Comments on: The price of architecture criticism

by: Tim

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:49:52 +0000

I agree with Edwin that you cannot solely blame Archis for the demise of architecture critism in the Netherlands. Their choice to make an international magazine instead of one rooted in the Dutch reality is just that, a choice. Looking back, its an important one though.

by: Edwin Gardner

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:51:38 +0000

I guess it also had to with that the 80s and 90s were the heydays of intellectualizing architecte, postmodernism had come of age, paper architects started building, and there was a lot of intellectual/theoretical drawn from philosophy (especially a whole bunch French philosophers). Now practice is perhaps following the money (for as long as it lasted), and they’re not in search for stardom through academia, at least its not flirting with the intellectual so explicitly.

Perhaps it’s as simple as that the ‘market for criticism’ is down as well, just blaming the subsidy system makes no sense (Volume is also still largely dependent on funding).

by: Tim

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:32:51 +0000

Nice piece on the masterclass. But what are we (the younger generation) going to do about the low level of critism in The Netherlands? Looking back is one thing; looking forward is important too.

PS> Did you ask Bernard for a reaction?

by: Michiel van Raaij

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:19:16 +0000

Thanks, Vincent. I agree that the argument by Bernard Colenbrander has a scent of nostalgia to it.

What I like about the argument Colenbrander makes, is that he defines architecture criticism and sets a period for it. It is a double provocation that provides a perfect ground for discussion.

Speaking about the Netherlands (with my own limited knowledge) I at least have to agree partly with Colenbrander. In the past decade architecture criticism did not reach high levels. Why was this the case? That is a difficult question to anwer. I do think there is more to it than just the privatisation of Archis. Maybe everybody was just too busy making money all over the world.

by: Vincent#1

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:40:48 +0000

hmm..
Not that I am qualified to argue with him because I’m a young student, but it has all a sense of that it was all bad before him and all bad after him. Because before him it was just journalism and after him it wasn’t intellegent anymore.

Looks like he’s trapped into the wellknown rusty-people-trap.