I recently attended a talk at Storefront about the magazine Oppositions given by Kenneth Frampton, Peter Eisenman, Tony Vidler, and Mario Gandelsonas. it is part of a series of talks that parallel the exhibition at Storefront Clip/Stamp/Fold on little magazines from the 60's-80's.
What struck me was just how different of a time we are in, in terms of critical thought about architecture and art from the time that Oppositions was being published. It was further reinforced by the party for P/A awards I went to at the AIA last night, sponsored by Architect Magazine (taking over from the defunct Architecture Magazine).
Is it that we are in such a good economy for architecture and art that criticism has no role except to support the continuation of that economy? With so many buildings going up all over New York right now, I would think someone has something critical to say other than to publish it all and list the project data.
It has to do with the complacency of the developed world. Self-satisfied and lazy, at the end of the day, we all seem content to let "the machine" take care of things for us.
Criticism in architecture these days, if its to have any meaning, clearly has to go beyond the limits of the profession. The shoddy craftsmanship of American contractors is a good place to start. Add to that a completely desensitized public and a culture that worships money exclusively, and you have the recipe for the end of civilization. Despite the cheap Made in China trappings of contemporary affluence, that money will never produce something the equivalent of the cultural fertility and priceless value of say, Rheims Cathedral or Tikal.
People want to do everything quick and easy, instantaneous. Things that are time consuming, labor intensive, that require extreme concentration or personal sacrifice to achieve - these things are of no interest to the average inhabitant of the 21st century metropolis. Criticism naturally might be a lucrative activity, but genuine criticism rarely is.
The new world is culturally and aesthetically retarded.
I don't want to mistake the end result of critical thinking as only having pessimistic results. In fact, I find ready mades and the idea of prefab as populist and interesting takes on utilizing efficient modes of production. I am not being romantic about "back in the day" since the conditions under which architecture was made were often under regimes of power that were corrupt and inhumane.
However, I do find that critical thinking about architecture does not seem to exist in the very best architecture magazines of our time. And I do find that to be tragic since so much is being produced these days, it would seem a good environment for critical discussions about architecture. Instead, what I do see is a self-propogating marketing machine, that is more about perpetuating the good economy without thought. When sponsorship, advertising, and product placement becomes more important than content, it is disturbing.
You are quite right --- but the lack of relevant crit is just a side effect , try look for today's Le.Corb, today's Nervi, today's resemblance those times that brought the very tools and matter we build our houses from .
Today's houses are Towers , they are edgy and glossy , the architecture of today is about Icons, fame and dull words , not about the cheap strong houses needed all over the world. Not about the newthinking and the beautifull .
Kill The Icon
Stararchitects contribution are smart cold edge , hyber expensive destiled post-modernism , refined into building structures offering office like inviroments , envisioned as spetacular spaces that sell magazins , detail and warmth missing as if it never existed, rooms in measures and scale that will produce angst and by being so unfriendly, even blue, these structures and "spaces" will form even the mental hospitals you Romans soon will be searching , in architectural vain.
Kill Your Hero's
Kill The Magazin
Architecture shuld provide the visions And the newthinking , the new jobs , the new structure, a return to the innovative attitude not the biografy not the hall of fame,
Kill The Fame
Kill the Hall Of Fame
The real visionary rarely was architects , those who boldly experimented ,challanced the settled was very very different from today's Hero's
--- their agenda was a new architecture, cheaper and healty houses , newthinking and innovation not for Fame, not an architecture acting Lego-Thinking or colorfull graphics in architecture fasion magazins ,not homeless people in containers while the Towers try reach the sky. Architecture must change must realise the dead-end ,now this do not profit the now Homeless, the cry for real new jobs and way's to use the computer not as support to outdated technikes and protecting how we allway's build a house.
Thank's --- but I think MaggieP put it together much better , firetruck point to the lack of quality , how things decay , and I point to how this effect our perception ,what demands we will make when the curtains are dropped and the structure prove itself by display. This go so deep our own expertations form by these pictures these dull words that is the essense --- I can only point to these things.
It is better to point to an alternative an alternative while crit is easy without arguments, and Politics is just the opposite of what I offer, -- smart pictures and the promise of just a cheap rent ; it is Not the innovation or newthinking that is carried by Politics only the pictures of it, it is not the new jobs that is on display either the mountain of money bound to come ,when you Romans realise that Architecture are the Mother of Arts.
Well I grew up in some of I am told ,the remaining last slum in copenhagen , houses that was build between 1800 and 1880 ,some older some younger . In the late 30' and again in the 50' huge parts of it was demolished untill not one single brick was left ; forget about the romantic there was very little to save , maybe except for some of the dimentions of the rooms, the scale of details and proberly what you remember without knowing better. Still even some of the places was charm it was falling together by lack of maintainment and unwilling landlords --- and who would care for the antique flavor knowing what places like that did to people , before under and after the occupation . Nevertheless I am from the generation that praise those who had the gutts and instance to simple remove it do with it what shuld be done to any slums , remove it from the face of earth, replace it with the beauty we resemble and the quality it once , before the rats and the corruption made it into what it ended being , pure and decaying slums.
I agrea I still posess the memory of the few happy hours ,all the details the beauty you find when looking for it, --- but getting rid of all the bad things about it, make a decent drive for it.
mdler, i'm not saying that at all...i find that today's architecture magazines are afraid to engage in intellectual conversations because everyone is more interested in seeing the next gehry or koolhaas project in glossy print. there's tons of advertising and product placement around these feature articles. i feel that this is because of the good economy we are in for architecture. BUT since there's so much production going on, wouldn't you think there's more material to discuss? the role of critics and magazines is to engage in matters that are important to address and not just gloss over the bigger issues at hand.
has there ever been an article that questions the material economy of a building that is being reviewed? or review a project in the context of the political framework of planning? most "reviews" so to speak are puff advertising pieces. why is it possible for film or literary critics to write reviews about films and books without preconditions of economy? i think the architecture community would benefit and learn from articles that address both successes and failures and the reasons....
as a critic (european-based), my experience over the years became that
- very few people see the need and are able to write a deep-going critique
- very few people are truly interested in architectural critique
- rather few people actually know enough to be able to read a deep-going critique
- very few institutions/publishers/magaziones etc. are interested in bringing architectural critique to the public
- i never heard of anyone who really can make a living out of being a architectural critic
Yea, the Little Magazines talks inspire these questions. And I feel similarly, that there is a dearth of critical thinking going on lately in architecture. But I also think it's wrong to expect it from a major magazine like Architecture or Architectural Record or the like. If you depend on advertising revenues, I think you have a different goal. The Littlest of the little magazines were not so profitable, and indeed, most people probably were unaware of them. I wonder if there isn't an equivalent today that would be more comparable? Like Log? Or Grey Room? But I think those do have an odd, non-critical thing.
And by critical, I just mean dissenting generally. Disagreeing rather than boosterism. Disagreeing with whatever. I think there is very little of that these days, much more lionizing and hero worship, nostalgia and self-congratulation. An interest in being operative or projective does not have to mean you are supportive of everyone. You can still ask tough questions.
And it ought to be mentioned, that a certain fatigue with the doom and gloom of Critical Theory is at play here. I don't know what the answer is. It feels like the discussion got kind of disoriented and lost. What are the big questions these days? Fame, for one. But it's a one line question. Fame, an alluring bummer. Sustainability? New technology? Well, the beloved Archigram certainly started with techno-utopias.
The internet could be great for such discussions, but it is hard to make it enough of a common ground for the profession the way a magazine can be. You know how they say movies of the 1970s were so much more of a collective event, more people went to see the same film. Now there are so many options, that things aren't shared in the same way. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's something to be considered. I find the Pidgin publication at Princeton to be encouraging.
i agree kablakistan. the reason i brought up the issue of economy is because while it's hard to balance advertising revenues and editorial content, i do think it should be possible. i just found this article which i think sums up the current state of architecture magazines...
is it theoretical...is it conceptual...is it political?
I recently attended a talk at Storefront about the magazine Oppositions given by Kenneth Frampton, Peter Eisenman, Tony Vidler, and Mario Gandelsonas. it is part of a series of talks that parallel the exhibition at Storefront Clip/Stamp/Fold on little magazines from the 60's-80's.
What struck me was just how different of a time we are in, in terms of critical thought about architecture and art from the time that Oppositions was being published. It was further reinforced by the party for P/A awards I went to at the AIA last night, sponsored by Architect Magazine (taking over from the defunct Architecture Magazine).
Is it that we are in such a good economy for architecture and art that criticism has no role except to support the continuation of that economy? With so many buildings going up all over New York right now, I would think someone has something critical to say other than to publish it all and list the project data.
It has to do with the complacency of the developed world. Self-satisfied and lazy, at the end of the day, we all seem content to let "the machine" take care of things for us.
Criticism in architecture these days, if its to have any meaning, clearly has to go beyond the limits of the profession. The shoddy craftsmanship of American contractors is a good place to start. Add to that a completely desensitized public and a culture that worships money exclusively, and you have the recipe for the end of civilization. Despite the cheap Made in China trappings of contemporary affluence, that money will never produce something the equivalent of the cultural fertility and priceless value of say, Rheims Cathedral or Tikal.
People want to do everything quick and easy, instantaneous. Things that are time consuming, labor intensive, that require extreme concentration or personal sacrifice to achieve - these things are of no interest to the average inhabitant of the 21st century metropolis. Criticism naturally might be a lucrative activity, but genuine criticism rarely is.
The new world is culturally and aesthetically retarded.
I don't want to mistake the end result of critical thinking as only having pessimistic results. In fact, I find ready mades and the idea of prefab as populist and interesting takes on utilizing efficient modes of production. I am not being romantic about "back in the day" since the conditions under which architecture was made were often under regimes of power that were corrupt and inhumane.
However, I do find that critical thinking about architecture does not seem to exist in the very best architecture magazines of our time. And I do find that to be tragic since so much is being produced these days, it would seem a good environment for critical discussions about architecture. Instead, what I do see is a self-propogating marketing machine, that is more about perpetuating the good economy without thought. When sponsorship, advertising, and product placement becomes more important than content, it is disturbing.
You are quite right --- but the lack of relevant crit is just a side effect , try look for today's Le.Corb, today's Nervi, today's resemblance those times that brought the very tools and matter we build our houses from .
Today's houses are Towers , they are edgy and glossy , the architecture of today is about Icons, fame and dull words , not about the cheap strong houses needed all over the world. Not about the newthinking and the beautifull .
Kill The Icon
Stararchitects contribution are smart cold edge , hyber expensive destiled post-modernism , refined into building structures offering office like inviroments , envisioned as spetacular spaces that sell magazins , detail and warmth missing as if it never existed, rooms in measures and scale that will produce angst and by being so unfriendly, even blue, these structures and "spaces" will form even the mental hospitals you Romans soon will be searching , in architectural vain.
Kill Your Hero's
Kill The Magazin
Architecture shuld provide the visions And the newthinking , the new jobs , the new structure, a return to the innovative attitude not the biografy not the hall of fame,
Kill The Fame
Kill the Hall Of Fame
The real visionary rarely was architects , those who boldly experimented ,challanced the settled was very very different from today's Hero's
--- their agenda was a new architecture, cheaper and healty houses , newthinking and innovation not for Fame, not an architecture acting Lego-Thinking or colorfull graphics in architecture fasion magazins ,not homeless people in containers while the Towers try reach the sky. Architecture must change must realise the dead-end ,now this do not profit the now Homeless, the cry for real new jobs and way's to use the computer not as support to outdated technikes and protecting how we allway's build a house.
Jettison the Stararchitect .
Vinpust, u should contest for your local elections u know. serious !
Thank's --- but I think MaggieP put it together much better , firetruck point to the lack of quality , how things decay , and I point to how this effect our perception ,what demands we will make when the curtains are dropped and the structure prove itself by display. This go so deep our own expertations form by these pictures these dull words that is the essense --- I can only point to these things.
It is better to point to an alternative an alternative while crit is easy without arguments, and Politics is just the opposite of what I offer, -- smart pictures and the promise of just a cheap rent ; it is Not the innovation or newthinking that is carried by Politics only the pictures of it, it is not the new jobs that is on display either the mountain of money bound to come ,when you Romans realise that Architecture are the Mother of Arts.
architects need to theorize success to learn from it, not to tear it down.
MaggieP,
Are you insinuating that Architect and Architecture magazines are good magazines?
You can't be Both an intelctual And an architect plus a Popstar.
Now you can Learn it
That's the caurse all over the Pop industrie when actors role in intelectual matter , continue silli trends for one .
I disagree.
yeah i totally disagree. making great pop is intellectually challenging.
vindpust....why is architecture the mother of all arts ?
Architecture formed the house where you grew up.
hint hint
Professor Aplomb in the library with the computer.
vindpust, my parents threw me out of the house most of the time. Ha!
Well I grew up in some of I am told ,the remaining last slum in copenhagen , houses that was build between 1800 and 1880 ,some older some younger . In the late 30' and again in the 50' huge parts of it was demolished untill not one single brick was left ; forget about the romantic there was very little to save , maybe except for some of the dimentions of the rooms, the scale of details and proberly what you remember without knowing better. Still even some of the places was charm it was falling together by lack of maintainment and unwilling landlords --- and who would care for the antique flavor knowing what places like that did to people , before under and after the occupation . Nevertheless I am from the generation that praise those who had the gutts and instance to simple remove it do with it what shuld be done to any slums , remove it from the face of earth, replace it with the beauty we resemble and the quality it once , before the rats and the corruption made it into what it ended being , pure and decaying slums.
I agrea I still posess the memory of the few happy hours ,all the details the beauty you find when looking for it, --- but getting rid of all the bad things about it, make a decent drive for it.
mdler, i'm not saying that at all...i find that today's architecture magazines are afraid to engage in intellectual conversations because everyone is more interested in seeing the next gehry or koolhaas project in glossy print. there's tons of advertising and product placement around these feature articles. i feel that this is because of the good economy we are in for architecture. BUT since there's so much production going on, wouldn't you think there's more material to discuss? the role of critics and magazines is to engage in matters that are important to address and not just gloss over the bigger issues at hand.
has there ever been an article that questions the material economy of a building that is being reviewed? or review a project in the context of the political framework of planning? most "reviews" so to speak are puff advertising pieces. why is it possible for film or literary critics to write reviews about films and books without preconditions of economy? i think the architecture community would benefit and learn from articles that address both successes and failures and the reasons....
as a critic (european-based), my experience over the years became that
- very few people see the need and are able to write a deep-going critique
- very few people are truly interested in architectural critique
- rather few people actually know enough to be able to read a deep-going critique
- very few institutions/publishers/magaziones etc. are interested in bringing architectural critique to the public
- i never heard of anyone who really can make a living out of being a architectural critic
Yea, the Little Magazines talks inspire these questions. And I feel similarly, that there is a dearth of critical thinking going on lately in architecture. But I also think it's wrong to expect it from a major magazine like Architecture or Architectural Record or the like. If you depend on advertising revenues, I think you have a different goal. The Littlest of the little magazines were not so profitable, and indeed, most people probably were unaware of them. I wonder if there isn't an equivalent today that would be more comparable? Like Log? Or Grey Room? But I think those do have an odd, non-critical thing.
And by critical, I just mean dissenting generally. Disagreeing rather than boosterism. Disagreeing with whatever. I think there is very little of that these days, much more lionizing and hero worship, nostalgia and self-congratulation. An interest in being operative or projective does not have to mean you are supportive of everyone. You can still ask tough questions.
And it ought to be mentioned, that a certain fatigue with the doom and gloom of Critical Theory is at play here. I don't know what the answer is. It feels like the discussion got kind of disoriented and lost. What are the big questions these days? Fame, for one. But it's a one line question. Fame, an alluring bummer. Sustainability? New technology? Well, the beloved Archigram certainly started with techno-utopias.
The internet could be great for such discussions, but it is hard to make it enough of a common ground for the profession the way a magazine can be. You know how they say movies of the 1970s were so much more of a collective event, more people went to see the same film. Now there are so many options, that things aren't shared in the same way. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's something to be considered. I find the Pidgin publication at Princeton to be encouraging.
i agree kablakistan. the reason i brought up the issue of economy is because while it's hard to balance advertising revenues and editorial content, i do think it should be possible. i just found this article which i think sums up the current state of architecture magazines...
http://www.slate.com/id/2153855/?nav=navoa
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.