Didn't there used to be some old rule that said architects were never supposed to criticize another architect's work? Obviously that's no longer the case, but where do you draw the line? If a world-famous architect designs a building in your city, it's pretty much open season. But what if, say, a local firm designed something in your city that's completely atrocious? When do you call them out, and when do you bite your tongue? Or do you try to couch your criticism in general terms without mentioning them or their project by name?
All the professional ethics rules are silent on this issue, but is it still an unwritten rule? I'm curious to know what others think.
without criticism there can be no real dialogue. "Holding back" is anti-intellectual imo, even if the critique itself is completely non-intellectual like "ewww gross." Of course you would be nicer to locals, but you should still express yourself honestly.
There was never any unwritten rule that I'm aware of. As for when and how to "call them out", what do you mean by that? A letter to the editor in a newspaper or something like that which is highly public is different than cocktail party dishing. If a client asks you what you think, give them an honest opinion without directly impuning the other architect's competence.
Much of architectural design is subjective, so there is probably more back biting in this profession than in others.
Pretty much my own thoughts as well, jla-x, at least in an ideal world. It gets complicated, though, when you're in a smallish town where everybody knows everybody, and architects have to worry about making themselves unemployable in the local market. Especially when it's a couple of larger "legacy" firms that are consistently pumping out the most schlock.
I guess "call them out" could take any of several forms, but I'm thinking specifically about public forums such as a blog and/or social media.
I wish more cities had dedicated architecture critics like Blair Kamin and Michael Kimmelman who don't depend on architectural projects for their livelihoods, but journalism is arguably the one profession that's dying even faster than architecture.
I don't think everything you post in a forum has to be dead serious, at least I deal with seriousness enough in my day to day work that I see this forum more like an entertainment outlet; but some people don't have humor, can't do anything about it.
As for criticizing other architect's work; I hate mumbo jumbo over built quality, and try to look and experience things from a non-architect perspective, which is how 99% of the world goes around. maybe I'm wrong, but I don't design and build stuff so only other architects can "understand"
I write for several publications (including Archinect) and it is always tough - I tend to only take on (paying) assignments when I know I can say something nice about the work. Otherwise my criticism goes to a personal blog or smaller forum where it is less likely to be seen, yet still lets me vent.
The most critical pieces I have done in the past couple years have taken aim at Developers, municipalities, and poor planning strategies instead of specific buildings.
David, you might be referring to a comment, maybe on Thread Central, from Steven Ward many, many years ago about a lecture he saw by Michael Graves. IIRC, Graves said that one should not publicly criticize a project that is currently under contract and construction by another architect, because it smacks of trying to undermine the work of a peer and maybe even poach the client.
Once the project is complete, anything goes, though IMO the critique needs to be generous in that it's offered in the spirit of helping others understand both good and bad aspects of the project better and thus either keep doing the good stuff or not repeat the mistakes.
I don't remember seeing Steven's comment, but your approach sounds reasonable.
I occasionally write about architecture, urbanism, and transit for UrbanCincy.com, a local online news source (they hate it when people call it a blog, but that's basically what it is) that has a pretty significant local following, is part of the Streetsblog network, and has a partnership with the local business newspaper. Every so often their articles get picked up and cited by a national outlet, so it's not just some blogger in his mom's basement.
Sad part is, this makes me about the closest thing Cincinnati has to an architecture critic. (Our local newspaper of record hasn't had an architecture critic in years, and they're quickly circling the drain anyway.) In my articles so far I've usually only talked about architecture in general terms, and if I mention a local project it's usually been in a positive light and I always be sure to give the architects credit. But now I'm working on an article where I'm being a bit more pointed in my critique, and there's a couple local projects in particular that I'm planning to use as examples of missed opportunities. These projects are complete, so there's no issues with running afoul of Michael Graves' advice, but these projects were designed by a large local firm that also happens to be a former employer of mine, albeit for a short-term co-op position. As a general rule I try not to publicly trash-talk former employers even when they deserve it, but my critique of their work in this case has nothing to do with my time working there.
Architectural criticism is an important part of the profession - many firm owners and lead designers I've known over the years had their group of peers they felt comfortable with for peer critique. Some firms do internal critiquing just to stay in practice and be able to take a step back, the best I felt were end of year pin-ups by the entire firm to review where they were and where they ended up (it was too late for some projects, but good overall as a practice to move forward).
To do it publicly is more difficult, especially early in one's career. I feel like the strongest voices are the half-retired crowd with little left in the game. The most productive way is to have conversation in a private setting with the team and ask the question 'what happened'? A lot of times you can learn from it (changes happen in coordination/permitting that could have been avoided in hindsight). Some times those conversations of 'did you try this-or-that' can lead to them contacting you to participate in client side design meetings (particularly on municipal/agency side) to help give direction - this is a good way to be the 'trying to do the right thing without raising hell in the media or public meetings'. Especially in a small town, you may be able to increase your backroom profile and gain a good network.
Dec 17, 15 3:33 pm ·
·
Back some years ago, there had been legal theories that came from lawyers relating to this that kind of brought this up as doing so commercially as a business against another business can be grounds for lawsuits but the tricky part is, there has to be financial harm and if there is, it is tricky for any architect or any professional for that matter to critique the works of another living professional as distinctly personal and not business because there isn't a clean line between personal and business when the subject matter relates to our profession.
So it is a business act to engage in any discourse relating to the profession because the discourse is a form of business advertising and PR of a professional in this kind of nature.
However, this is a slippery slope legal matter to be mindful of. Some of these arise out of lawsuits of commercial defamation and such which as a professional engaged in business should be watchful over ALL laws relating to conducts of a business. This is something that even employees in such roles should be mindful of.
There is a tricky thin line between matters of freedom of speech, character defamation between businesses.
When an architect practices architecture, they are engaging in a commercial activity.
Everything in capitalist culture is so competitive that constructive criticism among peers is all but non-existent. When architects get together it is pretty much a march of peacocks - just look at the round-tables with Pritzker winners and remember that these are the globally recognized leaders of the profession.
As for journalism ... with rare exception advertising is more truthful.
How free one is to criticize is directly related to where one is in their career, and what career they are in. Very easy to burn bridges including ones that haven't been built yet. Tact is something that often takes years to learn. When young we often rush to impress, among other things.
Balkins, I never read past the first couple lines of your word salads. Your opinions would have a lot more credibility if you demonstrated any evidence of ever having worked in architectural practice, being enrolled in an architectural degree program, or having read a single work of architectural criticism.
It's a small world. You'll find that the most vocal public critics are the least active in practice - some by choice, others by reputation.
That said, there are projects where a client is for one reason or another dissatisfied with an architect's work (only occasionally because of looks) - if you can relate to them about this in private discussion, you might find yourself some work.
In general though, I don't think public criticism is very productive. 0% of people change what they're doing in response to uninvited criticism from unknown persons. Everyone has a little bit of Trump in them, and it comes out when your critics speak. Unless you can use your criticism to advance some agenda (which is what most academic criticism is about), you only look like a loud fool.
A few years back I worked doing design review for a local planning department.
Man, that felt weird for the first few months: actually paid to critique fellow architects' (and others') design work for comformance to the city's design guidelines, and make suggestions or recommendations (but not requirements) for improvement. I felt very awkward meeting with applicants' architects and/or designers, especially having spent most of my practice on their side of the counter--and very sympathetic as a result.
Still, the job was to encourage better design, and there was a set of DGs in place to refer to. It got less weird as time went on. Of course, with the really crappy designs I enjoyed the official position of having some say in design revisions, even if it was less strict than the planners' regulations on development standards (use, height, setbacks, etc).
There were some beautiful submittals, quite a bit of crappy ones, and of course a fair share of perfectly-fine-but-nothing-great projects, too.
midlander, in this case I have an agenda. The audience I'm writing for tends to be oriented toward New Urbanist types who are skeptical of architects in general, and many of them despise "starchitects" in particular. My argument is that signature architecture isn't the problem, and that the vast majority of the terrible schlock in our cities wasn't designed by starchitects. To illustrate my point, I was going to use the example of a couple of recently-built local projects that are horribly-designed and pretty much universally hated, despite following almost every tenet of New Urbanist orthodoxy to the letter.
I'm not saying the lawsuits are a big concern. Like tduds says, it would be an incredible stretch but lawyers are professionals at this. The issue came out of a time when lawyers / legal counsel were giving out cautionary advice about public criticism. Remember, as a business, if I were to commercially bad mouth another architecture business or vice versa, there is a technical grounds for suing. This is because what we do professionally as service providers is inseparably linked as commercial.
When this was raised up during the 1980s and 1990s, it was also during a period of time of heighten public media focus on defamation lawsuits.
In practical reality, I wouldn't worry about little petty nonsense stuff or lawsuits over an opinion of one's work unless the critic is doing so repetitiously against you and singling you out and there is some more substantial nefarious intent.
When criticizing the work, the key is not criticize the person. Don't make it a personal attack of the other profession.
My point isn't to say the issue is a concern. I agree with tduds about healthy critical dialogue. I'm pointing out there is a technical legal ground from which the lawyers / legal counsel had been piping down our throats as far as cautionary warnings. Yes, there is technical grounds for a lawsuit but the tricky business is there has to be a connection in loss of income due to a critic's response. A client cancels a project with you because of a critics. If that critic's another competitor and they did it for commercial intent to get your client and they caused damage, then there is a technical case as professionals and as a business at the same time, as businesses we have some basic rules to go by. In practice, these cautionary tales is more legal theory then legal practice. The game play goes both ways. But the one suing (usually under civil court) has the burden to make the stronger case if they were to win. The defendent has the burden to counter. Usually freedom of speech would win because we have that personal right Constitutionally but that goes only so far. Commercial defamation of character is defamation of character between businesses vs persons.
I doubt a real lawsuit would occur. The courts don't have the time or interest in petty bullshit squabbles. So in practice, courts do have to and do ascertain the validity of claims to warrant further pursuit. There has to be substantial connection of valid loss warranting a loss. Although in theory... in THEORY there is a potential for cases and ethics of not criticizing your fellow competitor's works and more directly, the other competitors... there is potential grounds for a lawsuit. I don't think a critique necessarily rises to a level for a lawsuit but if one competitor is rampantly bad-mouthing and defaming another businesses to cause them financial harm and distress there is technical basis for lawsuits and there are such cases but the kinds of cases have to be grossly more extreme.
As for architectural criticism, I had been physically present at architectural critiques of architecture studios at the University of Oregon. Considering I had plenty of time spent at Lawrence Hall and courses there and I had plenty of opportunities in the 3 years that I was there to be at such critiques. NONE of that would raise to that level. I do know ALL businesses do have some general rules to follow under law regarding the matters of defamation, libel and slander.
When you engage in the practice for money, it is a business so there is that basis. If Apple was going around defaming and slandering Sony by making gross claims of Sony selling private information and using slave labor or other falsehoods to defame, and cause customers to leave Sony to go to Apple, that would be a lawsuit. (NOTE: This was just a hypothetical example and no claim that either Sony or Apple does this....it is intended to illustrate a point) It doesn't necessarily have to be that extreme, but for a viable lawsuit, the plaintiff/prosecutor has to have sufficient evidence of financial loss or other harm and evidence connecting to acts of the defendant.
Note: From a legal perspective, there is legal basis but a regular critique like in an architectural critique will usually not be an issue and none of us would really hold a viable case on just that. Cases would be rare. I was simply pointing to how these unwritten ethics rules came about. A large part is coming from legal counsel opinions and warning advice and a culture of lawsuit happiness and a particular time with defamation lawsuits was the rage.
It is not meant to say that it is something to really 'worry' about if you use fair critiquing practices.
I apologize for not elaborating more on what I meant.
Balkins, I wish you would actually get something built so I could publically criticize your work, in hopes of poaching your clients and getting the state on your case.
Dec 17, 15 11:27 pm ·
·
Woohoo!
My point was there is a legal basis. When an architect engages and practices the occupation of architecture customarily for remuneration not as an employee, every act or word by that architect in connection with the occupation of architecture is a commercial/business activity. Unless your business is incorporated or organized in a business entity form that creates a separate legal entity distinction between the two, the business and the owner of a business is one and the same entity. ALL businesses have laws and rules to follow.
What I was saying to David refers to commercial slander/liberl which is often a kind of tort or economic/business tort called trade libel. In addition there is other levels of kinds of tort including tortious interference. This kind of tort relates to architectural kinds of businesses regardless of licensure.
The example I gave earlier on the other thread, tortious interference of business applies as well as tortious interference of contract if there was an interference of contract.
This stuff is where and how some of the ethics basis surrounding professionals criticizing another professional or his/her work.
Odd bunch architects, spending time criticizing the top 10% of the work and give the other 90%, that’s utter crap, a complete pass….they should go beyond criticizing the 90% and be crucifying.
Imagine a doctor that had a 90% kill rate….something wrong with a profession that condones architects that kill their “patients”….if an architect can’t deliver architecture take the title away, give them to the engineers….because that’s all they are.
Dec 18, 15 12:21 am ·
·
DeTwan,
The law is posted on the internet. The age of secret guilds are over. The internet is the digital library. It has more information resource than 10,000 libraries of congress.
What copy and pasting? I may restate the points that are time after time from multiple legal sources says the same thing.
The lawyers aren't saying anything drastically different. There maybe subtle interpretive differences.
David, it always depends on the audience. There's less concern for misunderstanding if you criticize another architect's work in a forum of architects obviously. In front of a public audience who don't necessarily understand the causes for bad architecture of the mediocre kind (clients, usually - and sometimes ineptitude or indifference) I think you should be careful that you frame the discussion around cause-and-effect, otherwise it can easily become an opportunity for everyone to vent their little bit about architecture.
In your situation it doesn't sound like the particular buildings or mediocre architects matter, so it might be best to show the examples and dissect the particular problems without calling out the firms by name. Good firms sometimes get pinched in tough situations; bad firms actually don't care if they do shit work. So it's more productive to show by example for those who do care to produce good work.
As to your point - I wholly agree. But it's hard to talk to an audience that doesn't care.
You can't criticize without knowing why you are criticizing. Case in point: if you are fan of modern architecture and you go to a small town where there are covenants governing the aesthetics and people build mostly traditional houses, you can't criticize the architect for building traditional houses... You can criticize the covenant, but not the architect. On the other end of the argument- if you are a fan of modern architecture, and you are in a community/town where there are mostly modern houses, then your criticism will make more sense because presumably you can tell the difference between good modern design and bad modern design.
^^ 98% of the "attention" should be directed to those buildings that fail the litmus test, that’s what will make things better….the 2% will take care of itself…firms that do this kind of stuff and are proud of it should be the ones called out (and yes their owners)…and they’re not.
(If someone can point to some articles or critiques on this sort of offence please do, I can use a good read)
"In your situation it doesn't sound like the particular buildings or mediocre architects matter, so it might be best to show the examples and dissect the particular problems without calling out the firms by name. Good firms sometimes get pinched in tough situations; bad firms actually don't care if they do shit work. So it's more productive to show by example for those who do care to produce good work."
Sounds like a reasonable approach... Thanks for the replies.
I also agree with Carrera that we should do a better job of calling out the firms that consistently do terrible schlock like the stuff shown in the photo. Respectable attorneys are quick to call out the ambulance chasers among them, and respectable doctors are quick to call out the quacks in the medical profession. I wish we'd spend half as much energy calling out our own quacks and ambulance chasers as we do tearing down the 2% of architects who actually produce notable work.
For reference, here's an earlier article I wrote for UrbanCincy along a similar theme. I'll be sure to post a link to the follow-up whenever it goes live.
You can criticize the covenant, but not the architect.
Design guidelines shouldn't be aimed at producing sameness, but diversity in harmony, something long lost in american suburbia. So, if an architect isn't capable to work within design guidelines to produce a quality building without falling in the cookie cutter category, then I blame the architect. We all live surrounded by restrictions, but should be able to design around them.
honestly, within the genre of big-box stores, what Carrera posted isn't even below average. Maybe less interesting than those old Site stores, but it still has some qualities.
It is interesting to me how much people focus their sophisticated tastes on architecture, despite the sense that the public doesn't appreciate what we do. As David quoted, Blair Kamin asserts that architecture is an unavoidable art, since no one chooses to see the city before them. And I'm not sure it's as true as it first seems.
First- it's not unique to architecture. Why aren't people so deeply offended by ugly automotive design, or aircraft interiors, or muzak, or people who dress like trash? I think in large part, because no one is trained to focus on that. We know we should just ignore it, and largely succeed.
And we actually do choose what to observe. You'll see what's in front of you, but unless you're conditioned to care, you actually won't notice. You'll find if you travel that people in different environments see very different things. Ugly is relative, and usually involves much deeper associations than the purely aesthetic.
I think the contempt for big box stores and mcmansions is a hatred of the genre more than a thoughtful aesthetic critique. Fair enough - they reflect a culture that we can criticize. But they will someday have some value as architecture history, just like all the tenement housing in Manhattan which gets refurbished and relabeled historic. History is beautiful only because we aren't part of it any more.
Dec 18, 15 11:31 pm ·
·
People may look and surely the light reflected off the walls of the structures of the city or anything else but this doesn't mean people SEE. What they see is what is processed. The critical aspect of midlander's point, I believe is about contemplatively seeing. People in out culture are so absorded in their frantic life that each person's perception of what they see is the world to that person.
We are taught to have deeper or more resolution of what we perceive through our senses, namely visual in our visual oriented occupation. We talk in terms of 'opening our eyes' but it isn't literally the opening of our eyes but our cognitive perception of what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell. The opening up and development of cognition in connection to our sensory perception. That is only part of the steps. Additionally, the teaching encompassing analysis on many levels. I won't claim to say all these levels. But a few that just comes to mind at this moment is social impact, the theories about how color, texture, scale, proportion, etc. of buildings and their components effects the experience of space, financial impact, environmental impact.
These are just a few but no claim to be the end all.
People in their occupation, work life of basically living two careers as our culture and social-economic reality requires BOTH parents of a household to work two jobs each. Mostly, two full-time jobs each just to make any progress and saving. With these things going on, it is hard to imagine that people care about architecture because they are too busy to even think about the place they work or their home. Sad thing is that for far too many in our society, they don't have a home. They don't have a home nor knows what home is as they don't live the experience of home. They may have a house but it's just a bedroom and a bathroom. When we have a culture of workaholics because that is necessary to live, in the social-economic environment. Architects (the building architects type) don't matter because architects don't do anything that people want. Controversial statement that sounds like. Right. Sadly, architecture isn't a priority of wants in this culture.
What people want are solutions that will allow them to live and make progress in socio-economic progression without having to work 2 full-time jobs to be able to pay the bills, loans, and be able to save for retirement. People want a return to socio-economic opportunities experienced in the 1950s. People want that "American dream" where the parents don't have to both work and work two jobs. They want the ability to move up the ladders of success. This is what people want.
How does work of architects enable and empower people to move in that direction?
If it just makes the old regime richer and richer, by cheaper and cheaper quality of work, does it matter to people. Does the work of architects (building architects) and their solutions do anything meaningful on this front.
I think as the wealth accumulation consolidates into the hands of fewer and fewer people being more and more rich and as architects focus to serve those where the wealth is accumulated, then architects are going to have less value and appreciation because it doesn't do anything to improve and help them. When we do, I think people will value more.
If architects don't change the way of our social-economic reality that allows people to work 1-full time job and progress to support a family and have a good quality of life and progression up the ladder of success. When what we do empowers them, will there be more value of the work of architects and the architectural design. Does our aesthetic critiques address or matter to real world people living a real world life. Does it matter to or aid in empowering their progression up the latter of success and quality of life.
Dec 19, 15 4:25 am ·
·
Frankly, there is no Google searching there. Although, I'm sure you'll criticize it as such but I'm confident that there is some common sentiments on this line of thought. I don't believe it is a completely unique thought but a perspective on something I believe people talk and care about.
Why am I not going that far out onto some vain quest for a completely unique line of thought because doing so means you are completely out of touch with people and what they care about in this world.
Therefore, I place the argument for discourse. We all have an opinion and that what it is.
Richard, I'm glad that you took the time to think this through and put together a coherent explanation.
But even in the context of this discussion we are seeing 2 totally different things. I am not talking about people who fail to see what's in front of them because of life's distractions - though I acknowledge they exist - I'm talking about the ways in which different persons and different societies form habits of observing that open up one set of perceptions but close off another.
For example, I have spent a lot of time in China. As an American one of the first things I notice in cities here are the multitude of walls. At first it strikes you that there is some paranoia or insecurity underlying this.
But talking to colleagues here and observing the kinds of spaces the public appreciates, it seems that walls are more often about defining space. In a country where people have long lived in masonry-house villages, walls were an obvious solution to keeping livestock in place. Over time, it became a habit so much so that even urban housing includes walls to define the extent of household space. A space like the Forbidden City wouldn't really have any architectural quality without its walls. And in the everyday environment, a residential area without a wall would be perceived as incomplete - like a house without a front door. Usable, but lacking an expected architectural feature and therefore undesirable.
Rick, there you go again, copy paste text wall on things you know nothing about.
Don't you want to talk about design? What about the educatorium?
Dec 19, 15 11:35 am ·
·
no_form,
Ha ha ha.... Thanks for confirming what I said.
Dec 19, 15 2:03 pm ·
·
midlander,
Great. Of course we should have different perspectives. Yes, I agree with you. I think in ways we are talking about essentially the same things but from a different angle in a way.
There's points of inextricable linkage between your point and my point which I'm not sure if I can explain it well and coherent as its kind of nebulous.
Criticizing another architect's work
Didn't there used to be some old rule that said architects were never supposed to criticize another architect's work? Obviously that's no longer the case, but where do you draw the line? If a world-famous architect designs a building in your city, it's pretty much open season. But what if, say, a local firm designed something in your city that's completely atrocious? When do you call them out, and when do you bite your tongue? Or do you try to couch your criticism in general terms without mentioning them or their project by name?
All the professional ethics rules are silent on this issue, but is it still an unwritten rule? I'm curious to know what others think.
without criticism there can be no real dialogue. "Holding back" is anti-intellectual imo, even if the critique itself is completely non-intellectual like "ewww gross." Of course you would be nicer to locals, but you should still express yourself honestly.
There was never any unwritten rule that I'm aware of. As for when and how to "call them out", what do you mean by that? A letter to the editor in a newspaper or something like that which is highly public is different than cocktail party dishing. If a client asks you what you think, give them an honest opinion without directly impuning the other architect's competence.
Much of architectural design is subjective, so there is probably more back biting in this profession than in others.
Pretty much my own thoughts as well, jla-x, at least in an ideal world. It gets complicated, though, when you're in a smallish town where everybody knows everybody, and architects have to worry about making themselves unemployable in the local market. Especially when it's a couple of larger "legacy" firms that are consistently pumping out the most schlock.
I guess "call them out" could take any of several forms, but I'm thinking specifically about public forums such as a blog and/or social media.
I wish more cities had dedicated architecture critics like Blair Kamin and Michael Kimmelman who don't depend on architectural projects for their livelihoods, but journalism is arguably the one profession that's dying even faster than architecture.
I don't think everything you post in a forum has to be dead serious, at least I deal with seriousness enough in my day to day work that I see this forum more like an entertainment outlet; but some people don't have humor, can't do anything about it.
As for criticizing other architect's work; I hate mumbo jumbo over built quality, and try to look and experience things from a non-architect perspective, which is how 99% of the world goes around. maybe I'm wrong, but I don't design and build stuff so only other architects can "understand"
I shit on everyone's drawings.
It makes me look better in front of clients.
one profession that's dying even faster than architecture.
I had the same thought in response to Miles NPR comment...
I write for several publications (including Archinect) and it is always tough - I tend to only take on (paying) assignments when I know I can say something nice about the work. Otherwise my criticism goes to a personal blog or smaller forum where it is less likely to be seen, yet still lets me vent.
The most critical pieces I have done in the past couple years have taken aim at Developers, municipalities, and poor planning strategies instead of specific buildings.
David, you might be referring to a comment, maybe on Thread Central, from Steven Ward many, many years ago about a lecture he saw by Michael Graves. IIRC, Graves said that one should not publicly criticize a project that is currently under contract and construction by another architect, because it smacks of trying to undermine the work of a peer and maybe even poach the client.
Once the project is complete, anything goes, though IMO the critique needs to be generous in that it's offered in the spirit of helping others understand both good and bad aspects of the project better and thus either keep doing the good stuff or not repeat the mistakes.
I don't remember seeing Steven's comment, but your approach sounds reasonable.
I occasionally write about architecture, urbanism, and transit for UrbanCincy.com, a local online news source (they hate it when people call it a blog, but that's basically what it is) that has a pretty significant local following, is part of the Streetsblog network, and has a partnership with the local business newspaper. Every so often their articles get picked up and cited by a national outlet, so it's not just some blogger in his mom's basement.
Sad part is, this makes me about the closest thing Cincinnati has to an architecture critic. (Our local newspaper of record hasn't had an architecture critic in years, and they're quickly circling the drain anyway.) In my articles so far I've usually only talked about architecture in general terms, and if I mention a local project it's usually been in a positive light and I always be sure to give the architects credit. But now I'm working on an article where I'm being a bit more pointed in my critique, and there's a couple local projects in particular that I'm planning to use as examples of missed opportunities. These projects are complete, so there's no issues with running afoul of Michael Graves' advice, but these projects were designed by a large local firm that also happens to be a former employer of mine, albeit for a short-term co-op position. As a general rule I try not to publicly trash-talk former employers even when they deserve it, but my critique of their work in this case has nothing to do with my time working there.
Architectural criticism is an important part of the profession - many firm owners and lead designers I've known over the years had their group of peers they felt comfortable with for peer critique. Some firms do internal critiquing just to stay in practice and be able to take a step back, the best I felt were end of year pin-ups by the entire firm to review where they were and where they ended up (it was too late for some projects, but good overall as a practice to move forward).
To do it publicly is more difficult, especially early in one's career. I feel like the strongest voices are the half-retired crowd with little left in the game. The most productive way is to have conversation in a private setting with the team and ask the question 'what happened'? A lot of times you can learn from it (changes happen in coordination/permitting that could have been avoided in hindsight). Some times those conversations of 'did you try this-or-that' can lead to them contacting you to participate in client side design meetings (particularly on municipal/agency side) to help give direction - this is a good way to be the 'trying to do the right thing without raising hell in the media or public meetings'. Especially in a small town, you may be able to increase your backroom profile and gain a good network.
Back some years ago, there had been legal theories that came from lawyers relating to this that kind of brought this up as doing so commercially as a business against another business can be grounds for lawsuits but the tricky part is, there has to be financial harm and if there is, it is tricky for any architect or any professional for that matter to critique the works of another living professional as distinctly personal and not business because there isn't a clean line between personal and business when the subject matter relates to our profession.
So it is a business act to engage in any discourse relating to the profession because the discourse is a form of business advertising and PR of a professional in this kind of nature.
However, this is a slippery slope legal matter to be mindful of. Some of these arise out of lawsuits of commercial defamation and such which as a professional engaged in business should be watchful over ALL laws relating to conducts of a business. This is something that even employees in such roles should be mindful of.
There is a tricky thin line between matters of freedom of speech, character defamation between businesses.
When an architect practices architecture, they are engaging in a commercial activity.
Everything in capitalist culture is so competitive that constructive criticism among peers is all but non-existent. When architects get together it is pretty much a march of peacocks - just look at the round-tables with Pritzker winners and remember that these are the globally recognized leaders of the profession.
As for journalism ... with rare exception advertising is more truthful.
How free one is to criticize is directly related to where one is in their career, and what career they are in. Very easy to burn bridges including ones that haven't been built yet. Tact is something that often takes years to learn. When young we often rush to impress, among other things.
Balkins, I never read past the first couple lines of your word salads. Your opinions would have a lot more credibility if you demonstrated any evidence of ever having worked in architectural practice, being enrolled in an architectural degree program, or having read a single work of architectural criticism.
^Miles, watch the last two episodes of south park, all is advertising.
Balkins: that's some opportunist lawyer hoop-jumping at best. Within the profession I wouldn't give it any credence.
As with all creative professions, the success of the profession itself depends on a healthy critical dialogue.
David,
It's a small world. You'll find that the most vocal public critics are the least active in practice - some by choice, others by reputation.
That said, there are projects where a client is for one reason or another dissatisfied with an architect's work (only occasionally because of looks) - if you can relate to them about this in private discussion, you might find yourself some work.
In general though, I don't think public criticism is very productive. 0% of people change what they're doing in response to uninvited criticism from unknown persons. Everyone has a little bit of Trump in them, and it comes out when your critics speak. Unless you can use your criticism to advance some agenda (which is what most academic criticism is about), you only look like a loud fool.
A few years back I worked doing design review for a local planning department.
Man, that felt weird for the first few months: actually paid to critique fellow architects' (and others') design work for comformance to the city's design guidelines, and make suggestions or recommendations (but not requirements) for improvement. I felt very awkward meeting with applicants' architects and/or designers, especially having spent most of my practice on their side of the counter--and very sympathetic as a result.
Still, the job was to encourage better design, and there was a set of DGs in place to refer to. It got less weird as time went on. Of course, with the really crappy designs I enjoyed the official position of having some say in design revisions, even if it was less strict than the planners' regulations on development standards (use, height, setbacks, etc).
There were some beautiful submittals, quite a bit of crappy ones, and of course a fair share of perfectly-fine-but-nothing-great projects, too.
midlander, in this case I have an agenda. The audience I'm writing for tends to be oriented toward New Urbanist types who are skeptical of architects in general, and many of them despise "starchitects" in particular. My argument is that signature architecture isn't the problem, and that the vast majority of the terrible schlock in our cities wasn't designed by starchitects. To illustrate my point, I was going to use the example of a couple of recently-built local projects that are horribly-designed and pretty much universally hated, despite following almost every tenet of New Urbanist orthodoxy to the letter.
Use a pen name.
David,
I'm not saying the lawsuits are a big concern. Like tduds says, it would be an incredible stretch but lawyers are professionals at this. The issue came out of a time when lawyers / legal counsel were giving out cautionary advice about public criticism. Remember, as a business, if I were to commercially bad mouth another architecture business or vice versa, there is a technical grounds for suing. This is because what we do professionally as service providers is inseparably linked as commercial.
When this was raised up during the 1980s and 1990s, it was also during a period of time of heighten public media focus on defamation lawsuits.
In practical reality, I wouldn't worry about little petty nonsense stuff or lawsuits over an opinion of one's work unless the critic is doing so repetitiously against you and singling you out and there is some more substantial nefarious intent.
When criticizing the work, the key is not criticize the person. Don't make it a personal attack of the other profession.
My point isn't to say the issue is a concern. I agree with tduds about healthy critical dialogue. I'm pointing out there is a technical legal ground from which the lawyers / legal counsel had been piping down our throats as far as cautionary warnings. Yes, there is technical grounds for a lawsuit but the tricky business is there has to be a connection in loss of income due to a critic's response. A client cancels a project with you because of a critics. If that critic's another competitor and they did it for commercial intent to get your client and they caused damage, then there is a technical case as professionals and as a business at the same time, as businesses we have some basic rules to go by. In practice, these cautionary tales is more legal theory then legal practice. The game play goes both ways. But the one suing (usually under civil court) has the burden to make the stronger case if they were to win. The defendent has the burden to counter. Usually freedom of speech would win because we have that personal right Constitutionally but that goes only so far. Commercial defamation of character is defamation of character between businesses vs persons.
I doubt a real lawsuit would occur. The courts don't have the time or interest in petty bullshit squabbles. So in practice, courts do have to and do ascertain the validity of claims to warrant further pursuit. There has to be substantial connection of valid loss warranting a loss. Although in theory... in THEORY there is a potential for cases and ethics of not criticizing your fellow competitor's works and more directly, the other competitors... there is potential grounds for a lawsuit. I don't think a critique necessarily rises to a level for a lawsuit but if one competitor is rampantly bad-mouthing and defaming another businesses to cause them financial harm and distress there is technical basis for lawsuits and there are such cases but the kinds of cases have to be grossly more extreme.
As for architectural criticism, I had been physically present at architectural critiques of architecture studios at the University of Oregon. Considering I had plenty of time spent at Lawrence Hall and courses there and I had plenty of opportunities in the 3 years that I was there to be at such critiques. NONE of that would raise to that level. I do know ALL businesses do have some general rules to follow under law regarding the matters of defamation, libel and slander.
When you engage in the practice for money, it is a business so there is that basis. If Apple was going around defaming and slandering Sony by making gross claims of Sony selling private information and using slave labor or other falsehoods to defame, and cause customers to leave Sony to go to Apple, that would be a lawsuit. (NOTE: This was just a hypothetical example and no claim that either Sony or Apple does this....it is intended to illustrate a point) It doesn't necessarily have to be that extreme, but for a viable lawsuit, the plaintiff/prosecutor has to have sufficient evidence of financial loss or other harm and evidence connecting to acts of the defendant.
Note: From a legal perspective, there is legal basis but a regular critique like in an architectural critique will usually not be an issue and none of us would really hold a viable case on just that. Cases would be rare. I was simply pointing to how these unwritten ethics rules came about. A large part is coming from legal counsel opinions and warning advice and a culture of lawsuit happiness and a particular time with defamation lawsuits was the rage.
It is not meant to say that it is something to really 'worry' about if you use fair critiquing practices.
I apologize for not elaborating more on what I meant.
You should apologize for elaborating, period.
And no, I didn't read any more than the last line of your post.
Balkins,
It takes maybe 60 seconds to read. 60 seconds you have plenty enough time goofing around.
Balkins, I wish you would actually get something built so I could publically criticize your work, in hopes of poaching your clients and getting the state on your case.
Woohoo!
My point was there is a legal basis. When an architect engages and practices the occupation of architecture customarily for remuneration not as an employee, every act or word by that architect in connection with the occupation of architecture is a commercial/business activity. Unless your business is incorporated or organized in a business entity form that creates a separate legal entity distinction between the two, the business and the owner of a business is one and the same entity. ALL businesses have laws and rules to follow.
What I was saying to David refers to commercial slander/liberl which is often a kind of tort or economic/business tort called trade libel. In addition there is other levels of kinds of tort including tortious interference. This kind of tort relates to architectural kinds of businesses regardless of licensure.
The example I gave earlier on the other thread, tortious interference of business applies as well as tortious interference of contract if there was an interference of contract.
This stuff is where and how some of the ethics basis surrounding professionals criticizing another professional or his/her work.
Richard, you are self feeding trollabite that likes to copy paste shit off google....shhhh
Odd bunch architects, spending time criticizing the top 10% of the work and give the other 90%, that’s utter crap, a complete pass….they should go beyond criticizing the 90% and be crucifying.
Imagine a doctor that had a 90% kill rate….something wrong with a profession that condones architects that kill their “patients”….if an architect can’t deliver architecture take the title away, give them to the engineers….because that’s all they are.
DeTwan,
The law is posted on the internet. The age of secret guilds are over. The internet is the digital library. It has more information resource than 10,000 libraries of congress.
What copy and pasting? I may restate the points that are time after time from multiple legal sources says the same thing.
The lawyers aren't saying anything drastically different. There maybe subtle interpretive differences.
LOL....
That's a good one there Carrera.
Lets start with these guys - Leidos; WD (Wolfgang Doerschlag); Gresham/Smith; BRR....then move on to the other 18,748.
David, it always depends on the audience. There's less concern for misunderstanding if you criticize another architect's work in a forum of architects obviously. In front of a public audience who don't necessarily understand the causes for bad architecture of the mediocre kind (clients, usually - and sometimes ineptitude or indifference) I think you should be careful that you frame the discussion around cause-and-effect, otherwise it can easily become an opportunity for everyone to vent their little bit about architecture.
In your situation it doesn't sound like the particular buildings or mediocre architects matter, so it might be best to show the examples and dissect the particular problems without calling out the firms by name. Good firms sometimes get pinched in tough situations; bad firms actually don't care if they do shit work. So it's more productive to show by example for those who do care to produce good work.
As to your point - I wholly agree. But it's hard to talk to an audience that doesn't care.
+++ midlander
Carrera, the 2% get 98% of the attention. And as mid notes, it's subject to / directed at a specific audience.
You can't criticize without knowing why you are criticizing. Case in point: if you are fan of modern architecture and you go to a small town where there are covenants governing the aesthetics and people build mostly traditional houses, you can't criticize the architect for building traditional houses... You can criticize the covenant, but not the architect. On the other end of the argument- if you are a fan of modern architecture, and you are in a community/town where there are mostly modern houses, then your criticism will make more sense because presumably you can tell the difference between good modern design and bad modern design.
^^ 98% of the "attention" should be directed to those buildings that fail the litmus test, that’s what will make things better….the 2% will take care of itself…firms that do this kind of stuff and are proud of it should be the ones called out (and yes their owners)…and they’re not.
(If someone can point to some articles or critiques on this sort of offence please do, I can use a good read)
"In your situation it doesn't sound like the particular buildings or mediocre architects matter, so it might be best to show the examples and dissect the particular problems without calling out the firms by name. Good firms sometimes get pinched in tough situations; bad firms actually don't care if they do shit work. So it's more productive to show by example for those who do care to produce good work."
Sounds like a reasonable approach... Thanks for the replies.
I also agree with Carrera that we should do a better job of calling out the firms that consistently do terrible schlock like the stuff shown in the photo. Respectable attorneys are quick to call out the ambulance chasers among them, and respectable doctors are quick to call out the quacks in the medical profession. I wish we'd spend half as much energy calling out our own quacks and ambulance chasers as we do tearing down the 2% of architects who actually produce notable work.
For reference, here's an earlier article I wrote for UrbanCincy along a similar theme. I'll be sure to post a link to the follow-up whenever it goes live.
You can criticize the covenant, but not the architect.
Design guidelines shouldn't be aimed at producing sameness, but diversity in harmony, something long lost in american suburbia. So, if an architect isn't capable to work within design guidelines to produce a quality building without falling in the cookie cutter category, then I blame the architect. We all live surrounded by restrictions, but should be able to design around them.
hello, I'm an aspiring architect (high school student) who lacks the resources and know-how to go about architecture can I get some advice?
Good points Carrera .
cn215188,
With all respect, you have posted on a thread with a different topic. Please start another thread.
Come on, David.
The Ascent (puke) is the best building EVER.
No, seriously, it's one of the worst designs I've ever seen.
Not a fan of the Ascent myself, but I'll take a hundred of those over the strip mall in Carrera's post above.
honestly, within the genre of big-box stores, what Carrera posted isn't even below average. Maybe less interesting than those old Site stores, but it still has some qualities.
It is interesting to me how much people focus their sophisticated tastes on architecture, despite the sense that the public doesn't appreciate what we do. As David quoted, Blair Kamin asserts that architecture is an unavoidable art, since no one chooses to see the city before them. And I'm not sure it's as true as it first seems.
First- it's not unique to architecture. Why aren't people so deeply offended by ugly automotive design, or aircraft interiors, or muzak, or people who dress like trash? I think in large part, because no one is trained to focus on that. We know we should just ignore it, and largely succeed.
And we actually do choose what to observe. You'll see what's in front of you, but unless you're conditioned to care, you actually won't notice. You'll find if you travel that people in different environments see very different things. Ugly is relative, and usually involves much deeper associations than the purely aesthetic.
I think the contempt for big box stores and mcmansions is a hatred of the genre more than a thoughtful aesthetic critique. Fair enough - they reflect a culture that we can criticize. But they will someday have some value as architecture history, just like all the tenement housing in Manhattan which gets refurbished and relabeled historic. History is beautiful only because we aren't part of it any more.
People may look and surely the light reflected off the walls of the structures of the city or anything else but this doesn't mean people SEE. What they see is what is processed. The critical aspect of midlander's point, I believe is about contemplatively seeing. People in out culture are so absorded in their frantic life that each person's perception of what they see is the world to that person.
We are taught to have deeper or more resolution of what we perceive through our senses, namely visual in our visual oriented occupation. We talk in terms of 'opening our eyes' but it isn't literally the opening of our eyes but our cognitive perception of what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell. The opening up and development of cognition in connection to our sensory perception. That is only part of the steps. Additionally, the teaching encompassing analysis on many levels. I won't claim to say all these levels. But a few that just comes to mind at this moment is social impact, the theories about how color, texture, scale, proportion, etc. of buildings and their components effects the experience of space, financial impact, environmental impact.
These are just a few but no claim to be the end all.
People in their occupation, work life of basically living two careers as our culture and social-economic reality requires BOTH parents of a household to work two jobs each. Mostly, two full-time jobs each just to make any progress and saving. With these things going on, it is hard to imagine that people care about architecture because they are too busy to even think about the place they work or their home. Sad thing is that for far too many in our society, they don't have a home. They don't have a home nor knows what home is as they don't live the experience of home. They may have a house but it's just a bedroom and a bathroom. When we have a culture of workaholics because that is necessary to live, in the social-economic environment. Architects (the building architects type) don't matter because architects don't do anything that people want. Controversial statement that sounds like. Right. Sadly, architecture isn't a priority of wants in this culture.
What people want are solutions that will allow them to live and make progress in socio-economic progression without having to work 2 full-time jobs to be able to pay the bills, loans, and be able to save for retirement. People want a return to socio-economic opportunities experienced in the 1950s. People want that "American dream" where the parents don't have to both work and work two jobs. They want the ability to move up the ladders of success. This is what people want.
How does work of architects enable and empower people to move in that direction?
If it just makes the old regime richer and richer, by cheaper and cheaper quality of work, does it matter to people. Does the work of architects (building architects) and their solutions do anything meaningful on this front.
I think as the wealth accumulation consolidates into the hands of fewer and fewer people being more and more rich and as architects focus to serve those where the wealth is accumulated, then architects are going to have less value and appreciation because it doesn't do anything to improve and help them. When we do, I think people will value more.
If architects don't change the way of our social-economic reality that allows people to work 1-full time job and progress to support a family and have a good quality of life and progression up the ladder of success. When what we do empowers them, will there be more value of the work of architects and the architectural design. Does our aesthetic critiques address or matter to real world people living a real world life. Does it matter to or aid in empowering their progression up the latter of success and quality of life.
Frankly, there is no Google searching there. Although, I'm sure you'll criticize it as such but I'm confident that there is some common sentiments on this line of thought. I don't believe it is a completely unique thought but a perspective on something I believe people talk and care about.
Why am I not going that far out onto some vain quest for a completely unique line of thought because doing so means you are completely out of touch with people and what they care about in this world.
Therefore, I place the argument for discourse. We all have an opinion and that what it is.
Richard, I'm glad that you took the time to think this through and put together a coherent explanation.
But even in the context of this discussion we are seeing 2 totally different things. I am not talking about people who fail to see what's in front of them because of life's distractions - though I acknowledge they exist - I'm talking about the ways in which different persons and different societies form habits of observing that open up one set of perceptions but close off another.
For example, I have spent a lot of time in China. As an American one of the first things I notice in cities here are the multitude of walls. At first it strikes you that there is some paranoia or insecurity underlying this.
But talking to colleagues here and observing the kinds of spaces the public appreciates, it seems that walls are more often about defining space. In a country where people have long lived in masonry-house villages, walls were an obvious solution to keeping livestock in place. Over time, it became a habit so much so that even urban housing includes walls to define the extent of household space. A space like the Forbidden City wouldn't really have any architectural quality without its walls. And in the everyday environment, a residential area without a wall would be perceived as incomplete - like a house without a front door. Usable, but lacking an expected architectural feature and therefore undesirable.
Don't you want to talk about design? What about the educatorium?
no_form,
Ha ha ha.... Thanks for confirming what I said.
midlander,
Great. Of course we should have different perspectives. Yes, I agree with you. I think in ways we are talking about essentially the same things but from a different angle in a way.
There's points of inextricable linkage between your point and my point which I'm not sure if I can explain it well and coherent as its kind of nebulous.
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.