Posted by Richard Haut on June 05, 2002 at 10:47:32:In Reply to: Critique of the Critique posted by Paul Malo on June 05, 2002 at 09:04:40:
does it come down to the distinction between "architectural journalism" and "architectural criticism" ?the primary function of journalism, as I understand it, is to report facts - with those facts often including the opinions of relevant people. Criticism is something different - the opinion of an individual, a taste guru, a representative of the "style police".
As with books, film, restaurants, clothes, interiors, the critic tells people what they should like, admire and buy. Increasingly this has descended into advertorial - where it is merely an advertising plug for a particular product.
The worst example - as has recently been revealed - have been financial analysts who were not analysts at all but merely paid hacks plugging a particular stock or financial product.
Is this confusion over an individual's opinion and real reporting the result of a failure on the part of the publications themselves, the interests of their publishers or advertisers, or the readership ?
I believe that architectural journalism should primarily contain information, including the story of a project - and opinions should come from people who are relevant to the project : the client, members of the team, the end-users, etc.
A technical opinion on a building needs, of necessity, to be undertaken by a professional, and the taste-critique (if needed at all) should be in a froufrou column and not confused with reality.
Even I, as a non-architect, sometimes wish that the critic would simply get out of the way and let us see the building ......
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|