I wasn't going to respond to Tim Abraham's criticisms of this blog - along with several notable others - partly out of a fear of appearing too defensive. His article may have been a bit of a rant but, then again, I've written a few of those in my time. Besides it's always nice to be noticed. However his article has resulted in some very thoughtful and intelligent responses which I wanted to expand on.
Both Things and Sit Down Man have made eloquent rebuttals of his argument so I'll try not to repeat them here. Nina at Infinite Thought too has elegantly dismantled most of the more reactionary statements about the internet more effectively than I could. I would add though that an article posted on line and linked by Blueprint to Twitter is on slightly thin ice criticising the ephemeral nature of blogs.
But onto more positive things! Tim Abraham's article is interesting because it raises a number of anxieties about the nature of criticism and architecture writing on the web. Firstly there is the issue of who is a legitimate critic. Abrahams seems keen to establish a proper hierarchy ranging from professional paid critics on respected magazines at the top down to the unsolicited plethora of amateurs on line.
As well as the levelling out of this entirely self-serving hierarchy he has a further concern that the internet itself destabilises proper categories of artistic worth. There is, Abraham's states, "no register of what is more important than something else".
A certain paranoia seems to underpin this anxiety, a sense that one might not know what it's correct to think anymore. I would suggest that this fear is a pretty constant anxiety historically speaking and the internet is merely the latest in a long line of "worrying" trends towards a democratisation of opinion.
Things magazine's numerous links and connections can be occasionally dizzying, but they are also intelligently and critically put together. Ironically enough Tim Abraham cites Venturi Scott Brown as forbears of 'proper' critical writing. If ever there was an architectural precedent for something like Things magazine though it is surely the Venturis?
VSBA's research projects into Las Vegas and the American suburb (which resulted in the critically panned Signs of Life exhibition) were disliked by architects precisely for daring to look seriously at everyday culture in a non-judgemental way. Too much information and not enough moralising has always been the received critical wisdom on Learning from Las Vegas and Signs of Life.
Finally, and most centrally, there is the curious criticism of blogs for being nostalgic and for "giving up on the future". Leaving aside the question of why this might be the only legitimate subject matter for an architecture blog, perhaps it's the concept of the future deployed here that needs revising.
The Future is freighted with baggage, already overcoded to the point of being meaningless. Abrahams wants a declamatory THIS IS THE FUTURE sort of criticism, not realising that the desire to return to such linear certainties might itself be reactionary and nostalgic. Perhaps the future is already here? Or rather visions and speculations about it already are. It's just that they don't look like they used to.
There seems to be to be a stiff literalness at work here, a failure of imagination. It's perfectly legitimate to speculate about architecture (and its future) by looking at the recent past (Brutalism or Post Modernism) or at objects that fall outside the accepted canon of good design (Googie architecture, the Popemobile) or at other art forms (jungle, sit coms). This is a way to open up architectural debate, rather than flatten it. And looking at the past is not inherently nostalgic.
Blueprint's article exhibits a self-censoring ideology of what it's acceptable to write about, as well as a perverse fear of the possibilities thrown up by the internet. Not only is the format of internet based writing highly speculative (all those links and new connections) but a lot of the content is too. The considered response to Abraham's article by people like Owen and I.T. seems to speak too of the internet's ability to generate valuable discussion in a way that printed media simply can't.
Ultimately the blog sites that Abraham's criticises are (as Things points out) those of a more speculative and experimental nature. Their value lies precisely in the fact that they aren't looking in the same place as everyone else. Their interests may appear esoteric, eclectic or even bizarre, but that's because architectural criticism is so crowded with the same people all talking about the same old things.
Perhaps the future is not over there at all. Perhaps it's over here.
But onto more positive things! Tim Abraham's article is interesting because it raises a number of anxieties about the nature of criticism and architecture writing on the web. Firstly there is the issue of who is a legitimate critic. Abrahams seems keen to establish a proper hierarchy ranging from professional paid critics on respected magazines at the top down to the unsolicited plethora of amateurs on line.
As well as the levelling out of this entirely self-serving hierarchy he has a further concern that the internet itself destabilises proper categories of artistic worth. There is, Abraham's states, "no register of what is more important than something else".
A certain paranoia seems to underpin this anxiety, a sense that one might not know what it's correct to think anymore. I would suggest that this fear is a pretty constant anxiety historically speaking and the internet is merely the latest in a long line of "worrying" trends towards a democratisation of opinion.
Things magazine's numerous links and connections can be occasionally dizzying, but they are also intelligently and critically put together. Ironically enough Tim Abraham cites Venturi Scott Brown as forbears of 'proper' critical writing. If ever there was an architectural precedent for something like Things magazine though it is surely the Venturis?
VSBA's research projects into Las Vegas and the American suburb (which resulted in the critically panned Signs of Life exhibition) were disliked by architects precisely for daring to look seriously at everyday culture in a non-judgemental way. Too much information and not enough moralising has always been the received critical wisdom on Learning from Las Vegas and Signs of Life.
Finally, and most centrally, there is the curious criticism of blogs for being nostalgic and for "giving up on the future". Leaving aside the question of why this might be the only legitimate subject matter for an architecture blog, perhaps it's the concept of the future deployed here that needs revising.
The Future is freighted with baggage, already overcoded to the point of being meaningless. Abrahams wants a declamatory THIS IS THE FUTURE sort of criticism, not realising that the desire to return to such linear certainties might itself be reactionary and nostalgic. Perhaps the future is already here? Or rather visions and speculations about it already are. It's just that they don't look like they used to.
There seems to be to be a stiff literalness at work here, a failure of imagination. It's perfectly legitimate to speculate about architecture (and its future) by looking at the recent past (Brutalism or Post Modernism) or at objects that fall outside the accepted canon of good design (Googie architecture, the Popemobile) or at other art forms (jungle, sit coms). This is a way to open up architectural debate, rather than flatten it. And looking at the past is not inherently nostalgic.
Blueprint's article exhibits a self-censoring ideology of what it's acceptable to write about, as well as a perverse fear of the possibilities thrown up by the internet. Not only is the format of internet based writing highly speculative (all those links and new connections) but a lot of the content is too. The considered response to Abraham's article by people like Owen and I.T. seems to speak too of the internet's ability to generate valuable discussion in a way that printed media simply can't.
Ultimately the blog sites that Abraham's criticises are (as Things points out) those of a more speculative and experimental nature. Their value lies precisely in the fact that they aren't looking in the same place as everyone else. Their interests may appear esoteric, eclectic or even bizarre, but that's because architectural criticism is so crowded with the same people all talking about the same old things.
Perhaps the future is not over there at all. Perhaps it's over here.
