Architecture critics

Why are architecture critics such hopeless snobs?

I was looking up, for irrelevant reasons, reviews of the now year-old baseball stadiums in New York (both the Yankees and Mets built new ballparks that opened in 2009). I was looking for something about the overall experience--I remember reading at the time that both places are good but not among the best.

While looking, I found the New York Times architecture critic's review. It contained this paragraph:

"Even so, most serious architects today strive to create buildings that reflect the values of their own era, not a nostalgic vision of the past, no matter how open they may be toward their surroundings. And in that regard both stadiums will be a disappointment to students of architecture. For us, the buildings are just another reminder of the enormous gap that remains between high design and popular taste. "

DUDE. Architects' entire job description+ is to make spaces that people enjoy using. There should be, by definition, +no gap at all between high design and popular taste. If you think there is, you need to recalibrate your notions of what makes good design.

I repeat: Why are architecture critics such hopeless snobs?

--M.

The same is true of the Tribune's critic here in Chicago, whose work I read regularly, just because it's nice to hear how the design world thinks.

But I sometimes think they deliberately write stuff whose sole purpose is to show off that they've been to design school and you haven't.

Movie critics don't do that--when you read a movie review, if they mention something they learned in film school, they use it to help you understand what they're thinking. Ditto for theatre reviews, music reviews, etc.

For architecture reviews that I've read, design-school erudition is used specifically and solely to pooh-pooh a building as being insufficiently cutting-edge, or too "popular." It's a special kind of snobbery.

--M.

Maybe the critics are wannabe-architects, frustrated chaps..
itsasmallarchitect1

you know, this is an old argument with me - so many things that started as function have become flags for elitists to rally around - sort of like what happens in music

everything, and I mean everything, starts as a reflection of what's poplular, trendy, or useful for that time - ie: Pop Culture - classical music didn't start out being classical, it was the pop music of it's time - the pyramids were the royal burial vaults of their generations, previous and later generations had their own style of doing royal burials - Shakespeare's plays were originally written and performed for the London masses - Castles started as defensive structures, as offense changed defensive needs changed

look at any city and you'll see at least a dozen different styles of high rise, all reflecting the Pop Culture of their time - even Wright was of the Arts and Crafts Movement, pop culture of it's day and The Eiffel Tower was "Built to celebrate the science and engineering achievements of its age" for an exposition no less

ball parks also have had many different variations throughout their history - a structure starts with a function and then is embellished - even if you choose to do it in a historical style it can't be helped that it will have a current popular element - that's the way of the world - and yet it never ceases to amaze me that we need to try and convince ourselves that there is something higher and more powerful than, god forbid, Popular Taste

3: Most popular taste is rubbish. The crowd might acclaim a work of art coincidentally, but the same audience that made Shakespeare's fortune happily went down the street to bear-baiting and cockfighting. They were in it for the action/adventure and didn't appreciate theatre in a serious way.
Mozart and Beethoven were popular, but little of that music was accessible to people without some musical education, just like today. How closely do you think the crowds were listening? Just like a rock concert today I expect.
The good thing about popular acclaim is that it ensures the survival of lots of material for future consideration. That's about all there is in it.

They didn't have to go down the street, bear baiting was part of the show at Shakespeare's theaters - the nobility and gentry enjoyed it as much as the masses

I don't see anything wrong with the statement. If there's an enormous gap between high design and popular taste, then that's a problem for the architects to resolve.

The really good ones can take the public with them - Sydney Opera House etc

They shouldn't stop striving for something new and inspirational, but just because we don't like what they come up with doesn't mean they must be too good for us to comprehend.

"then that's a problem for the architects to resolve."

right - because if it doesn't have popular appeal no one's going to want to occupy the space - and what good is a structure that serves no one and nothing? - it'll be torn down to make way for something people want to connect with

I guess the question is, what does high design really mean? and is today's high design tomorrow's eyesore? if so, then is it truely high design or not?

is today's high design tomorrow's eyesore?

In some cases, yes. And vice versa.
But it doesn't follow that all "high design" WTevertheF that is, is good or bad

You need some boldness and inspiration, but you need human scale too - sometimes you get the feeling that a lot of sculptural architects would prefer to airbrush the people out

agree completely - and we shouldn't forget that it's not all about the architect - someone is paying for that structure and the ultimate decision rests with the person paying for it - they may have chosen that particular plan out of hundreds or out of only one or two

I do think though, that high design has something to do with longevity and making people want to connect with it over time even if it is what's current and popular from the time it was conceived - going back to the Eiffel Tower, there was a lot of opposition to it for the very reason it was conceived and it was not considered high design - and yet it makes everyone want to connect with it to this day and probably will in the future

I'm not sure what high design for a ball park is either - which is more important, high visual design or high appeal and function design

I do think there are snobs in any walk of life, but critics on any subject are viewed in a 'Failure' light by me, i do find myself asking myself the same question why be a critic on someboy else's efforts, if you are so smart why not have a go yourself? That may be super simplistic, but that is the way i do look at it, and i do see some as super smart-arses that do in fact make themselvs appear so because of their public utterence's, you know the ones that never say anything good, about anything?