1.18.2005
Good? Bad? It Don't Matter.
I was reading through the National Arts Journalism Program's 2001 Survey of Newspaper Architecture Critics this morning (I know, I'm four years late and reading obscure things, but someone loaned it to me and I was curious), and I was struck by something that Paul Goldberger wrote. Answering the question, "how much does architectural critcism matter?" he writes:
For me it is similar. Theater criticism and architectural criticism are only tangentially related. The former is Consumer Reports. The latter is more along the lines of a teacher asking a good question that gets the class talking. Architectural criticism is a means of education, and in a bizarre sense, the conclusion of the criticism matters less than the topic. Pan it, praise it - it doesn't matter. Odds are that either way people are going to begin looking at that building, and other buildings, in search of the quality that was discussed. One that they knew existed but had never truly paid attention to.
This fits in well with my personal rating system for architecture and urban design. I don't care so much if the building is beautiful or not. Or, I should say, I care, but beauty is weighted less in the final score than the question of whether or not it makes people do a double take. Are they startled out of their reverie? Do passersby cock their heads to one side? Does the building ask a good question and get the class talking?
I was reading through the National Arts Journalism Program's 2001 Survey of Newspaper Architecture Critics this morning (I know, I'm four years late and reading obscure things, but someone loaned it to me and I was curious), and I was struck by something that Paul Goldberger wrote. Answering the question, "how much does architectural critcism matter?" he writes:
It's a question that most people tend to be afraid to confront directly, for fear that the answer is going to be, not very much ... If the theater critic of The New York Times doesn't like a Broadway show, it may well close. Nobody tears down a building if the architecture critic doesn't like it.Goldberger then goes on to say, however, that architecture criticism serves more as a catalyst for public debate, often on topics that are not widely discussed.
For me it is similar. Theater criticism and architectural criticism are only tangentially related. The former is Consumer Reports. The latter is more along the lines of a teacher asking a good question that gets the class talking. Architectural criticism is a means of education, and in a bizarre sense, the conclusion of the criticism matters less than the topic. Pan it, praise it - it doesn't matter. Odds are that either way people are going to begin looking at that building, and other buildings, in search of the quality that was discussed. One that they knew existed but had never truly paid attention to.
This fits in well with my personal rating system for architecture and urban design. I don't care so much if the building is beautiful or not. Or, I should say, I care, but beauty is weighted less in the final score than the question of whether or not it makes people do a double take. Are they startled out of their reverie? Do passersby cock their heads to one side? Does the building ask a good question and get the class talking?
Comments:
Post a Comment
