Design is Change panel, with Paola Antonelli, Katie Salen and Clifford Pearson, MoMA, October 21, 2009
Filed under
M
On Criticism 2, March 11, 2009 To respond to Andrew’s question — What is the state of architecture criticism? — we first need to look at where we are in terms of architecture. I agree, the “Bilbao Ponzi era” is over. Starchitecture has, like some hurtling supernova, burned itself out. What remains? An era of infrastructure, of “fix it first,” of sustainability. But who is going to write about these new concerns?When I think about architecture criticism, I think of two poles represented by my two favorite critics: Jane Jacobs and Herbert Muschamp. Jane promoted common-sense principles and ideas. You shouldn’t put a highway through the middle of SoHo; a street with broken windows looks unsafe and thus will encourage crime. Herbert, on the other hand, championed risk-taking — in architecture, in writing, in life. He compared Richard Meier’s Perry Street Condos to Hitchcock blondes; in his defense of preserving the old Huntington Hartford museum he asked us to remember Henry Geldzahler, lacy underwear, swanky taste and Singapore slings. The only problem was that architecture and Herbert were twinned in their teleology of fabulousness.And so now we’re back to Earth. We started this conversation thinking about Ada Louise Huxtable’s collected writings, and I keep looking at that picture of Ada Louise perched on a settee. She looks like a decent middle ground — chic enough, but serious, too. I usually advocate for extremes, but at the moment I’ll call for this compromise: a fantastic marriage of Jane and Herbert (both dead!). Someone advocating for common sense in architecture, but with a bit of style.Architecture criticism has become too much of a discussion of form and ability, and not enough about context. We wouldn’t dare call Jane Jacobs an “architecture critic” now — but she wrote about how buildings function in a society. What Jane and Herbert didn’t do was write about architects. They both used the built environment to comment on how it symbolized something more profound about society. As architecture criticism has been pushed further to the outskirts of regular arts coverage, we architecture critics can’t further isolate the discussion by writing solely about an architect’s talent or a particular building’s aesthetics. Maybe it will no longer be a matter of choice. How can we write about singularity in this time of populism and interconnectedness?This is the second in an ongoing series of posts that ponder the state of architecture criticism. To read all posts on this topic, please click here.
Sarah Morris’s art is touted for its allusions to and interpretations of the urban environment. With deft mimcry of the grids found in cityscapes, her Midtown series of paintings (1998-99) recall the green-glass-windowed facades of a Gordon Bunshaft building. She followed these up with the series Los Angeles (2005-06), in which her Mondrian-like abstractions were more frantically paced and garishly colored, referencing architectural icons in Los Angeles.
The pieces riff on the chaos and colors of urbanity, but they leave the viewer wondering how they critique it. Pretty and superficial, much of Morris’s work fills the same role in popular culture that a Hollywood starlet or a soulless skyscraper does. But with her latest installation, Robert Towne (named after the famed scriptwriter of Bonnie and Clyde, Chinatown, and other classics of the 1960s and ’70s), Morris may be finally making her long-vaunted commentary on architecture.
Located on the underside of the Lever House’s atrium ceiling, this 19,744-square-foot installation of brightly colored house paint gives new life to an unused space along Park Avenue’s sea of gray suits and black streets. Here Morris’s Technicolor mural—aptly applied to one of Bunshaft’s most celebrated works—offers an alternative reality to the muted tones of Midtown. Like many of the other pieces funded by the city’s Public Art Fund, such as Anish Kapoor’s Sky Mirror at Rockefeller Center or Sarah Sze’s Corner Plot near Central Park, Robert Towne greets its viewers unexpectedly. For the dozens who lunch, smoke, and talk in the Lever House’s outdoor space, the painting is mesmerizing, yet inexplicable; pulsing and exciting, but directionless. Named after a director whose films are ruthlessly real, Morris’s installation is likewise in-your-face and confrontational.
At the very least, the piece speaks to the many missed opportunities to enhance public space with art. It continues the dialogue that the Lever House started almost 60 years ago, when the building redefined how architects could merge architectural behemoths with human-scaled courtyards. Robert Towne offers a utopian vision where the grid is replaced by a maze; where swathes of energetic hues replace neutral ones; and where people walk while looking up instead of at their feet.
Monocle Magazine, Urban Legends, April 2010
Paper Magazine, Do Gooders: Next American City, December/January 2008-2009
Smart City Radio, December 03, 2008
Smart City Radio, September 11, 2008 Martha Stewart Radio, September 10, 2008
Phillyist VIP, Phillyist, May 28, 2008
Paper Magazine, Brooklyn Modern, May 23, 2008
New York Times, City Room, “Answers About Brooklyn Architecture,” April 16-18, 2008
Fuhgedaboutit! Hipsters Reinvent Brooklyn Arts, Bloomberg,March 24, 2008
Brooklyn Modern, Cool Hunting, March 17, 2008
A Young Editor’s Passion for Work, Media Life Magazine, October 2004
Open for just three months during the summer, the Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, located in London’s Kensington Gardens, could be a mere blip on the architecture radar. Yet it manages to garner the attention usually reserved for major projects. One can see why. Since its inception four years ago, the Pavilion has showcased work by some of the world’s most heralded architects for its annual architectural commission—Zaha Hadid (2000), Daniel Libeskind (2001), and Toyo Ito (2002). This year’s selection for the project, Oscar Niemeyer, Hon. AIA, is no exception. Ninety-five years old and busy at work, the Pritzker Prize winner continues to engage and excite the public with his designs. Read more…
An annual magazine dedicated to the cross-section of work, pop culture, and politics. Two issues were circulated. Designed by Project Projects.
Diana Lind is the program director for the New Cities Foundation and the editor at large of Next American City magazine. She is at work on a book about comparative urban policy called Vision, Power, Change.
2010
Program Director, New Cities Foundation
Host, Metro Matters podcast
Rutgers University-Camden, Guest Lecturer
2009
Editor & Publisher, Next American City
Brooklyn Modern, 2nd Edition
Instructor, Drexel University, Great Works Symposium
Guest Lecturer, University of Windsor Distinguished Speakers Series
Board member, Washington Square West Civic Association
Instructor, The Public School (for Architecture)
2008
Editor, Next American City
Instructor, Drexel University, Great Works Symposium
Brooklyn Modern: Architecture, Interiors & Design, Rizzoli
Editor in Charge, Architectural Record Houses 2008
Keynote speaker, Creative Cities Summit 2.0
Winner, ACLU Stand Up for Freedom contest (co-creator, Sarah Kramer)
2007
Resident, Blue Mountain Center
Finalist, Iowa Review Award
2006
Columbia University, M.F.A., Creative Writing
Editor, Designing the Hamptons: Portraits of Interiors, Edizioni Press
2004
Founder, Work Magazine
Instructor, Columbia University Summer Session in Creative Writing
2003
Cornell University, B.A., English
1999
Horace Mann School
1981
Born in Manhattan