Architects, On Being Critical
The media (social and traditional) is filled with name calling and fault finding. Nothing is being done right, it’s not good enough, you’re all idiots, all this and in stronger terms. The thing is who or what does this criticism serve? Maybe it makes those in the silo feel affirmed in their position, supported in their world view, but there’s little that is constructive in this noise.
Architects and the built environment are not immune. It is not uncommon to hear architects decrying the quality of another architect or a completed project.
Who or what does this criticism serve?
It not only comes across as bitchy, but by exclusively drawing attention to problems and faults it also brings disrepute to the entire profession by association.
How then might architects better serve the profession and the built environment in their critique?
All architects know how immensely hard it can be getting a quality built outcome. Battling the constraints of dirty ‘c’ words, Codes, Councils, Challenging Clients, plus Value Engineering, and so on. What if we were to consider that all architects are doing their best? It’s hard to imagine that anyone is trying to do bad work. There is clearly a range of skills within any profession. Many architects have not been so privileged as to have the opportunity to learn from extraordinary teachers or connect with wonderful mentors. They’re doing the best with the skills they have.
Instead, consider what the criticism is for. If it’s just out of bitchiness, then don’t. If it’s to describe how the work may be better, please proceed. Identify the fault in the architecture, or the approach to it. Explain why that approach may be problematic. That’s more constructive, but you’re not finished, you need to go further. In consideration of the issue you’ve identified, outline a better approach and explain why that might be better.
In summary, call out fault, describe the fault and why it’s faulty. Then describe what a better outcome would look like. This serves to identify poor outcomes, why they are poor outcomes and what a better outcome would be and why that might be a better outcome.
That brings value to the critique and potentially future built projects. It will be of assistance, and thereby value, to an architect, a client, a local Council and so on. Certainly more people will then understand what a better way of making buildings, or the built environment, looks like. They will also have a greater appreciation of the value of the architecture profession, rather than the converse perception they’re left with in negative criticism.
By tearing something down and building nothing of value in its place, you do not advance the culture or the cause. Architects, we need to be better than that.
Michael is the founder of unmeasured, supporting architects in their practice through coaching, workshops and community.
Helping architects find their desire lines in practice.
Photo by Francesco Ungaro on Pexels
