Reviewer's Remorse, Not Philip Nobel
Metropolis Mag's Philip Nobel (below), he of the "botched box" review of the Institute of Contemporary Art, has more to say about his critique in the latest issue.
"...Which brings us back to that column from two months in which I expressed some concern, perhaps even annoyance, at the ongoing, and I believe, irresponsible fluffing of star architects by so many architecture critics. As the latest example of this widespread and persistent phenomenon, I looked at Diller Scofidio & Renfro’s new building for the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA), in Boston, which was greeted with all kinds of praise despite being, I and a few others have argued, not quite the thing. There’s little delay here (ah, for the immediacy of a blog), but I’d like to respond to some of the response to that column.
First, re: general changes of cruelty, I was wasn’t being sarcastic when I wrote of DS + R, “Architecture is hard – they’ll do better next time. Right?” That was meant to be earnest sympathy, as well as a suggestion of a more fitting tone than fanfare with which to appraise the work of architects who are in effect still learning how to build. Who is served by pretending an honest spring-training single is a pennant-winning home run?
Many people have also suggested, in private communications and on the busy comments thread at Metropolismag.com, that it was unfair to pick on the ICA alone. Why, more than a few have asked, did I not also mention “Danny in Denver,” “Danny in Toronto,” or “Zaha in Cincinnati”? Only because, I’m ashamed to say, I haven’t visited those buildings. But I have written about overhyped projects comparable to the ICA many times here, arguing, for instance, that Steven Holl’s dorm at MIT, Norman Foster’s Hearst Tower, Frank Gehry’s IAC headquarters, and – the granddaddy of them all – Peter Eisenman’s Wexner Center are as building failures in a way you would never know only by reading the fog of praise the obscures them.
This relates to another line of criticism that my housemate, returning from her sanctum out back, describes at the “jolly good but” school – readers in favor of my conclusions but wishing for a more comprehensive critique. To that I will say that this column, part of an ongoing discussion even if entered midstream, and not a series of freestanding essays aspiring to completely encircle a given subject, something that is rarely possible in 1,200 words anyway. I could no more cover all the bases in that May column than I will here in July. But I will also shamelessly refer readers looking for a more thorough discussion of the mechanics of starchitecture, the role of critics, and the effect of the whole circus on the wider profession to my 2005 book on the World Trade Center reconstruction, long stretches of which are concerned with nothing else, and which can now be purchased online for a penny.
On a final note, I do regret not having given a gentlemanly prepublication heads-up to Charles Renfro, whom I’ve known for years and like very much. But I will correct that now by extending to him an invitation to bash my backyard handiwork or to write about anything else that may be on his mind, in this space. It’s only fair."
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
