Toxic Opinion or Critical Judgement

150 years ago, Matthew Arnold said that the function of criticism is “a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world, and thus to establish a current of fresh and true ideas.” Nearly 20 years ago, renowned journalist, Martin Pawley wrote of the “Strange Death of Architectural Criticism.” More recently, The Architects’ Journal claimed that “architectural criticism is a monoculture” while Dezeen pronounced that there are too many “white, male architecture critics.” For some, critics are the problem; but is there a deeper problem with the idea of criticism itself, beyond just the arts ?

Nowadays, many tutors are wary of criticising students in case they are called out for bullying. Departments are wary of academic criticism upsetting university rankings. Criticism itself, it seems, is now regularly interpreted as an assault rather than as a constructive proposition. The preference is not to upset anyone and so only certain types of criticism seem to be permissible.

What used to be a straightforward tasks of critique, judgement and discrimination now regularly need rubrics, spreadsheets and measurables to ensure impartiality, because, we are told, human judgement is not reliable. This discussion will explore how we might strike a balance between the rush to judge, and a flight from judgement? For disinterested critique. Or should we be advocating a kinder, gentler, more consensual and harmonious engagement with the ideas of others, and avoiding being brutally, critically honest even if we disagree?

Speakers include: Penny Lewis, University of Dundee/Wuhan joint architecture programme; Eleanor Jolliffe, associate, Allies and Morrison and columnist, Building Design; Paul Finch, programme director, World Architecture Festival and former chairman, CABE. Chair: Austin Williams, director, Future Cities Project.