Whenever sycophancy or cronyism thinly veiled as criticism gets me down, Miss Representation picks me back up again. Also, Clay Risen (who is a friend of mine, so I suppose my mention qualifies as cronyism...).
Of more established names, I often like Michael Sorkin, Philip Nobel, and Martin Filler.
Criticism by professional critics is a double-edged sword. Sometimes it's insightful, but often it's pretentious and uninformed. The best thing about it is that it gets published, and brings issues of architecture and urbanism into the public discourse---something that doesn't seem to happen without a windbag-type (and a willing publisher) driving it.
I have seen lots of things in the local media lately about architecture. 1/2 hour TV specials about the local architecture, a contest for both the best and worst architecture in the city, a city museum design competition, and there are several projects under design or under construction and they make up a noticeable amount of the TV programming and newpapers. All of it is poorly done I'm afraid. People still don't know what architects do though.
Who needs architectural critics when you have reality TV?
writing architecture for architects and writing architecture for the public are two entirely different things...writing for the public gets comments like "oh, this building is made of glass to promote the idea of openess!"--simplifying an entire thought process to the point it could be considered demeaning to architecture.
This is true, but may give too much credit to the other side. Writing by and for architects is often pompous and pseudo-intellectual at best. Even the examination of complex ideas can be made clear and concise. It's called good writing, and is all too rare in architectural circles.
Where has all the architectural criticism gone?
NY Times?
Tribune?
Herald?
LA Times?
Is there not a new generation of architectural critics to fill the gap? Or have newspapers felt there is no longer a need for such a forum to exist?
thoughts..
Whenever sycophancy or cronyism thinly veiled as criticism gets me down, Miss Representation picks me back up again. Also, Clay Risen (who is a friend of mine, so I suppose my mention qualifies as cronyism...).
Of more established names, I often like Michael Sorkin, Philip Nobel, and Martin Filler.
i'd like to see javier arbona, mason white and bryan finoki get in that business. all from archinect.
Criticism by professional critics is a double-edged sword. Sometimes it's insightful, but often it's pretentious and uninformed. The best thing about it is that it gets published, and brings issues of architecture and urbanism into the public discourse---something that doesn't seem to happen without a windbag-type (and a willing publisher) driving it.
It probably went the way of actual Journalism in the US papers.
I have seen lots of things in the local media lately about architecture. 1/2 hour TV specials about the local architecture, a contest for both the best and worst architecture in the city, a city museum design competition, and there are several projects under design or under construction and they make up a noticeable amount of the TV programming and newpapers. All of it is poorly done I'm afraid. People still don't know what architects do though.
Who needs architectural critics when you have reality TV?
journalism and criticism are nt the same thing. but they have both gone the same way.
writing architecture for architects and writing architecture for the public are two entirely different things...writing for the public gets comments like "oh, this building is made of glass to promote the idea of openess!"--simplifying an entire thought process to the point it could be considered demeaning to architecture.
This is true, but may give too much credit to the other side. Writing by and for architects is often pompous and pseudo-intellectual at best. Even the examination of complex ideas can be made clear and concise. It's called good writing, and is all too rare in architectural circles.
yeah Bryan Finoki at the SF Chronicle -- that'll kick up some dust.. I'm all for it!
hey what about huell howser on PBS!!! j/k
do you think that postmodernism is the reason strong criticism has faded away?
i mean at least with modernism they had figureheads to characterize...
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.