Almost singing the refrain, "What do awards have to do with it?" writer Ben Willis investigates the disconnect between the plethora of architectural awards, both those that recognize aesthetics and those that focus on data-driven technical specs, and the public's (and for that matter, other architects') incomprehension of what these prizes mean. With so many awards and so many buildings that fellow professionals have never visited or heard of before the merit is given, what exactly is the value of an architectural award? Using an Oscar analogy, Willis explains just what he's talking about:
Whereas non-filmmakers have access to nearly all of the films considered for major film awards, most non-architects don’t have first-hand experience with any of the buildings and designers being considered for awards. Many casual movie-goers know what defines an award-winning movie, and yet the criteria used to define award-winning buildings are often so disconnected from the public’s experience of architecture that their only basis for reaction is “Yeah, that looks cool” or “Wow, architects really like awarding weird buildings!” We must make the value of the architecture discipline more accessible to the public both by teaching and learning from them, and perhaps awards could play a role in this effort. But there is plenty of other infrastructure—integrating design education into early education, better community feedback, more accessible design criticism in major publications, to name a few—that would likely have a more pronounced impact than getting more people to read about the latest prize winners.
Hate to say it, but architecture belongs in the same group as classical music (or jazz), art museums and book reading. All these things are linked in superior quality and decreased interest from public.
I don't think architecture suffers from a decreased interest from the public, it's always been a luxury commodity for the few not an essential priority for the many. The majority of people still live in dwellings that were built without any architect involved, just like it used to be in the past.
All 11 Comments
Matter to whom?
Architects are now like monks, preserving a set of knowledge that has been discarded by the general public. Awards matter to us, but nobody else. The public is now led by pseudo scientists, tactical urbanists (Let them eat bike lanes) and dubious social narratives. The days of Frank Lloyd Wright, Saarinen and Eames' large influence are over.
Architects are now like monks, preserving a set of knowledge that has been discarded by the general public......should read.....
"Architects are now like monks, preserving knowledge that is irrelevant to the general public."
That's why we even have to ask the rhetorical question "Do architecture awards matter?" Someday we will learn to listen again.
Listen to what? The lowest common denominator? That's the opposite of what I'm saying.
Architecture awards will matter to the general public once they make a tv reality show about it. Only matters if its on tv.
Eh, that would just end up involving Bjarke Ingels in some way, trying to convince us his bland developments are "revolutionary" or something. Good architecture is by nature too boring for TV
"Architects are now like monks, preserving a set of knowledge that has been discarded by the general public."
And why do you think that is? I think it is because we have made ourselves irrelevant over time, focusing on stuff that the general public forgets in a snapchat moment.
And the Academy Award for Best Architecture goes to...
I think you're right sameolddoctor. If you compare how architecture was spoken about before WW2 going back centuries and after WW2, it's pretty clear. When you equate the people in who's site you are building, "the lowest common denominator", then expect to be ignored.
Hate to say it, but architecture belongs in the same group as classical music (or jazz), art museums and book reading. All these things are linked in superior quality and decreased interest from public.
I don't think architecture suffers from a decreased interest from the public, it's always been a luxury commodity for the few not an essential priority for the many. The majority of people still live in dwellings that were built without any architect involved, just like it used to be in the past.
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.