did—to allow text the freedom that the image has accepted and embraced. Cross-Talk attempts to force the no, to contradict itself, to anger, to please and then anger again, if only to force a stance, to pull out the position of the self, of the discipline and of the hour as a means to begin and maintain conversations moving forward. 

Yes, Anthony Morey can be a punk. Not in the informal sense, more along the lines of 1970s and early 80s rock music. You know, the loud, fast-moving, aggressive type. The one with something to say between hard-edged melodies and anti-establishment lyrics. Though he’s not in the same vein as Mimi Zeiger’s Loudpaper, where “punk meets academia,” he’s still increasing the volume of architectural discourse.

But criticism is dying. As Sam Lubell stated, we need architecture critics more than ever. In his words, we can count our country’s regular architectural critics on one hand. After Christopher Hawthorne’s departure to City Hall, hopefully Sam or Mimi picks up the mantle. But let’s step back. Hawthorne’s appointment as Chief Design Officer for the city of L.A. symbolizes an important turn in architectural discourse. Countless articles over the past two decades have lamented the end of criticism. As Alexandra Lange put it, architectural critique played it safe. Lange, Lubell, and many others have stated that critics need to assert their authority and attract an audience. JAE issue 62:3, issue 81 of OASE journal, even the brilliant Real Review; they all tell a story of criticism and journalism that’s fading away, attacked by systems of capital, narrowing scope and distanced audiences. The narrative mirrors the story of architecture itself. So what does Hawthorne’s move to city hall have to do with it?

How does the practice of architecture itself stay informed and self-critical? Beyond the need for public design voices, who is bringing systematic, critical conversations of design to architects themselves?

Let’s attempt to sidestep the conversation of the critic as journalist and public activist. That’s not to say the position isn’t needed, but the cries have been made ad nauseam. Here in L.A., voices like Hawthorne’s or Frances Anderton’s have continuously brought the conversation of design to the public. And we need those voices; design strategist Evelyn Lee often says that “the profession is three recessions away from extinction,” reflecting how the building profession needs to catch up. But how do we get up to speed? How does the practice of architecture itself stay informed and self-critical? Beyond the need for public design voices, who is bringing systematic, critical conversations of design to architects themselves?

In 2014, journalist Ian Volner wrote an article for Architect magazine about the emerging role of what he called the Design Editor. He pulled two examples: journalist Jenna McKnight at SOM and critic Philip Nobel at SHoP. Volner’s article falls to the idea of the Design Editor as a journalist, a position that may ultimately produce “corporate-subsidized” sponsored content toeing the line between editorial and advertising sales. He ends with a hitch, stating the dangers of this “demi-trend” and how indeterminate a Design Editor’s effect on practice can really be. Volner’s article points to the idea that the purview of the contemporary architecture critic can, and needs to, extend to practice. This is not unlike Alexandra Lange’s efforts to democratize criticism through her books and writing. Beyond “public” critics, the in-house critic can become a Design Editor, providing informed feedback to project teams and leadership that’s grounded in a larger understanding of contemporary design culture. In a sense, it echoes Hawthorne’s appointment as Chief Design Officer in City Hall.

This is the point where architects will begin chomping at the bit; is there a suggestion that architects aren’t already informed of contemporary design culture? That practice isn’t already nimble, self-critical? To an extent, yes. Architects have grown increasingly notorious for poor communication, especially to clients and the public. But also among one another. Jargon muddles dialogue, while the time and space for design to be critically discussed and critiqued is eroded by the need for billable, tangible production within firms. How often does critique fall under the architect’s contractual scope of work? Beyond this, architects are rarely paid to regularly consume and learn about contemporary design culture, or how to shape it. Trevor Boddy, critic and historian, sums up attitudes towards criticism in practice by saying that, “this is one of the conundrums of our field; the extensive use of architectural criticism as a teaching technique engenders a lifelong dislike of public debate and dialogue among too many practicing architects. They love the idea of criticism but not its practice.” That’s not to say that critique doesn’t happen, or that critical practices don’t exist.

The critic’s role is to explore larger contexts, to describe and to foster critical dialogue. 

John J. Parman, longtime advisor and editorial director at Gensler, is a great example of a contemporary Design Editor and critic shaping practice. So is Alan Maskin at Olson Kundig, or Reinier de Graaf at OMA. The voice of a Design Editor and critic is increasingly needed within practice. Someone who understands architecture and its larger context, who is aware of contemporary issues and trends, and who has enough practical experience to provoke and question decisions on the built environment. Again, the work of the Design Editor must be a self-aware, systematic study and disciplined exercise. In doing so, they join journalists and activists in beginning to move criticism forward.