Davide Tommaso Ferrando
011 cero undici
Abstract:
In the Nineties, Ignasi de Solà-Morales described the relationship between critics and architects as one of sadomasochism, with the former controlling their anxiety for the recent collapse of grand narratives by exercising a «compensatory aggressiveness» towards the latter, who resignedly offered their projects to «the lashes of their chastisers» with the hope that non-evident meaning would eventually become manifest.
Two decades later, this relationship has been largely turned upside-down, with many architects now dictating case-by-case the keys for the interpretation of their projects, and many critics reducing their role to that of observers of the architectural market and promoters of its top products. Under the destabilizing effects of postmodern relativism, ideological conflict has been replaced by pragmatic partnership, legitimately leading to a loss of confidence in critique itself. But was conflict a better alternative? According to common interpretations of the idea of “criticism”, it probably was. In its main acceptations – as a profession, as a set of social practices, or as a disciplinary discourse – the term is in fact used to indicate a set of intellectual activities traditionally placed outside of (and possibly against) the domain of architectural production, being what separates critics from architects precisely «what can ensure – in Luigi Manzione's words – a margin of efficiency in critical discourse».
Distancing, however, has its side effects. The fact that Allison Arieff has recently compared reading architectural writings to having a tooth extracted is quite explicative of the way in which many critics work nowadays: little concerned about the use that architects will do of their ideas, they write for no-one except for themselves, locking critical discourse in a cage of autonomy from which no real influence on architectural production can be exercised. Critique for critique's sake tragically reflects a retreat from reality that seems even more problematic if we consider how many opportunities for elaborating alternative ways of communication are offered today by new digital media.
In this essay, I intend to speculate on how internet and social networks can play an important part in the redefinition of the attitude and tools of architecture criticism, insisting on the value of sociability over isolation, suggesting an extension of the media through which critique is performed, and proposing a third model of relationship – that of the “sparring partner” – as a possible way of overcoming the present moment of social empasse.
https://www.academia.edu/8967790/Architecture_Criticism_in_the_Age_of_Social_Networks._Preliminary_thoughts_on_how_web_and_social_media_can_change_critical_practice_for_the_better
Abstract:
In the Nineties, Ignasi de Solà-Morales described the relationship between critics and architects as one of sadomasochism, with the former controlling their anxiety for the recent collapse of grand narratives by exercising a «compensatory aggressiveness» towards the latter, who resignedly offered their projects to «the lashes of their chastisers» with the hope that non-evident meaning would eventually become manifest.
Two decades later, this relationship has been largely turned upside-down, with many architects now dictating case-by-case the keys for the interpretation of their projects, and many critics reducing their role to that of observers of the architectural market and promoters of its top products. Under the destabilizing effects of postmodern relativism, ideological conflict has been replaced by pragmatic partnership, legitimately leading to a loss of confidence in critique itself. But was conflict a better alternative? According to common interpretations of the idea of “criticism”, it probably was. In its main acceptations – as a profession, as a set of social practices, or as a disciplinary discourse – the term is in fact used to indicate a set of intellectual activities traditionally placed outside of (and possibly against) the domain of architectural production, being what separates critics from architects precisely «what can ensure – in Luigi Manzione's words – a margin of efficiency in critical discourse».
Distancing, however, has its side effects. The fact that Allison Arieff has recently compared reading architectural writings to having a tooth extracted is quite explicative of the way in which many critics work nowadays: little concerned about the use that architects will do of their ideas, they write for no-one except for themselves, locking critical discourse in a cage of autonomy from which no real influence on architectural production can be exercised. Critique for critique's sake tragically reflects a retreat from reality that seems even more problematic if we consider how many opportunities for elaborating alternative ways of communication are offered today by new digital media.
In this essay, I intend to speculate on how internet and social networks can play an important part in the redefinition of the attitude and tools of architecture criticism, insisting on the value of sociability over isolation, suggesting an extension of the media through which critique is performed, and proposing a third model of relationship – that of the “sparring partner” – as a possible way of overcoming the present moment of social empasse.
https://www.academia.edu/8967790/Architecture_Criticism_in_the_Age_of_Social_Networks._Preliminary_thoughts_on_how_web_and_social_media_can_change_critical_practice_for_the_better
