Posted by Paul Malo on June 07, 2002 at 06:28:59:In Reply to: Re: Critique of the Critique posted by Richard Haut on June 05, 2002 at 10:47:32:
Good question and a nice distinction. Yes, I suppose "journalism" generally suggests "reporting" of facts (but in practice critics are published in journals, so become journalists). Critics these days do what?
Our American architectural critics have rarely (if ever) been architects. Some of them have been perceptive commentators on the architectural scene, such as Mrs. Van Renssalaer, back in the late 19th century. More recently, Ada Louise Huxtable of the NY Times brought a different focus to architectural journalism. Reflecting the transformational era of Louis Mumford and Robert Moses, Ada Louise became concerned with the civic and urbanistic aspects of development--of which buildings were a component. Her successors at the Times, Paul Goldberger (now independent, writing occasionally for the New Yorker) and currently Herbert Muschamp have been less innovative in their perspectives, but have been articulate observers of the urban scene.
None of these writers have been architects, to my knowledge, so they have commented on architecture as lay observers--informed users, we might say. They have reflected a public, popular perception of what is being built, and this is useful, but limited as criticism.
Is this sort of journalism what you have in mind as objective reporting, or what I have in mind as architectural criticism? No, it is neither. It tends to be subjective, reflecting certain values, tastes, and preferences. Architectural criticism in journalism is like theater criticism. Reviewers of current performances are not playwrights, actors, or otherwise particularly informed about the craft of theater. Often the writers were generaic journalists who happened to be assigned their reviewing task. We don't get critical analysis of the play's craftsmanship. Similarly, from our architectural journalists we don't get critical analysis of the craft of architecture.
What we get more typically are generalizations about "movements,'" about "style," and the Huxtable sort of pieties about urbanity. Muschamp is a defender of "excellence" as an abstraction, which translates into his carping about not hiring more star architects for New York projects. Muschamp may not know much about architecture, but he knows who's who in the star system.
So we don't have what I would consider architecture critics--you find that species reviewing projects in the academy. But we don't have what you would call "journalists" (objective reporters) either--at least writers as savvy about the real world of buildings as we might wish. The Portland article is case in point, with its nebulous thesis about "Postmodernism" (which is yet to be defined, so far as I know). The article would not be sufficiently substantial without hanging it on this peg, however. It's not a real case study, explaining WHY these things happened, considering all factors. Rather, it lamely supposes they cause can be attributed to an inappropriate "style."
There's need for both objective reporting and critical appreciation. What we usually get is neither.
The view of most architectural journalists is more art-historical--concerned with putting stylistic lables on buildings and sorting them into identifiable compartments. Architects don't design this way, or course, approaching a project by asking, "Shall we be High-Tech on this one--or maybe Neo-Corb?" Style is not an aribtrary option--it's what we do (or more accurately, it's what we've done).
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|