SEE NO EVIL | HEAR NO EVIL | SPEAK NO. EVIL: the changing nature of architectural criticism. âTo avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.â Aristotle.
SEE NO EVIL | HEAR NO EVIL | SPEAK NO EVIL: the changing nature of architectural criticism
“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”
Aristotle
Is architectural criticism dying a slow death, or is it already extinct? Is it simply no longer relevant to anyone except those engaged in writing it? It appears irrelevant to architects as the critic’s voice no holds authority or sway; nor is criticism relevant to the public that it idealistically serves, as the language and architectural principles expressed by contemporary architectural critics speak less-‐and-‐less to the concerns of everyday urban and suburban life. As Architecture drifts indifferently towards economically driven forms of stylized consumption we must re-‐consider the simple questions; is there a future for criticism in Architecture to hold architects, developers, planners and governance accountable? And, if there is, whom might it serve and what forms might it take? We must re-‐ consider why we need criticism and re-‐prioritise its altruistic advocacy role. We must re-‐consider how the critic’s audience has changed— whom, and for what, should the critic be advocating? In light of other emerging modes of criticism, such as the enlightening architectural speculations offered by design competitions and unsolicited architectural propositions, in combination with labyrinth of populist online forums (blogs, wikis, Facebook, Twitter etc.), we must re-‐ consider criticism’s changing message and medium. We must therefore re-‐consider the changing nature of the critic’s relationship with their
1
audience and the changing nature of the public as a form of critic in their own right. Finally, we must move away from the popular assumption of criticism’s negativity and focus on demonstrating its fundamental role in highlighting when architecture is done well and (constructively) when it fails. According to Nancy Levinson, in order for criticism to be relevant to the public, it must “critique from the ground rather than the ‘tower’.”1 Critics must write not just about issues that are important to populist fashions of the moment, but from a perspective of intimate expertise that understands the impacts of architect’s, planner’s, developer’s and policy maker’s decisions about our cities. In other words, they should live in, and be part of, the cultural context in which they are critiquing. Levinson’s position can be contrasted against the ‘Internationalization’ of the critic in the USA over the last thirty years and acts as a warning against the emergence of a mobile critic whom is not grounded in any specific time and/or place. It is through these placeless critics that the alien and contextually un-‐specific interventions of the globe-‐trotting ‘star-‐chitect’ are unethically promoted. Levinson’s identification of the characteristics of a good critic are therefore based on a common investment in the place/s that they live and work; to be committed to advocating for better built and natural environments in the same places dwelled in by their readership and public. The best critic therefore is always the local critic who shares a vested interest in better places to live and dwell in.
1 Nancy Levinson, "Critical Beats," Places: Design Observer(2010), http://places.designobserver.com/feature/critical-‐beats/12948/.
2
In contrast, Thomas Fischer presents a more provocative idea of what the critic should aim to achieve. For Fischer, critics should “strive to be intelligent and political leaders, envisioning different futures, making new connections and providing insightful and unexpected explanations for seemingly mundane things.”2 The role of Fischer’s critic is not just about the informed assessment of ‘things’ already built, but also the things yet unknown and unrealised. The critic’s role therefore is to culturally position the architecture in relation to its typological kin, cultural context and shared histories, and to speculate through it as an illustrative demonstration of potential utopias and dystopias. Through Fisher’s critic, we speak to the past, the present, and idealistically to the future, whilst through Levinson’s critic, we speak with a resolute commitment to the communities and places that make our cities vibrant places we all want to be in. Whilst the role of the critic has changed, so to the mediums through which critique is presented have evolved to challenge the long-‐held notion of the critic as a purveyor of taste and judgement. In particular, the broad ubiquitousness of the Internet and its capacity for near real-‐ time interaction has provided a platform on which the voice of public lay-‐opinion outweighs the voice of the well professional critique. According to academic and architectural critic Naomi Stead, with the increased popularity of more accessible journalistic genres of writing, such as newspapers, magazines, and online formats, like blogging, wikis and chat rooms, lay-‐critique and opinion has prospered over rigorously
2 Thomas Fisher, "The Death and Life of Great Architecture Criticism," Places: Design Observer(2011), http://places.designobserver.com/feature/death-‐and-‐life-‐of-‐great-‐ architecture-‐criticism/30448/.
3
researched argument.3 Criticism’s relevancy, it would seem, has been usurped by the Facebook era of ‘likes’ and instantaneous streams of shallow opinion that comment on all facets of cultural life. Is there any room left for the professional critic to be heard amongst the throng of these competing voices and forums? Or, must they evolve and meet the challenge presented by these new forums of critique? What is clear is that we culturally need criticism and critics now, more than ever.
3 Naomi Stead, ed. Semi-‐Detached: Writing, Representation and Criticism in Architecture (Melbourne: URO Media, 2012).
4
BIO: Dr. Chris Brisbin is a Lecturer in architectural design, history and theory at the University of South Australia. Chris is co-‐convening a inter-‐disciplinary conference on criticism in Design Critique 2013: An International Conference Reflecting on Creative Practice in Art, Architecture, and Design (26 – 29 Nov 2013, Bradley Forum, UniSA), which will include practitioners and academics from around the world talking about what critique/criticism/criticality means to them. It will include speakers from the following disciplines; Architecture, Art Exhibition and Curatorial Practices, Art History & Theory, Cinema Studies, Design Education, Drama Studies, Environmental Sustainability, Ethics, Fashion Design, Goldsmithing & Jewelry Design, Government Policy, Graphic Design, Interior Architecture and Design, Journalism, Landscape Architecture, Literary Criticism, Literature, Musicology, Poetry, Product Design, Textile Design, Urban Design, and Visual Art. For more information, refer to the conference web site:
5
