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 use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

A critic has the right to unfairness in order to force through much-needed change

Owen Hatherley
  • 1 Comment

Filler’s critiques are particularly good at solidifying something you may have been thinking but couldn’t put into words, says Owen Hatherley

There’s a degree of certainty and good taste in what the New York Review of Books’ architectural critic Martin Filler does as a critic that doesn’t entirely translate to the building culture of places outside of the five boroughs. However, what he has always been superb at is invective. I say this not to diminish - it’s an, underrated and historically important virtue, too often overlooked in an art form which likes to pride itself on pragmatism and consensus. A book could be compiled solely from Filler diatribes - his surely accurate blasting of post-1989 Berlin as the missed opportunity of all missed opportunities, his dissection of the failings of celeb architects like Santiago Calatrava and Daniel Libeskind. Now that he’s finally been slapped with a lawsuit from Zaha Hadid, we should insist on the necessity of such viciousness before it is legally silenced.

What Filler’s critiques are particularly good at is solidifying something that you may have been vaguely thinking but couldn’t put into words, in making the pieties and ostentatious respect around a figure collapse, leaving a deeply fallible oeuvre stripped of bullshit, ready to be taken on objectively, not on its own exalted terms. It’s hard to look at any of the later projects of Daniel Libeskind, like the war museum in Manchester or the military museum in Dresden, without thinking of Filler’s one-liner that the architect had become ‘a virtual, self-igniting yahrzeit candle’, a mechanical automatic memorial service, whose allegedly significant fragmented crashing volumes have no real specificity, a brand architect of pseudo-memory. The attack on Calatrava is of the same order, drawing attention to the cloying nature of his metaphors and the empty-headed kitsch of his grand vaulted spaces. His recent comments on Zaha Hadid, in a review of Rowan Moore’s Why We Build in the NYRB were perhaps slightly different, in that they were not about her architecture itself - although his lack of sympathy was clear - but about the morality of her projects in Qatar, and the manner in which she appeared to wave away the conditions of theirlabourers in a Guardian interview. The way that Hadid is often singled out for something that almost every major practising architect today does - that is, work in countries where buildings are constructed by a migrant labour force that usually lacks even the most basic rights – is often unfair, and it is hard not to wonder if there are some unpleasant exoticising undertones to it.

Filler also conflated a little by arguing that Hadid – the architect of the Al-Wakrah World Cup stadium in Qatar - had directly expressed indifference to the deaths of a thousand workers on the building. In fact, construction on the stadium has yet to begin and Hadid had suggested, in the face of the appalling numbers of migrant workers killed on Qatari construction projects in general, that this was a matter not for her, but for the Qatari government - a conflation, perhaps, but one which may get Filler in trouble in court, particularly if her lawyers decide not to accept his retraction. However, a critic should have the right to unfairness.

Architecture has often been driven forward by unreasonable diatribes, from Ruskin’s claim that all Classical and Renaissance architecture was immoral through to Adolf Loos’ assault on the ‘Potemkin cities’ of the late 19th century; neither was fair, but both forced much-needed change. And common to these has been an insistence that architecture as an art be honest, held to standards other than mere aesthetics. If Hadid’s lawsuit succeeds, it sets a dangerous precedent - not only in policing an already too quiescent architectural media, but also in stopping one of the motors that have so frequently been behind architectural and social change.

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • Excuse me but, didn't Filler sort-of erroneously implicate Zaha in the deaths of migrant builders? if so then this article misses the point. I'm a little exasperated with journalists channeling Voltiare -even implicitly- to defend their craft. Architect's 'put themselves out there' in a way that I would suggest the journalist never does and yet are still happy to expose themselves to the often camouflaged character-snipery that increasingly masquerades as negative criticsm, and to take the metaphor further, is it appropriate to praise the expert marksmanship of someone who has been convicted of (and admitted) shooting an innocent? I think that the knee jerk automated closing of ranks i a very unattractive thing. I hate it when politicians do it, when architects do it and (as we've seen all too much recently) when journalists do it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this 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.