In his architectural review of the Ronald McDonald House, a home for families with children at the nearby Children’s Hospital, Blair Kamin came up against a moral dilemna:
How can you criticize a building whose cause is so much better than its architectural form?
As Kamin says: “Criticize anything in such building and you’re bound to sound insensitive, as if aesthetics mattered more than cancer. Yet all urban buildings, no matter what their purpose, are obliged to appeal to a broader constituency — namely, the people who pass by them every day. [...] To say [it's no prize-winning work of architecture] isn’t to deny the good that’s done there. It’s to wish that the building excelled equally at raising the quality of the cityscape.”
Ultimately, Kamin’s quandary comes down to a central architectural question: to what extent must a building, even one which serves a higher purpose, improve the context in which it finds itself? At the end of the day – are form and function equally important?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Story via ArchRecord and the Chicago Tribune
There’s an interesting book called ‘crisis of criticism’ edited by Maurice Berger, with essays circling around this issue. It starts with an article by dance critic Arlene Croce called ‘Discussing the Undiscussable’ where she discusses about a play by Bill T. Jones called ‘Still/Here’. The play uses characters who are ‘terminally ill’. Croce argues that it is the victimization which keeps her from reviewing the play neutrally. She thinks that the author and characters of the play (here the program of the building)being extremely sensitive disallow her to comment on the play (building). I personally tend to agree more with other critics/authors whose essays are included in this compilation, who are against Croce’s beliefs. The author of above article is acting more like Croce. I think we should get over the victimization of the program and be a fair critic. A fair critic should be indisputable. Moreover, when it comes to a sensitive program, the criticism toward the architecture should be stronger so that only the most deserving practices handle such projects. Lastly, the critics are not criticizing the program, but the ‘built’. The ‘built’ which is a response to the program, the context, the intent of the organization and most importantly – the time and place in which it is built. Chicago sure does deserve better Architecture. Vanessa Quirk is our new Arlene Croce!
Agree. There’s a responsibility held with the rest of society. Architecture is all about connecting the dots towards a better world in every possible aspect.
First of all, I want to thank all the commenters that have commented so far – it’s refreshing to see such intelligent responses.
However, speaking to ARDUS’ comment, I would like to defend myself a bit by pointing out that I did not form an opinion on this matter in the article above. Working off of Kamin’s review (which I happen to be sympathetic to), I was merely hoping to offer questions that would spark debate from our readers.
However, I would love to hear your perspective on my own critiques and theories of architecture and architecture criticism. A good place to start may be my Editorial “The Architecture Critic is Dead (Just Not for the Reason You Think)” at http://www.archdaily.com/223714/the-architect-critic-is-dead-just-not-for-the-reason-you-think/
Cheers,
Vanessa
In the words of Bjarke Ingels: “architects have to become designers of ecosystems” Serving an important social purpose is just one of the many variables concerning architecture practice. Form, function, urban responsiveness, social consciousness, environmental sensibility, etc, etc, etc, are all equally important because they all have different impacts on society as a whole.
Humans should stop thinking in a fragmentary way. Aesthetics should not mean more money, and should also transcend the concept of a “visually appealing materialized form”. That’s what architects are for: creative thinking, solving contextual situations while giving solutions to specific human conditions in a building.
A buildings function is paramount to its appearance, but satisfying function is only half of the juggling act and it’s generally not the topic of discussion when you think about the criticism of architecture. If you are focusing on the visual aspect of a project and you refrain from saying, “I hate this building because it helps cancer patients,” then I think saying ,”this building is visually uninspiring,” is within the realm of appropriate comments to make when speaking about this building in particular. If you try and say that building for a good cause inherently breeds visually inspiring, or “good” architecture, then you would have to say that every home is a masterpiece. This is assuming that you think providing shelter is a good cause, which I hope you do.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
…and every restaurant serving entrees made of food deserves a Michelin star.
Anyone who thinks that aside from the building it is exactly the programme that should be critized…A ‘Ronald Mcdonalds’ house for families with children?!?! this is a disgusting strumentalization of charity, a mobilitation of public shame for the noble cause of selling more burgers! Wake up people, the buidling is horrible but not even far as horrible as the cause is! no guilt whatsoever when I say that is bad arcitecture!