Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Katherine Shonfield

  • Comment

The poor old lay man. It seems good old architecture has coldshouldered him once more. His omission from the jury of this year's Stirling Prize is all the more ignominious for his substitution by one of the most well-known of self-publicised laid women, Tracy Emin. The public, it seems, will be out of 'their depth and generally overawed by the process'. Bless.

As ever with spin-speak, reality is of course the other way round. It is the unlaid members of their panel who are likely to get their knickers in a twist at the thought of exposing their terms of judgement to the public. All will sympathise. Some misguided fool made the unforgivable mistake of substituting the words 'member of the public' for 'elitist, self-appointed member of the artistic avantgarde' back in the dark ages of public participation: anyone who has ever had anything to do with 'a member of the public' stating their position at a planning inquiry will know quite how out of their depth and overawed they get.

It takes a special RIBA concoction of disingenuousness to propose a 'celebrity lay person' who won't somehow be 'out of their depth'. There is clearly no truth in the scurrilous rumour that the august judges aspire to have their names embroidered as 'laid people' in Emin's famous tent. I am sorry to say that I suspect the reason for Emin's presence is because, as one who has herself benefited from the most spurious and ephemeral terms of 'judgement', she won't rock the boat.

Public votes are currently sidelined in an item named, with scarcely disguised contempt, the 'People's Choice'. Enough.

We could not do more for architecture and the popularity of same, than to get the judges (providing they are not 'overawed') to explain publicly why they advocate a shortlisted candidate, and then asking the poor, maligned public themselves for a straight vote.

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.