04/01/12: Belonging: A Conversation about Cities in Flux, Philadelphia Museum of Art
02/23/12: Re-imagining Urban Highways panel discussion, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia
Past
11/8/11: TedxPhilly, speaker
10/26-27/11: Syracuse University, visiting lecturer
10/11/11: Design in Action conference, Emerging Practitioners Panel, moderator
In the past two weeks, a minor kerfuffle, the kind in which the Internet specializes, has erupted over the direction and substance of architecture criticism, sparked by a short essay by critic Peter Kelly called “The New Establishment,” published in the British magazine Blueprint.
The article takes issue with the kind of criticism that is found on popular architecture blogs. We know this brand of lament well: the web is killing everything that was ever good, and, in this case, Kelly is wringing his hands that “speculative” bloggers who focus more on cultural mashups than straightforward dissections of architectural projects — in the style of, say, Paul Goldberger — have failed to produce what he blandly calls “informed, intelligent criticism.” And because the blogosphere is the new establishment, this means that we can expect that this kind of writing and the figures behind it are here to stay.
Although Kelly takes aim at a few British bloggers (Bad British Architecture, Strange Harvest, etc.), I was most interested in his attack on BLDGBLOG, which he calls “probably the most influential architecture blog in the world.” Its author is Geoff Manaugh, whom Kelly calls an “institution.” Manaugh’s response to Kelly makes two key points: first, Manaugh has never attempted to replace traditional architecture criticism, nor does he hope to cultivate an audience that is looking for that kind of stuff; and second, he would welcome an alternative to his own style of blogging that might resemble the smart, level-headed approaches of the LA Times‘ architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne or The Center for Land Use Interpretation‘s founder Matthew Coolidge. He then ends by saying:
Imagine a world, then, where critics like Peter Kelly actually step up and demonstrate how to do the things they so enjoy pointing out as lacking in others. If they could succeed at this — and find an audience, and push an agenda, and gather influence, and raise the stakes of what it means to be an architecture blogger — then we would all, as writers and readers and builders, be stronger because of it.
To my mind, the reason why there isn’t more of Peter Kelly’s kind of writing is that there aren’t enough places where one can make a living writing about architecture. There are probably fewer than a dozen people who make a living in the United States writing about architecture (and don’t get the majority of their incomes through editing, teaching or consulting). The problem, in other words, isn’t that Geoff Manaugh is a popular blogger, but that the vision of Peter Kelly’s ideal critic isn’t economically feasible these days. Until a new business model, or a better way of funding criticism through a smaller niche of avid readers, is figured out we can expect to see the number of pages (even webpages) dedicated to serious criticism dwindle: even the monthly critiques by Robert Campbell and Michael Sorkin had to be cut from Architectural Record‘s coverage in 2010.)This economic impossibility needs to be recognized before proposing a utopian world where architecture critics have all the necessary resources to provide the informed, intelligent criticism expected of them. Otherwise it’s like saying our urban education system should rival that of private schools without recognizing that there aren’t unlimited funds to support that revolution.
A sense of responsibility for guiding public discussion about architecture is what I miss most.
So what is the appropriate response to this situation that we all find a bit disappointing? Is it to voice frustration with the new guard that is innovating? No. Instead, we should be asking: Why does the Old Establishment, which is adequately supported, suck so much? Why is Nicolai Ouroussoff still the lead critic for the Times when his writing, at its best, is greeted with a shrug? And while we all love Paul Goldberger, why hasn’t The New Yorker given someone else a chance to write the occasional piece of criticism for the magazine? If we’re going to be using new means to create a dialogue about architecture criticism, it might be interesting to do it in a way that is purposefully attempting to overthrow the PMS (pale, male, stale) guard.Kelly presumes that BLDGBLOG is incredibly influential, and it is, in so far as it has widened the context and lens through which we see architecture. But it doesn’t shape the architecture profession (that’s not what it sets out to do) and it doesn’t serve as much of a reference about what’s happened in architecture over the past few years. Like most blogs, it’s really more of a catalog of Manaugh’s personal interests.If the old architecture criticism establishment continues to be boring and a new establishment continues to mine the esoteric margins of architectural thought rather than the work of architects, what is at risk is a clear sense of who is debating the direction of architecture as practice or discipline. Kelly blames Manaugh et al. for lacking the right style or substance; Manaugh seems to shirk responsibility for the future of online dialogue about architecture.Perhaps magazines like Architectural Record feel too much of a responsibility for charting what’s happening in highbrow, mainstream architecture and don’t allow for enough personal, tangential conversation. But that sense of authority and responsibility for guiding public understanding and discussion about architecture is what I miss most about the old establishment. I miss that much more than the writing style in which old media expressed itself or even the architecture that old media referenced. When Herbert Muschamp was the critic for the Times, he felt a responsibility to curate a series of alternatives to the SOM-designed replacement for the World Trade Center — is there anyone writing right now who would take on that role of architectural shaman?What should someone with the privilege of being listened to do then? Manaugh’s call for a more vibrant criticism scene, which enriches the thinking of writers and architects, is just one example of how he can wield his power to greater effect. We all seem to agree that we need more online voices that are actively challenging architecture and architecture criticism as they are practiced. To use a Manaugh-style analogy: he’s shown us the playing field and now he’s kicking around a soccer ball waiting for a game of pick-up. Anyone else inspired to answer this call to action? At the very least, I think this debate has revived the On Criticism series on this website, so game on!
April 22, 2010, Rutgers University - Camden, Office of Community Involvement.November 5, 2009, University of Windsor, Humanities Research Group, Distinguished Speakers Series. “New Media’s Role in Shaping Urban Policy.”
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.
Although Jorn Utzon, winner of the 2003 Pritzker Prize, created one of the most famous buildings in the word, both the Sydney Opera House and Utzon himself have remained elusive. Throughout his career, Utzon has closely guarded his privacy and declined offers to collaborate on monographs. However, after Richard Weston completed much fo the legwork for this volume, Utzon agreed to contribute to it. The result is a gorgeous, intimate monograph that overflows with images, anecdotes and Weston’s admiration for the Danish architect. Read more…