The Architectural Journal, rather distortingly, headlines "Critic blames 60s Brutalism for Boston marathon bombings".
If ones looks at the actual article on James Russell's blog one finds the refelctions are more tentative, reasonable and sensitive than the AJ headline leads one to think.
The journal, however, springs to the defence of its constituency with an editorial that turns Russell's tentative musing, why did the Tsarnaevs become alienated in Boston, explicitly back on him: "Why did James Russell suggest Brutalist architecture caused the Boston Marathon bombings?" The deputy editor provides no answer to his own question, but accuses Russell of being "crass" and "going over the edge", even though the picture the AJ chooses to illustrate its own article looks far more alienating then those Russell uses and the editorial fails to engage with Russell's particular criticism, but simply suggests "he can start by letting Rudolph off the hook".
There is an interesting question, is bad photography to blame for modern architecture preservation battles?, which could be usefully expanded into a consideration of the role that photographs (good and bad), drawings, models, computer visualisations play in the perception of buildings both built and unbuilt (and even of furniture for that matter) - perception in the minds of architects or designers, critics, public, clients, planners. However, the question I am suggesting here is what are the consequences of bad debate, or a failure to engage properly in debate.
The journal concedes that "there are questions architecture critics can ask". It might be better if they were asked by architects themselves, but they turn out to be of a distinctly "get on with the job", unquestioning sort:
"Will lockdowns influence new urban design? What is the value of a public realm that can be so speedily militarised?"
The editorial goes on to ask, but not even begin to answer (though it is posed in a strangely particular context), a larger question: "When freedom of movement is so heavily restricted, what does it mean to be a citizen today?"
What does it mean to be a citizen today very much depends upon whom one is asking. Nation states attach much significance to citizenship and its forms when they are granting it, but if the new citizen gets into the wrong circumstances and is not of the general socio-cultural type as the majority population of the state, their formal protections may count for little, on either side of the Atlantic.
 |
| Paul Rudolph in a bad photograph |
