Philip Nobel assails the ICA and the sterile critique that endorses it. “Certainly there’s more power in constructing fame than in questioning it. Or is it that such critics think that star-crafted buildings, even if derivative and poorly realized, are inherently better than the alternative? Do they fear that by challenging these architects they might discourage innovation? Do they imagine that promoting innovation—even just the look of innovation—is such a pure good that the defense of all other values must be suspended along with our disbelief?” Metropolis
15 Comments
great article!
Well said, Mr. Nobel. Refreshing, indeed!
Let's hope it's Nobel's "Concord Hymn" and not
the shot heard 'round the...room.
I don't get it, this is the first negative talk I've ever heard about this building. And I know a lot of people who've been there. I've only seen photos and they look great. Does anyone else who's visited this thing agree with the review?
It has less to do with the building and more to do with the paltry state of criticism. He's sick of the salivating horde that's always at the ready to rubber stamp over-hyped buildings that don't deliver. He's right about one thing, when criticism becomes an indentured servant to its market everyone suffers.
amen!
?
Hmm,
Haven't seen the building but thought it looked pretty.
No one should be worshipped though. Does it tackle the big issues?
Then critique it.
As for their luxury eco-house...
Isn't that an oxymoron
And why do we need all the latest in technology in order to be eco-friendly or sustainable even?
Re: An Eco-House for the Future
Silica boy likes the 9;30 - midnight section.
what an xox writing style. i am emberassed to read such sold out piece of paid ad.
and it ends with a facial money shot;
"The Phantom House is a sophisticated desert dwelling that produces more energy than it consumes and gives back to the grid."
oo yea...
re. the initial article (nobel), if his point is truly the codependence between critics and stars, i wish he'd provide distinct examples of the undeserved adoration to failed starchitecture he claims. I don't know if the ICA in boston deserves to be the catalyst for this "awakening"...since, after all, it has received public praise...
Regardless, here is the point i want to make; Critics, ATTACK the mediocrity of 99% of the current architecture. The quietly accepted built-garbage that surround us. I personally dislike libeskind's new building in toronto, but i won't throw any rocks, because i am surrounded by detroit architectural garbage. I appreciate any architectural design; and when rarely found, i am learning to appreciate it for its mere existence...
ok, sorry for the venting...but if architectural critics wrote about suburban corporate spec buildings or the new strip mall complex off "exit 102", rather than criticizing thoughtfully designed architecture, the public might learn something.
You rarely get to choose the ideal timing for a jeremiad. I've never read one on the page that didn't sound somewhat reckless or poorly substantiated. Print[magazine] culture is a taskmaster that way. For good or ill. Nobel has earned some latitude where substantiation is concerned. To suggest otherwise is ungenerous and probably a little unwise given what's at stake. But his capital is now mostly spent. At this point I'd rather haggle over the state of architectural criticism than the minutiae of his critical shortcomings.
...the public might learn something.
Critics seldom control the medium they serve, much less the subject of their attentions. Editors, advertisers, consumers and the prevailing zeitgeist determine that - where ABC-audited mass print is concerned anyway.
There are more effective ways of dealing with corporate spec buildings or the new strip mall. Sponsored political activism or grassroots civic agitation would probably suffice. Call a critic after the first volley is launched but don’t expect them to single-handedly wag the dog where brute commerce is concerned. My experience has indicated that the public is more likely to be drawn into a learning opportunity when the architecture occupies an important conceptual space. A space where lies are sometimes breathed through silver [pace Lewis]. A good critic will and must identify both the silver and the lie or risk the hazards of consequentialism. Ends and means and all that. There isn’t much delight where Machiavelli’s concerned.
Did anyone notice that the D+S & R piece in the NYT is the only one without a byline?
I'm with you Orhan, in light of Nobel's charge this appears like some hastily-contrived PR advertorial. Oh to be a fly on the wall for that editorial meeting!
sidebar your honor:
Silica boy is a riot! I'm thinking Hans Haacke, Zola, Richard Hamilton and Iain Sinclair all wrapped in one. It would also be stellar as a short(film) with a stream-of-consciousness narration and uploaded as a podcast for itinerant architourists trolling for the gape-worthy spectacle.
extended sidebar:
I just remembered Riley's show at MoMA. Look here Orhan.
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.