Having recently had the pleasure of reading Alexandra Lange's critique of the New York Times' resident architectural critic Nicolai Ouroussoff on Design Observer, I realized that I wasn't alone in my unappreciative assessment of his writing. This article has only intensified my antipathy into simmering anger, due to the amount of contempt that it displays toward both the Times' Design section readers and the people affected by the disaster in Haiti, as well as those involved in the reconstruction efforts there.
by Seth Embry
Disregard, for a moment, the middle school-level book report style of writing, as well as the carelessly chosen diction and the way in which he sprinkles a few half-developed ideas and vague references while ignoring their intensely inflammatory significance. Disregard also the brief mention of Steven Holl's project (so brief, in fact, as to appear only as opportunity for the name-dropping of an architectural 'Icon,' capitalized), as well as the ambivalent mention of New Urbanism and dismissive stance toward post-Katrina recovery in New Orleans. Finally, forget the seemingly contradictory mention of the infrastructural investments made by "international aid organizations" in the 1970s, left to languish after that period, and the suggestion that the same process (of internationally-driven intervention followed by an immediate turnover of responsibility) should be repeated. After excising these credibility-damaging aspects from the piece, there is a ridiculously marginal amount of substance remaining to validate its inclusion in a publication that has already contained substantially more insightful writing on Haiti's post-earthquake resurgence, especially in describing architectural and urban conditions both before and after the catastrophe.
The final paragraph in his essay is especially cringe-worthy, in its dismissive references to New Orleans and Katrina. In choosing the phrases "swirled around" and "churned out" to describe the positive concepts of "good will" and "plans for the city's recovery," he attempts to evoke cyclonic imagery with all of the smarmy subtlety of a self-impressed schoolboy. I find such conflation nearly as abhorrent as I did the New York Post "The Big Queasy," issued while my father was attempting to maintain a flooded hospital with failing generators in Biloxi throughout Katrina and its wake. The bookending of this paragraph between the banal statements "This will not be an easy task," and "The best plans went nowhere. Let's pray that this doesn't happen in Haiti," seem as though they were stolen from a Catastrophe Solutions template for some sort of 6th Grade social studies Mad Lib.
At best, it appears this is Ouroussoff's attempt to distance himself from the accusation that his general oeuvre primarily targets object/icon worship, the architectural superstars and their most eye-catching or eye-scorching progeny. More upsetting is the prospect that it is written with an assumption that the readers of articles on architecture and design are so poorly versed in these heftier, more relevant articles that his paltry, hasty overview suffices to substitute those (addressing historical difficulties, present post-catastrophic conditions, and the legion of proposals currently underway) in a far more effortless manner. At the very worst, the article is a lackluster page-filler, intended to meet some sort of monthly word count for Ouroussoff to retain his position or salary, whatever that might be defined by. As Lange stated in the title of her article, this simply "isn't good enough."
As a member of the architectural professional community, I understand that I shouldn't expect the level of specificity or detail necessary for an article in an expressly design-oriented publication or professional journal. The greatest aspect of the inclusion of architectural features among the Times' various subjects is the ability to expose a greater audience to architectural achievements and concerns, and I realize that this can mean adapting the language and tone to do so. However, I never see this sort of compositional incoherence in the Science section, or the vagueness of opinion in the Book Review, both rampant in Ouroussoff's architectural segments. When he finally offers some sort of pseudo-concrete statement or 'conclusion,' it tends to be forced, ephemeral, trite, and abrupt, as though written while stuck in traffic on the way to a much more interesting brunch.
The actual details of the planned decentralization of Port-au-Prince deserve comprehensive and descriptive exposure. If the New York Times chooses to return to the subject, it should be orchestrated by someone more capable of providing this than Nicolai Ouroussoff.
Seth Embry is an architectural artist and designer, currently working in Store Design for a major retail company in New York. He studied architecture as an undergraduate at the University of Florida, and intends to apply to graduate architecture programs in the fall.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License .
/Creative Commons License
24 Comments
I think your op-ed column is a lot of hot air. If Nicolai Ouroussoff was to write to your standards I wouldn't sometimes read him.
His article on ongoing Haiti re-construction activity is simply a news based commentary/article and doesn't call for a uber critical ideology 'piece' criticism or an op-rd response. He is simply pointing out to the activity on the re-construction effort and commenting on the enormous task of the opportunities, big ideas and choices being developed at the moment.
It is not the journalist should be discussed because of this article on Haiti, but the validity and quality of these urban design ideas being pitched.
That is why your op-ed kind of stands at odds with this reader.
I should clarify that I'd intended to write 'I find such conflation nearly as abhorrent as I did the New York Post's headline "The Big Queasy,".
It was the front-page bold-type on the day before Hurricane Katrina made landfall, and echoed the gross inappropriateness of coworkers who spent the day making disaster jokes while knowing my family's situation.
-Seth
I would have loved to have learned anything about the 'validity and quality of these urban design ideas being pitched'. The purpose of the Op/Ed was to state that there is precious little content within the Times article provided that informs or presents the many interesting developments currently under way. This is recurrent in Ouroussoff's work for the Times, and the article is fluff compared to nearly every other item on the topic that the paper has produced.
His writing is consistently as I criticized above. As I stated, I believe the topic is extremely important, and if the only information he had to provide was that decentralization was the primary intent of reconstruction planning, what purpose does writing a three-page article consisting mostly of filler serve? His thesis could have been presented just as well in a tweet.
I completely agree with the first post. Your Op-ED is incredibly off point. You are attacking a news piece that has a sprinkle of concept. You start by pointing out another op-ed in the Design Observer that is so socially different from what are trying to accomplish. Quite frankly that article was just a regurgitation of the early 2000’s attack on the architect as an icon. It was standard argument 7 years ago. You probably shouldn’t start by aligning your ideas with something so trivial.
The truth is your article is simply petty. It’s actually tough to intellectually respond because of the juvenile nature. There is no real thesis to the argument or any solutions to your gripes (other than find someone new). You state “The actual details of the planned decentralization of Port-au-Prince deserve comprehensive and descriptive exposure.” This is a monumentally difficult task with so many shifting economical, social, and historical factors. None of which are included in your piece. It’s almost an impossible task even for the people who are the front line. How do you give a detailed description of something that will constantly shift?
This op-ed was a very unsatisfying attempt to attack a person while skipping a rock over everything else.
The defense you offered against the first posts shows you are critically missing something. Our profession is rarely defined by newspapers. The specificity you are seeking is sometimes inappropriate. A history of New Urbanism in a news overview would be stupid. The fundamental point is you offered no alternative ideas or any arguments that would suggest you have a credible understanding of the overarching issues involved. Maybe you do. What are they? What are your ideas? You can slam the New York Times all day (any news outlet for that matter) but I think if you want to write an op-ed piece it needs also show you have an understanding of the issues.
This op-ed is so misguided it actually makes me cringe to be an architect who actually appreciates worthwhile architectural criticism. Of all the articles on which to criticize Ouroussoff, I'm baffled why you chose this. If you need to scrutinize every sentence the guy writes to make your point, you're trying too hard. Does the current status of Haitian planning really warrant a critique that requires an M.Arch to understand? When there is so little information on the subject even available to the averge person who cares about it? Frankly I'm glad that Ouroussoff used his space to write about this rather than the next iconic building. Don't take that for granted. There are accusations you can lay on the guy, but giving a damn and writing in a straightforward way that can elevate architectural issues are not them.
i think a re-reading is in order. the criticism is to style AND lack of substance. the use of style for style's sake, the ineffectual and porosity of substance is relevant and worthy of critique. to look at an issue that begs for substantial review, sans name-dropping, and more in depth urban thinking; Haiti is worth more than twtter-esque puffery.
jtothem and leshy, I'm not sure that you took the time to actually read either the article or my response to it, or my response to Orhan. The points that I am trying to make are simply that it's very poorly written, represents the culmination of a history of poor writing, and does justice to neither the architectural community nor the New York Times. It especially does nothing to further a concrete, journalistic understanding of the events occurring in Haiti or elsewhere that are contributing toward its rebuilding. I'm not asking for high-minded rhetoric or a systematic unraveling of the byzantine navigation of the rebuilding process.
I expect, however, a clear and concise explanation of the subject given as the title. Or rather, something that presents at large a clear image, backed by factual details, of what the proposals are. Not dreamy platitudes and trite phrases that would be stricken immediately by any qualified freshman journalism professor. The reason I chose this particular article to attack is because it is a terrible composition in response to a deathly serious situation, and had he chosen to stick to his usual prattle about celebrity architects and iconic buildings, I would have suffered in silence. When someone chooses to take on a subject beyond their grasp for a major publication, there is a standard that simply must be met.
I'm not asking for an exhaustive history of New Urbanism, nor even more of a description of the movement than he gave. If, however, he chooses to mention the issues that he might have with the movement, he should complete the thought and mention what those issues might be.
Sloppy writing is sloppy writing, and as a reader and admirer of the publication at large, I find it unacceptable to continue flattering someone who doesn't meet the standards set forth by his colleagues.
I read Dr NO's piece before reading yours and I think he actually offered more substance (agree with his points or not) than you did. I have never really taken to his articles very much and have been excited to see some of his peers point out (essentially) that this is a guy who just wants to keep his job and prestige by producing predictable and unchallenging pieces. He probably correctly assumes NYT arts-section readership does not want to hear how Haiti's real development was actually hampered so he avoids or is blissfully unaware of the topic.
(http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/5934-bill-clintons-empty-mea-culpa-on-ruining-haitis-agriculture-sector.html)
I was pleased to see someone actually go after him again but your piece was very disappointing. His style of writing is not beautiful but its enough to get his point across. I was hoping you would do a better job of challenging the substance of his piece. Who are these urban planners making recommendations? Are they Haitians who wish to see true development to Haiti or are they following the same rules that have gotten us where we are? What are alternate suggestions to what they have put together? Is there a different approach that has occurred elsewhere that would seem to produce better results than what is on the table?
You should have at least tried to get into some detail and offer hopeful analysis. If you didn't have the time then perhaps it would have been better to continue to suffer in silence.
knokko,
Again, the purpose of my entry was purely to critique the style of the writer. I think I should have made that more clear in the title, specifying that I was responding to the structure of the article and the way in which it fails to answer the question. I am working on an item concerning the actual events in Haiti (intended for a different sort of forum), and I don't think the immediate issue discussed here (the fact that Ouroussoff produced a substandard piece on a very serious issue) should even be mentioned within that greater context.
The reason I responded with such vitriol is because I don't believe this writer should have written a piece on this particular subject. If it were absolutely necessary for him to do so, he should have looked at the precedent set by his colleagues.
It's also a quality-control issue. I can't imagine Christopher Hawthorne or Ada Louise Huxtable producing something like this for the LA Times or the Wall Street Journal respectively, and I don't think it should be tolerated at the New York Times. I think that the editorial staff is also partially at fault (I didn't even mention the subject-verb agreement error in my critique), or the wildly and insultingly presumptive opening line ("Even as outsiders feel sympathy for Haiti's suffering, they tend to look upon it as a country beyond saving").
These gaffes, in my opinion, are unforgivable for someone who claims the title of critic, and I think being complicit in continuing to overlook them only damages the credibility of that profession.
nothing_engine- those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! You aren't much of a writer yourself. I ask you- is the following a complete sentence?
"Not dreamy platitudes and trite phrases that would be stricken immediately by any qualified freshman journalism professor."
Exhibit B- do you not see the irony in the abrupt and trite nature of the following sentence?
"When he finally offers some sort of pseudo-concrete statement or 'conclusion,' it tends to be forced, ephemeral, trite, and abrupt, as though written while stuck in traffic on the way to a much more interesting brunch."
You, my friend, need a few more years in school, and an editor.
dMeyers,
I never claim to be a professional writer, journalist, editor, or critic, which is a vital distinction. Writing an Op/Ed piece, as an irritated reader who expects better from a writer who is supposedly established and employed at a majorly influential institution, is certainly a different beast. I don't think 'Exhibit B' is especially abrupt or trite, unless you were expecting a litany of specific examples that have been chronicled at more length in the cited article.
I do, however, agree that the former example is a fragment, and although it appears as a comment rather in the main body as the Op/Ed, perhaps Ouroussoff's style is leaving an unfortunate imprint on me.
I think everyone read both the articles fine the first time. Your op-ed was a critic of a writer’s style. I get it. We all get it. I also understand you want to hide behind that argument but what people are saying you should have done more. You basically wrote an article that piggy backs on the piece from the Design Observer. What that person didn’t do (to her credit) was a sentence by sentence breakdown. I think you should listen to what people saying and include substance. I really think the first post by Orhan explains exactly what is wrong.
If you want to write an OP-ED piece you should include your own relevant ideas. Relevance is the key word. Why should we consider you relevant when nothing has been learned or taught? I know it sounds harsh, which is not intended, but you truly offered nothing that people do not already know. I read the title and expected something interesting.
It seems your conclusion is there need to be some sort of standard that the New York Times should be held to. You offered up Christopher Hawthorne or Ada Louise Huxtable. Is this for real or were you joking?
In that case, you have my apologies for wasting your time, jtothem.
When I submitted the piece to Paul, I feel he would have declined to publish it, had there been no presumed interest in or support for the content. As I said, I clearly erred in the choice of title and probably the choice of forum in general.
I agree that Alexandra's article is superior in both its orchestration and content. Again, she is a writer, critic, and teacher, none of which I profess to be. I selected only the specific sentences, phrases, and paragraphs that drove me to express my frustration, and I still believe that those items are notable in their troublesome relationship to the subject matter.
Christopher Hawthorne and Ada Louise Huxtable, whether you agree with their critique or not (and I often don't), are superior in their grasp of the English language. I was not joking when I cited their names.
I think you are misunderstanding the point of an Op-Ed. You can state contrary ideas but you need to have an opinion on the subject as well. You leveled a really brutal attack on a news piece (which wasn’t intended to do what you wanted) but offered no alternatives. It sat wrong with me especially because it is such a critical situation.
Christopher Hawthorne and Ada Louise Huxtable are not good critics either.
I claimed that they have a superior command of the English language. That is indisputable.
When I submitted the piece to Archinect, I did so with the accompanying statement that it fit into neither the Letters or Op/Ed sections of the New York Times, for which it was originally intended. The fact that it is considered an Op/Ed item on Archinect is due to the suggestion of the site. It was written to be what it is, 'a response,' but I am confident that when Archinect chose to post it as an Op/Ed, they felt that the definition applied well enough to term it so.
Maybe they did. But you have still offered no options, clarifications, or ideas on the relevant issues. You griped.
"Seth Embry is an architectural artist and designer, currently working in Store Design for a major retail company in New York. He studied architecture as an undergraduate at the University of Florida, and intends to apply to graduate architecture programs in the fall."
You might have a credibility problem.
Sorry, sectionalhealing, I should have included literacy in my qualifications. I don't think a graduate degree or editorial position are necessary credentials to have the ability to distinguish between poor and proper writing.
by being extremely critical, but not having a body of work/experience to back it up, you come off annoying and bratty.
concerning opinions: it's not just about what people write, but who they are and what experiences they draw insight from.
I don’t know if it’s a matter of qualifications. Anybody should be able to have an opinion. Even a passionate opinionated one - I just think it was misguided attack on a person without any critical substance. I mean what would be the design response to a situation like this? It’s a vastly complicated question which we can certainly not expect a New York Times critic to be able to explain. The passion of the attack is incredibly mean spirited and there is absolutely nothing that we can take from it. That’s the problem. By the way – I saw Steven Holl’s approach to town building and it’s intriguing.
By the way – In full truth Nicolai Ouroussoff has written quite a few interesting architecture articles. This was very interesting –
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/arts/design/10parent.html?pagewanted=1&hpw
I have never been slightly interested in anything Christopher Hawthorne or Ada Louise Huxtable has had to say.
I've heard various proposals for the reconstruction of Haiti. The decentralization plan, an agriculture-centric plan, AfH, New Urbanism, and yes Steven Holl. It would have been a great use of your superior journalistic standards to research and present these plans, instead of doing a meaningless hit piece on the puffery of NO. I can't believe you can't see the irony there.
There is an overabundance of intellectual posturing without any substantial contribution, and peacock display for an inside audience vs the public at large. I find it rich that the exact same issues affecting the architectural profession mirrored in it's journalism. Maybe it's just the nature of architects- hope not, it does not reflect well for us.
After having read through NO's piece, your op-ed and all the comments, I have to agree with Orhan in the beginning. Everything else is a reiteration of the same. In my humble opinion, the second paragraph of your op-ed mentions a few interesting points, which many commentators, including myself, would have wanted to hear more about. Instead you chose to 'disregard' all architectural and urbanist subjects and complain about NO's use of English. Frankly, such comment you could have posted as comment on NYT or sent a letter to the editor (which may or may not have been published). Instead you chose Archinect with an audience which presumably is related to the field of architecture. What do I think, you either chose poorly in regard to where you posted your op-ed or you have to live with the comments above and try to make it better next time.
As a side note, the issue of NO's use of English is so irrelevant, compared to such incredible demands of suburbanizing Haiti, that I really wonder why we are discussing it at all?
Who are the good critics? And to make an important distinction, where are the good journalists?
Even at the LA Times, Dr. No was journeyman-like, perfectly fitting in (or is it fitting in perfectly? Meh!) with the NY Times sanctioned on-one-hand-this-but-on the-other-hand-that style familar to readers of Paul Goldberger. Mealy mouthed and non-committal to a fault, but that often describes the best journalism.
I respect that. News should be just news. (Now PLEASE don't go all de-con or po-mo on me about "privileged voice", "elasticity and fungibility of narrative structure" or whatever grad school tropes you kids are yacking about these days - tomorrow this stuff lines the (metaphorical) birdcage, right?) Bottomline - I like learning about new projects by new designers, or how regulations or business changes our practice, and these subjects are the subjects of journalism. Subjectivity is inevitable; NE should just chill.
Criticism however...ah! The cri de couer! The Jerimiad! Manifestos! The ad hominem attacks! The snark! Good times! Herbert - all is forgiven!
And if we speak about writing - simplify! EH - the movie was called "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" not "The proper, the poor, and the aesthetically challenged."
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.