Design Observer :: Join the Discussion http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/ en-us Design Observer Group 2013-03-26T22:43:45-05:00 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0
Alexandra Lange suggests — and Nancy Levinson appears to agree — that we should (negatively) remember Nicolai Ouroussoff as being a critic in the vein of Muschamp, simply because Ouroussoff, "like Muschamp," was "a lover of stars."

This is unfair to Muschamp — not least, because he operated on an altogether different (and higher) cultural-historical and intellectual plane than Ouroussoff or pretty much any other recognized architectural critic of his generation, including Paul Goldberger. (It is debatable whether even Michael Sorkin rivalled Muschamp for inventiveness, lyricism and sheer intellectual firepower.)

Specifically: Muschamp emerged as less of an "architectural critic" than as a cultural critic who used architecture as his lens. This never was Ouroussoff's project. But it was Muschamp's — and it is on this basis that Muschamp's legacy must be judged.

We can debate whether Muschamp's way of writing about architecture was legitimate. (I think it was — absolutely.) We also can ask whether, given Muschamp's approach, the New York Times should have been more responsive in elevating the profile of David Dunlap, who always was more attuned to the "street" aspects of buildings and public spaces.

But, nearly six years after his death, it is long past time to start taking a more mature approach to assessing the significance of Muschamp's contributions — rather than smugly dismissing him as an elitist, for no better reason than that he had a thing for Rem and Frank and Peter and Elizabeth and Ricardo, and that he referenced Baudelaire and Adorno.

For those who are interested, my own earlier extended critique of Nicolai Ouroussoff's writing, from November 2006 — noted at the time by Design Observer, Archinect, Curbed and others — is "The Taming of Nicolai."
]]> http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2013-03-26T22:43:45-05:00
The object of design criticism should be exceptional spatial practice, not a binary aesthetic/function discourse. What needs fostering is an understanding of what exceptional practices are and how they exist spatially. The criteria of exceptional spatial practice is a point of debate, but it should relate to ways of living that contribute to a general ability to sustain.

Criticism should give attention and power to those who are using what already exists to remake spatial practices in the common interest. This means that the activities of most contemporary architects should either be savaged or ignored.
]]> matt http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2011-04-19T21:40:59-05:00 book publishers article on the related issue of journalism (specifically scientific journalism) over on seed magazine, perhaps worth the read. ]]> Alison Hardiman http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-08-09T10:20:38-05:00 Leni Schwendinger http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-17T00:12:08-05:00
I'll go out on a limb and assume that the crowd cheering Corbusier and jeering Gehry might have a strong Modernist preference. I'll go further out on that limb and guess that this website, because of its content, draws alot of readers with that same preference. And this is why I feel that much of the anti-Ouroussoff commenting is inspired by nostalgia.

Gehry's Bilbao Museum is a success. Period. So, how is that possible if its so bad at displaying art? The discussion should certainly be about function -- but which function? The building might provide merely an adequate space for art at the same time functioning as an absolutely phenomenal icon in the global media and the city of Bilbao.

Architecture operates on many levels. If changes in the way we consume information has changed the way we experience architecture, why fight it? ]]> david http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-16T13:40:49-05:00 Most architectural critics I have read ignore these matters. That is why the term "architectural critic" is an oxymoron.
Several years ago I attended a celebration of Corbusier work in India attended by many world class architects. The topic was Gehry's Bilboa Museum. The consensus was very negative because of the difficulty to show art in this structure.
Le Corbusier said "To create architecture is to put in order. Put what in order? Function and objects."

]]> don tishman http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-16T12:17:34-05:00 Sam Hall Kaplan http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-14T22:06:06-05:00 Cheers!]]> Thayer-D http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-12T14:11:13-05:00
And perhaps you have a point with trying to draw a line between polemics and opinionated argument (though in my mind there is one).

Good conversation in general!
]]> faslanyc http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-12T11:32:16-05:00
So what? faslanyc's post is exactly the kind of thinking that turns people off to modern criticism. Semantical explorations while the elephant in the room goes unexplained. If you don't even know what making a work better means, why bother differentiating between criticism and journalism? It's a circle jerk where you're trying to sound intelligent by who can be the most enigmatic.

"polemic and biased, but not opinionated"???

This might help: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polemic

Dovresti scrive in Spagnolo, perche in Inglese sembri scemo]]> Thayer-D http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-12T08:15:03-05:00
In my mind, journalism explains, gives us the why and how, the context, etc.

But criticism exists for another reason in my mind. To me, it exists to make the work better (whatever that means). It should be polemic and biased, but not opinionated. Am I off base?

@ Thayer-D: y so lo decis en otro idioma y tu mama no te entiende porque hable solamente ingles, pues que entonces?]]> faslanyc http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-11T19:02:34-05:00
Look at the earlier generation of architectural critics such as Montgomery Schuyler and Maria Van Griswold Rensselaer. For that matter, read a run of the mill architectural criticism from any of the architectural periodicals leading up to modernism's ascent in the 1930's. It was so much more accesible to the average reader because of a shared sense of architectural values, least of which was a thing called beauty. Once the modernist anti-beauty mantra took hold, the cord was cut between the public and academia, which architectural crtitics share their world view.

That's not to say that widening the scope of the critic into sociological and conceptual realms is in itself a bad thing, to the contrary, these questions bring a new depth to the endevor. But if you are debating the relevance of architectural criticism beyond the ivory tower priesthood, you will have to engage the wider public on their terms. If not, you'll have smashing cocktail parties and scintilating conversations (no doubt), but you will be rendered impotent towards achieving the goals you claim to pursue.

I always used the mama rule; if your mama dosen't get what the heck your saying, then maybe you should reconsider reframing your point. I know your mama was no dummy, even if she was never indoctrinated into the language of the conoscienti.]]> Thayer-D http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-11T14:21:04-05:00
Nathaniel Martin, I see your point, which offers yet another way into the question: what's the role of the critic? FASLANYC touches on this too, in his comment about the value of academics or practitioners who also write criticism.

But at the start of any such discussion, I think we've got to distinguish between critics who write only occasionally — such as academics or practitioners — and those who do so regularly, or at least try to. It's the critics who write regularly, and who do so in venues that are widely read, who have the chance to make an impact — to galvanize and sustain a big public discussion about architecture and urbanism.

We've also got to distinguish between those who write mainly for specialists and colleagues — and academics and practitioners are usually in this group — and those who write for the nonspecialist public, for the citizen who probably doesn't know much about contemporary architecture (beyond the big names who crowd the mainstream press) and who probably hasn't thought about larger-scale urban issues at all.

It's this public critic who has the ability to enlarge the constituency for serious design — to make more people care about the quality of cities and landscapes. And this is why the critic for the NYT really matters — it's the biggest platform in the U.S. (and one of the few with real organization support, a.k.a., a salary).

Nathaniel, I agree with you, to a point. If NO were a better, more inventive and courageous critic, it might not seem to matter that he isn't paying much attention to NYC. But there'd still be a big missed opportunity, an opportunity for the Times critic to play a central role in a wide-ranging, dynamic conversation about the future of New York architecture and urban design.

One more thing: I agree completely with FASLANYC, that the placement of the architecture critic in the arts & culture (or "leisure") pages is really problematic.
]]> Nancy Levinson http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-11T12:32:45-05:00 professionalism to sustain a critical network, but that needn't necessarily be the the critic themself (although as i said it is good to have a few of them too). It seems when a critic is only a critic there is some disconnect in their body of work, something missing. By far and away for me, the most interesting critics tend to be academics and professionals who also produce criticism. I think this is because their criticism is about something and is necessarily set within a larger context (personal, and professional). I think that should be encouraged more. And having bloggers put in whatever they can is fine, too, i reckon, though most blogging is commentary, not criticism.

Also, the Times architecture criticism shows up in the "arts and culture" section. I think this is a huge fundamental bias never acknowledged (which i assume holds true for other major outlets) and is the reason that the historical, social, and especially scientific and technological aspects of a given project tend to be treated superficially. I'm not saying architecture doesn't have to do with art and culture, but I think it's obvious why the tendency is toward the high society starchitect work given that the paper's editors/traditions make this decision.]]> faslanyc http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-11T07:23:47-05:00 Nathaniel Martin http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-11T06:26:27-05:00
Justin Davidson, you are right, most critics aren't "frequent flying." But the Times has special import and influence, and in recent years it's really pursued the global beat — and as a result I wonder if we tend to think of the more local critics as somehow operating in a lesser zone: they can't make it to the international party, so they stick to home, etc etc. Another way to frame my argument: what if we rethought the ratio, so the local beat was the one that mattered? the one with the cachet?

I'll emphasize that I'm not suggesting any kind of sentimental time-trip. We're now so globally attuned that any strong focus on the local has got to be intentional — it's no longer the unselfconscious default.

Another issue — focusing on the local will limit a critic's sphere of influence. Not every city is New York, which has a purchase on the national and international imagination. It matters beyond its borders in a way that few cities do. That's why I suggested that new critical models might emerge that are not just about place — they could be focused on architecture and technology, energy, program, media, whatever — and in that way they might manage to be local/non-local.

And another issue — FASLANYC mentioned NO's professional status. It's very hard to have a sustained critical culture if you don't have a network of people who are doing it professionally — whose work is supported by an employer and who thus can afford to take the time, week after week, to immerse themselves in the critical process, and whose work is published regularly. (And whose employment gives them critical independence, at least potentially.) It remains to be seen whether blogging — which depends upon personal initiative, interest, time — will produce a sustained body of criticism.
]]> Nancy Levinson http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-10T21:17:02-05:00
I wonder this; what is the point of criticism? For me, it works in as a feedback loop forming with praxis and theory. It improves the practice (of architecture, landscape, etc.). It doesn't sell it (marketing) or describe it (narrative) though of course aspect of that can be in there (such as setting the scene through context and anecdote).

However, maybe that is not the point, or there are many many points/purposes of criticism? Commenter "Morgan" had a good point that she likes some form of architectural tourism. That is valid, though i would argue it shouldn't be considered criticism. For me, that is another kind of journalism. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

There is also an interesting article on the related issue of journalism (specifically scientific journalism) over on seed magazine, perhaps worth the read.]]> faslanyc http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-10T14:15:42-05:00 arlene Matzkin http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-10T13:36:28-05:00 ]]> Danette http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-10T12:49:54-05:00
Living currently in Boston, where the free Metro paper I pick up on the subway is better than the boston globe, there's a total lack of sanctioned architectural criticism. But I have a found an internet forum where you can read and participate in discussions on local architecture. It's http://www.archboston.org/community/index.php So much like the rest of the media world, some of the most interesting discourse takes place not in the established media, but in the nooks and crannies of the interwebs.]]> Morgan http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-10T12:38:00-05:00 Justin Davidson http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-10T12:13:17-05:00
thanks for provoking.]]> larry r. http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-beats/12948/#comments 2010-03-09T13:08:46-05:00