Posted by  Richard Haut on June 07, 2002 at 10:04:06:

In Reply to:  Re: Critique of the Critique posted by Paul Malo on June 07, 2002 at 06:28:59:

- but they do criticise the "craft of architecture", and they shouldn't.

I believe that architectural journalism has become a victim of the wider malaise in journalism.

there are, and always have been serious and capable architectural writers - which include architects, non-architects and those with a very long and real understanding of the profession. For this to be turned into style-journalism may be OK for the interior design what's "in" and what "out" style of writing more approriate to the gossip columns, but it has little to do with architecture.

(incidentally, those that get the coverage get a lot less real work from it than many imagine).

what counts is enthusiasm. The late John Betjeman (who became Poet Laureate in Britain) was an immense enthusiast and watching a television programme he made, for example, about Richard Norman Shaw's work was a memorable experience.

the style "labels" are purely historic and frequently misleading. The current failing appears to be that everything written about has to be "important" - whether positively or negatively. Much of it isn't.

I personally do not think that I can be what I consider to be an architectural critic - I am not an architect and therefore cannot give a full critique of a building. To use a real example, I cannot make useful criticisms of the design of Piano' 'Shard of Glass' - however, I can state what is wrong with that concept in that location.

Since I am looking at the option of a new architectural paper, this is important for me. I firmly believe that facts should be left as facts, professional opinions as professional opinions - and criticism as the stated opinion of a particular individual. Otherwise it reduces itself to admiring the Emperor's New Architecture - or deciding on this week's "ugglies".

Responses:

Post a Response -