Architecture criticism

The geographical distribution of the panels in which I was invited to participate – Tenerife, Paris, Helsinki – certainly support that. The obvious conclusion is that the relevance of architecture journals and magazines is currently a hot topic – again, I am tempted to say, for architecture critics are prone to the occasional bout of introspection. Many critics are temperamentally inclined to pessimism rather than optimism. To be honest, I have yet to hear a fellow critic maintain that all is well with architecture criticism, that this activity is flourishing, that it is considered relevant and important. Architecture criticism is always – almost, it seems, by definition – in a state of crisis. Which may just mean that crisis is the normal condition of architecture criticism.

Obviously, there is an element of futility in architecture criticism, especially in critiques of buildings, which are usually written at the moment when the construction site metamorphoses into a building. It is then too late to change anything and too early to be able to make any judgment about how the building stands up to everyday use. And of course a large part of what is printed in the professional press is not true criticism, but more a kind of mediation in which the work of the designers is made public, to an audience, mind you, primarily of architects, who have a reputation for never reading anything.

However, when it is not viewed simply as a collection of judgments about the appearance and functioning of buildings penned in the hope of having a direct influence on architecture, architecture criticism can definitely play an important role. Architecture criticism is at its best when it is an educated guess as to the cultural and social significance of architecture. No single building critique is capable, on its own, of convincingly demonstrating what that significance is, but the sum total of critiques can give a credible picture of architecture and the circumstances in which it is produced.

That is a strong argument in favour of accommodating a multitude of voices and of publishing a large number of different statements, opinions and perspectives on architecture. It also means that architecture criticism should not concentrate on a limited number of emblematic buildings. Notwithstanding their exceptional quality, they are freaks of nature rather than representative of the architecture of this moment.