What is 'serious criticism' in architecture? This is a vital topic, since architecture critics often shape public opinion as much as architects themselves do, if not more so. — Huffington Post
Derived from John Ruskin's 1849 essay "The Seven Lamps of Architecture", architect Lance Hosey compiled a list of comments from the small group of architecture writers pictured above about what they believe are the defining characteristics of good architectural criticism and its role in today's society.
Related:
25 Comments
So architecture criticism is white? (And mostly east coasters....)
Pretty small sample to be critical of.
Don't be a right winger, get with the program. I'm so offended. I'm gonna make a pie chart.
Then again, some of these aren't even arch critics (unless a big museum opens) so never mind.
ha ha and ha.
I was catching up on some reading this morning, and came across an excellent profile on the team of Ila Beka and Louise Lemoine in the Jan. 2015 Metropolis. Fairly good points on architectural criticism, an excellent read nonetheless...
"Architectural criticism has long been the domain of a rarefied few. But it needn’t be that way, argue these Paris-based filmmakers, who cast their lens on the unassuming characters who interact daily with some of the world’s most iconic buildings."
Link -> Game Changers 2015: Ila Bêka and Louise Lemoine
What is 'serious criticism' in architecture?
Well, any good critique of architecture is part factual and part opinion...this is because all architecture is part science and part art....Critiques almost always focus on the art...the subjective stuff...The science, be it soft or hard, is rarely ever covered in any meaningful way. This has a reductionist effect on the average reader. If Discovery, Nat Geo, etc can simplify complex science into something understandable and entertaining to the average reader, than these crits should be able to write deeper about the more objective parts of architecture...possibly this will then inform a more rational argument for or against the subjective qualities...
Art? Really, do we have to go through his again?
The aspects of good criticism include analysis of suitability to purpose, function, environmental responsibility and aesthetics. Obviously some are more subjective than others.
Its so sad seeing what passes for 'criticism' these days. Forget the Victorianism of Ruskin, but is aesthetics now just a branch of sociology? or psychology? or biography?
Art? Really, do we have to go through his again?
Miles, Yeah,architecture is part science and part art...all creative works fall into the broad category of art...."art" is what makes a building worth saving once its initial function has become obsolete...hence its probably the most important aspect of sustainability...especially in this throw away culture...
Art vs. Architecture
I would have said that Beka and Lemoine were more critics than any, until they collaborated with BIG and became PR.
Architecture is the only trade that doesn't value experts as critics. And yet the only "serious criticism" comes from architects themselves.... Schumacher, Rem, to name a few. Which is ironic when media seem to value architecture critics the less they know about the trade. The only requirement is you have to have a tight similie game.
Most of the critics above are shells of their past 90s work, mostly commenting to a few hundred PR followers on Twitter about the same controversy du jours that we do.
hmmmmm.......i find public opinion to be what people resort to when they are talking about something they don't know or are interested in. they resort to whatever opinion has been put out there. if you asked me about Idaho Potato Politics - i would google it, read some articles,find the supposed expert on it and when someone asks me what I thought I would express a version of what I read.......so public opinion does not really matter,what matters is what those who care about what they do say. critics for the most part do not do architecture and therefore their opinions should rather be clarified as observations on the built environment and educated translations of what they thought the designer and builder were doing.....the critic makes estimations at what it all means......i read the huffpost and i like what everyone is saying but i do not see the importance of public opinion and neither do the public i would suggest. if anyone has a strong criticism of architecture it is for personal reasons often immediate to their situation. they look to experts for language to help them understand their strong convictions.....now if many share the same or find the same language then it appears that he critic has affected the public opinion....and once a myth becomes fact or whatever i think you are supposed to print it.
LP > Then they are merely collaborators... Which begs the question, is there really any critic that does not subscribe to some type of ideology that shapes their critiques in the first place? Are we talking about purity of opinion when we ask what makes good architecture criticism? Kind of a stupid premise to even discuss as there can be no correct answer...
They all talk about being "local" and being "responsible" but it's mostly bs. Perhaps they should have been asked how to actually do this while they Instagram and write smarmy tweets Apart from Kamin, they are all talk. So it's not surprising that most serious crit comes from the academy, which is too bad.
When you want to KNOW something about an architect, or piece of architecture, who do you turn to, as a person of some authority? I like Frampton, what about you guys?
^ I like Framton too.
Frampton4life <3
As for the popular critics, integrity has to do not as much with what you say but what you do and are. Frampton lives and breathes it, Sorkin tries to be an architect, Kamin same with Chicago (the trump thing was a sideshow though), Lang ho started Arch Paper, etc. However there are too many PR people posing as critics now... Arch paper is dead now because they let in too much PR in the back door. Most others are way too trendy... Or political. designing for the public has become this trendy designing by the public.. Well you get what you pay for.
The future of criticism is a sponsored tweet...
Frampton....and I met him once too in person for a bit....He went into this story about his friend in England when growing up whose father had a woodworking shop, I think, and how the Caliper tool impressed him greatly with regard to the determination of the true thickness of an object, this quickly turned into the issue with computers and lack of real feedback and I was thinking Heisenberg uncertainty principle the whole time (figured it was to pretentious to state what I was thinking).....the short talk was very much like the Roche interview on recent Podcast....none of these crits get my head spinning like that.
Who gives a rats ass except starchitects and their followers?
In response to the first reader comment, above, here's my article on African American architecture criticism. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5866a04ae4b04d7df167d45e
Lightperson - how does Kamin try to be an architect?
Sorkin doesn't try... he IS an architect, and has done some fairly major planning and urban work.
If we are talking Chicago, Lee Bey (architectural photographer) has been writing for Chicago Reader lately and his pieces are pretty good.
Agree about Arch Newspaper, they've gone down the drain... editors just looking for clickbait headlines... criticism to be condescending and harsh just for the sake of being harsh.
I don't want my critics to sugarcoat problems with projects, but would much rather read an article that is a celebration of what is right with a project than what is wrong with it.
Lance, in response to your link on African American architecture criticism I'd say you (we) aren't looking hard enough.
Case in point. This past summer a critic interviewed three academic "experts" on the topic of race and public space. One was african american, the other two were not. This is not to say this was the bad thing, but the omission of comments from two other african american faculty members at the same institution whose research was related to the topic is. When the critic was questioned why those persons were not included, the answer was disappointing.
Furthermore, there's Mario Gooden's book "Dark Space," a series essays of African American identity and architecture-
-Adrienne Brown makes an interesting argument regarding how skyscrapers contributed to the construction of race relations in the early 20th century (thanks Nam).
-Pete Saunders, a planner who blogs about urbanism in the midwest.
The reasons I make mention of these three individuals is to call attention to the fact that they discuss African American identity using different mediums, and they write from different locations, and disciplines. I think the suggestion that Washington DC is the center of African American architecture is too compartmentalizing, suggestion that that is the primary experience when it is far more complex and diverse than that. Added to that I'd argue as a piece of architecture (versus a collection) the new Smithsonian museum is too compromised to serve as a beacon for criticism.
Finally, I'd ask which is more important- African American critics, or criticism that is accurately and appropriately framed for the context of African American (or any other marginalized body)?
All great points. My article is just meant to help encourage more dialogue.
Understood, just running with it. I also neglected to mention Derek Ford.
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.