by Steven G. Shapiro, Esq.
There can be no doubt that the public gravitates to the grandeur of high design, and the media serve their audiences accordingly. The architecture critic, though, enjoys freedom of opinion and hindsight that we do not. Critics are unimpeded by withering issues of economic realities, market pressures, and the dictates of time and funding. By not being tempered with the realities of design and construction, I would argue these same critics do a disservice to everybody by perpetuating false expectations.
It is tempting to assume that a construction project is a pre-ordained and routine set of steps from initial concept to the design of the project and into construction and completion. We know, though, that the design and construction of a building is not a mystical process, and there are no guarantees of success. The process demands painstaking attention to detail, multiple schemes and designs, brute force on a dangerous work site, endless work hours, and a massive coordination of workers and tasks.
Case in point: Objecting to a proposed plan of expansion, the historic preservation community demands that the Phillips Collection of Art in the fabled Embassy Row area of Washington, D.C., preserve the façade of a decrepit apartment building; this alongside conflicting visions of design excellence, stalled selections, and a strict budget and completion date.
The construction is located on a tight urban job site containing a sliver of a staging area, and construction cannot disrupt the neighbors or damage the priceless collection in the existing building. There is also the litany of city officials, permits, and schedule inspections. Still, everything works out successfully. And yet the architecture critics issue their stark evaluations that the building does not excel to their artistic ideals.
I believe that we live at the intersection of grand concepts and bold visions that sometimes conflict with market realities and the unforgiving project budget and schedule, which makes design and construction interactive, interesting, and fun. Is it too much to ask that a complete media review of a complex project include both the critical review of the art and architecture plus appreciation of the realities of design and construction? Certainly, form and function of a building are critical topics for a review. But taken alone in a vacuum, aesthetics don’t do justice to the fullness of any project.
What do you think?
Comments (3)
I once had a professor that liked to quote, " I want to be good, not interesting". The profession has always struggled with this idea of architecture as a grand statement or as cultural introspection. Today's media and "star" architects have embraced the former and ignored the latter. Because, to quote again, "The medium is the message" whether selling magazines or promoting a career. The sad part is, that as a profession, we have never resolved this conflict so that we might present to the public a coherent image of what it means to be an architect.
Posted by Craig Townsend | April 1, 2007 10:55 AM
Posted on April 1, 2007 10:55
Though I am not a fan of "starchitecture" as currently practiced, I think Mr. Gordon is pleading for a bit too much sympathy from the critics. Other collaborative disciplines like opera or ballet are not judged by how difficult they are to produce (very difficult, it turns out, in both instances), but by the artistic achievement on the stage. I suggest that whatever one thinks of trendy designers and their media advocates, the critics are right to judge architecture by the built result, and not by the complexity of the process. Every human endeavor is full of challenges and compromises. The successful architect is the one who can negotiate all those challenges and still achieve excellence, not the one who pleads that the client or the budget or the schedule wasn't up to his or her ability.
Posted by David Greusel | April 23, 2007 1:29 PM
Posted on April 23, 2007 13:29
Mr. Townsend and Mr. Greusel both make valid comments to my original posting. The analogy to opera and ballet is interesting and apt for this discussion. My opinion is that we add to the voice of the critic. There is certainly a worthy discussion for the excellence of design (as well as fine art), but additionally a discussion of the staging of any production has value to the reader. To exend the analogy, a critic may like the production, but dislike the costume and set design. A separate article could set forth that budget problems forced the production of a show without the planned designs.
Posted by Steven Shapiro | April 26, 2007 4:55 PM
Posted on April 26, 2007 16:55