Outrage from the well read blog Culture Grrl included this, "But Ouroussoff's published desire for the obliteration of the reclad and reconfigured museum facility on Columbus Circle unequivocally IS critical malpractice. No matter how strong his opinions, a critic must have the humility to acknowledge that time and reflection may prove him wrong...Disliking a building at first sight does not warrant blowing it up, even in print."
Underneath this criticism seems to be a claim for moderation, a more moderate approach. Something akin to a culture conversation over time, rather than hard cultural lines based in theory and ideology.
Nassbaum at BusinessWeek makes the conversation versus authority explicit: "There was a time, when I was editor of the editorial page of Business Week, when I considered myself The Voice of Authority. Now, thanks to blogging, the Innovation & Design channel and the new culture of social media, I see myself as a leader of conversations—a participant really who follows and listens as much as leading and speaking. The New York Times art critics need to start listening to the producers, consumers and presenters of art before they wave their little pointed fingers."
The role of the critique: participant versus author, listener rather than finger pointer. Interesting to see this applied right at the heart of architectural journalism, but certainly a symptom of a wider and broader conversation in media as a whole.
Traditional journalism, the argument goes, is being usurped by the social conversation cloud. I wrote a while back on the fate of the newspaper, but certainly one can see that from politics to sports, gaming to charitable giving there is a shift towards engagement, interactivity and conversation. A shift from authority, monologues and command-and-control based communications. More simply put: blogs, social networks, Twitter and measuring advertising by engagement on one side; editor in chiefs, printing presses, TV and measuring advertising with reach and frequency on the other.
So the difference in this weekend’s squaring off over MAD isn’t just about architectural criticism, it taps into a larger clash between how to persuade, discuss, connect and express; where that conversation should take place, and even more fundamentally whom we build, create and design for.
Not the last we’ll hear of this for sure.
3 Comments so far...
To build on that post:
Architecture is so public and so it shall receive the judgment of all at all times.
The growing cloud of conversation will not only envelope all of the new but as we have seen will continue to influence development in ways that are less direct than criticism. The cultural movement of interconnectedness that is a reflection of the increasing access to information will eventually result in a more finely tuned creative process. It will evolve to reflect the voices of the blogosphere regionally as well as globally as data becomes more finely tuned to browsers. Accessible, reliable and verifiable. Sites like http://outside.in/Manhattan_NY will be most likely to hold sway over geographically relevant assessments. New apps such as Locly and Graffito for the iPhone will also enable localized critique / conversation which will be the most interesting to most humans. That said, the web is between 7000 and 9000 days old and we are only just beginning to rely on it as a tool. As much as the web has changed our lives it has very little sensitivity to the real value of the data that courses through it. We are still sucking out of the fire hose.
Architects are undergoing a cultural shift and may embrace the voice of the crowd yet but the twitterati will likely be ignored as the massive money behind architecture in general won't be swayed by the relatively few who currently engage. The bigger question for me is whether we would have wanted the world class architects of today to have listened to the voices of the vocal? People talking about what they think they want have a spotty track record.
Posted by Chris Finlay on September 29 at 3:57 PMIf Ouroussoff had been more moderate in his review of MAD - as critical bloggers on Culture Grrl suggest, would such a heated dialogue have followed? Of course not. In many ways, authoritative voices like Ouroussoff are the lifeblood of the the blogs. It is the biggest assertions that spark the greatest debates. But is it the goal of the critic to spark debate or is it to inform and persuade? Critics will have no chance of persuading anyone of anything if they sit back and watch the conversations that they started.
Posted by Amanda Huber on September 30 at 10:41 AMAs a blogger and most-likely addicted Twitterer, I will be the first proponent of any argument in favor of more conversation and interaction with a larger, vocal, opinionated audience on any topic and in any field or industry. However, I remain cautious of this rapidly growing new trend to place so much emphasis on what the blogoshpere, social networks, etc., have to say, than on what established authority does. Certainly I think that there should be a dialogue between the two, and that established authorities should at least consider the more well-reasoned ideas and critiques of the otherwise unwashed masses. But I would hesitate to advocate throwing all authority out with the proverbial bathwater. Conversation is good, yes, as are different ideas and thoughtful critiques. But I think I am fairly safe in asserting that I, at least, am more pleased with Brad Cloepfil's authoritative "revisioning" of MAD than I would have been with it had the project been turned over to the quasi-authoritative masses for completion.
Posted by Atherton Bartelby on October 1 at 2:03 PM