Michael Kimmelman is not a very good architecture critic, at least that is what some of his critics would have you believe. As invigorating as his first few columns championing urbanism and public design were, the whole thrust has devolved into a sort of schtick, whereby every article is about the greatness of cities, and barely about architecture.
Michael Kimmelman knows this.
— observer.com
What, exactly, should the Times' new architecture critic be writing about? Something, his fellow critics agree.
3 Comments
is this missing a link?
good call, nam - it's fixed now.
Like this graph "Were he to write about Zaha Hadid’s MAXXI Museum in Rome, he told the audience that it would be about whether or not it transformed the derelict neighborhood in which it was built, the ostensible reason for the museum, not whether it was a successful museum in-and-of itself. Though presumably that would be addressed as well."
Couldn't agree more, that we need more of that sort of criticism.
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.