Critical Juncture: the Work of Joseph Rykwert, critic

Comité International des Critiques d'Architecture
International Committee of Architectural Critics
Comité Internacional de Críticos de Arquitectura

Critical Juncture: the Work of Joseph Rykwert, critic

CICA, AA and V&A organise events to mark the occasion of the RIBA Royal Gold Medal

awarded to CICA President Joseph Rykwert on 21-22 February 2014

Joseph Rykwert, President of CICA, is one of the most important critics and historians of

architecture alive today. His work has influenced generations of architects, and his

achievements are recognised this year in the RIBA’s decision to award him the Royal

Gold Medal. To commemorate his work, CICA, the V&A and the AA will host a gathering

of architecture critics from around the world to reflect on the enduring importance of his

books and journalistic criticism.

On February 21st, the Architectural Association will host a A CICA meeting and talk on the

current state of architectural criticism by celebrated American writer Michael Sorkin, with

contributions from a range of respondents, including Rowan Moore, architecture critic of

the Observer and Canadian critic Trevor Boddy.

On February 22nd, the Victoria & Albert Museum will host an all-day conference about

Rykwert’s work, chaired on behalf of the V&A by senior curator Kieran Long and on behalf

of CICA by the Mexican critic Louise Noelle. Speakers include Kenneth Frampton, Vittorio

Gregotti, David Leatherbarrow, Phyllis Lambert, Luis Fernandez-Galiano and many more.

Critical Juncture is curated by Trevor Boddy, Manuel Cuadra and Yasmin Shariff.

CICA Open Session

Friday 21 February 2014: 15:30 - 18:00

Architectural Association, 33 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3ES

Michael Sorkin, New York: Architectural Criticism Now

Respondents:

Danny Wicaksono, Jakarta

Trevor Boddy, Vancouver

Rowan Moore, London

Rafael Gómez-Moriana, Barcelona

V & A Symposium 

Saturday, 22 February 10:00-17:30

The Lydia & Manfed Gorvy Lecture Theatre, V & A Museum, South Kensington, London SW7 2RL

Book tickets here

10:00 Registration

10:30 Welcome and Introductions

Martin Roth, Director, V&A

Kieran Long, Senior curator, V&A

Louise Noelle, CICA

10:45 Adam’s House in Paradise  

Louise Noelle, Mexico (session chair)

Süha Özkan, Istanbul

Michelangelo Sabatino, Houston

Carlos Eduardo Comas, Porto Alegre

Richard Wesley, Philadelphia

11:45 Break

12:00 The Idea of a Town / The Seduction of Place

George Baird, Toronto  (session chair)

Phyllis Lambert, Montreal

Luis Fernández-Galiano, Madrid

Czeslaw Bielecki, Warsaw

13:00 Break

14:00 Critique of Buildings

Manuel Cuadra, Kassel  (session chair)

David Leatherbarrow, Philadelphia

Pippo Ciorra, Rome

Desmond Hui, Hong Kong

Vittorio Gregotti, Venice

15:00 Break

15:15 Critical Juncture

Trevor Boddy, Vancouver  (session chair)

Robert Tavernor, London

Patrick Lynch, London

George Baird, Toronto

Kenneth Frampton, New York

16:15 Concluding remarks

Yasmin Shariff, London

Paragraphs on Architectural Criticism

1. Architectural criticism is a cultural activity. Culture is what distinguishes architecture from building (inasmuch as those two terms are distinguishable).
2. Architecture is never logically or self-evidently right or wrong; only arguably better or worse. Criticism must therefore always be based on sound argument.
3. Architectural criticism provides an interpretive reading of a work of architecture. This reading need not coincide with the architect’s stated intentions. In fact, it is much more interesting when a critical reading is different. The last thing a critic should ever be is a ‘spokesperson’ for an architect (or a politician, or a developer, or anyone else for that matter).
4. A critic must demystify architecture without mystifying criticism in the process, testing works and if necessary challenging claims, calling bluffs, and denouncing charlatanry. Criticism must always be directed toward work and never toward persons. 
5. A critic is a public intellectual first and foremost, defending the public interest. To this end, they must always refuse to engage in whitewashing, greenwashing, or puff pieces.
6. A built work of architecture is best criticized post-occupancy, i.e. after it has started to perform within the life-world. Otherwise, the criticism may be overly based on speculation or theory. 
7. Criticism, whether positive or negative, must be shared by all the ‘stakeholders’ involved in an architectural design project, including the client, planner, builder, consultants, and users (if these played a part in the design). Just as an architect has no right to claim exclusive credit for a built work when it is successful, they can similarly not be expected to shoulder all the blame for a project when it is unsuccessful. Built architecture is always a collaborative endeavour, for better or worse.
8. Architectural criticism cannot ignore a work’s social, political, cultural and economic context; otherwise, it becomes solipsistic. But by the same token, it also can’t pass judgment based exclusively on such factors.   
9. A building that is problematic from an ethical standpoint can nevertheless possess certain architectural qualities. Conversely, just because a work of architecture is socially and environmentally worthy of praise does not automatically entail it is architecturally praiseworthy. 
10. Built work, precisely because it is part of a complex life-world that renders it imperfect, generally makes for much more nuanced criticism than so-called ‘paper architecture’. 
11. Architectural criticism cannot be based exclusively on renderings or photographs of buildings. Architecture has to be experienced in situ and ‘in the flesh’ in order to be fully appreciated. This is not to say that architectural photography cannot be a subject of critical review.
12. Architectural criticism must be seen to be independent. It cannot be directly sponsored by corporations nor can it be seen to be too much in bed with professional associations, trade unions, guilds or religious organizations.  
13. Curating is not the new criticism, no matter how critical. While both have an effect upon the canon, they are fundamentally different; curatorial activity such as exhibitions often being a subject of critical review.
14. Internet can be just as good a vehicle for architectural criticism as print. Neither medium is inherently more or less critical--what matters is the quality of the content.
15. These paragraphs are neither conclusive nor certain. They constitute a theory of criticism that, like any other theory, is always up to be improved or debunked.

Paragraphs on Architectural Criticism

1. Architectural criticism is a cultural activity. Culture is what distinguishes architecture from building (inasmuch as those two terms are distinguishable).
2. Architecture is never logically or self-evidently right or wrong; only arguably better or worse. Criticism must therefore always be based on sound argument.
3. Architectural criticism provides an interpretive reading of a work of architecture. This reading need not coincide with the architect’s stated intentions. In fact, it is much more interesting when a critical reading is different. The last thing a critic should ever be is a ‘spokesperson’ for an architect (or a politician, or a developer, or anyone else for that matter).
4. A critic must demystify architecture without mystifying criticism in the process, testing works and if necessary challenging claims, calling bluffs, and denouncing charlatanry. Criticism must always be directed toward work and never toward persons. 
5. A critic is a public intellectual first and foremost, defending the public interest. To this end, they must always refuse to engage in whitewashing, greenwashing, or puff pieces.
6. A built work of architecture is best criticized post-occupancy, i.e. after it has started to perform within the life-world. Otherwise, the criticism may be overly based on speculation or theory. 
7. Criticism, whether positive or negative, must be shared by all the ‘stakeholders’ involved in an architectural design project, including the client, planner, builder, consultants, and users (if these played a part in the design). Just as an architect has no right to claim exclusive credit for a built work when it is successful, they can similarly not be expected to shoulder all the blame for a project when it is unsuccessful. Built architecture is always a collaborative endeavour, for better or worse.
8. Architectural criticism cannot ignore a work’s social, political, cultural and economic context; otherwise, it becomes solipsistic. But by the same token, it also can’t pass judgment based exclusively on such factors.   
9. A building that is problematic from an ethical standpoint can nevertheless possess certain architectural qualities. Conversely, just because a work of architecture is socially and environmentally worthy of praise does not automatically entail it is architecturally praiseworthy. 
10. Built work, precisely because it is part of a complex life-world that renders it imperfect, generally makes for much more nuanced criticism than so-called ‘paper architecture’. 
11. Architectural criticism cannot be based exclusively on renderings or photographs of buildings. Architecture has to be experienced in situ and ‘in the flesh’ in order to be fully appreciated. This is not to say that architectural photography cannot be a subject of critical review.
12. Architectural criticism must be seen to be independent. It cannot be directly sponsored by corporations nor can it be seen to be too much in bed with professional associations, trade unions, guilds or religious organizations.  
13. Curating is not the new criticism, no matter how critical. While both have an effect upon the canon, they are fundamentally different; curatorial activity such as exhibitions often being a subject of critical review.
14. Internet can be just as good a vehicle for architectural criticism as print. Neither medium is inherently more or less critical--what matters is the quality of the content.
15. These paragraphs are neither conclusive nor certain. They constitute a theory of criticism that, like any other theory, is always up to be improved or debunked.