Rowan Moore is an architecture critic for The Observer. Previously, he was a staff critic for the Evening Standard and Daily Telegraph newspapers, editor of Blueprint magazine, director of the Architectural Foundation. Graduated from St. John's College at the University of Cambridge. Co-founder of London-based bureau Zombory-Moldovan Moore Architects.
Author of books (Why We Build, 2012, etc.), jury member of awards and competitions, including the Venice Architecture Biennale.
Archi.ru: As an architect by training, how did you get involved in architectural criticism?
Rowan Moore: As a student, I was involved in a project in London's Docklands, and I hated the whole story. I asked my brother, a journalist, to write about it, but he replied that I should write the article myself - this is how my first text turned out.
After graduation, for some time I was able to combine the work of an architect and a journalist, until I was offered the post of editor of Blueprint magazine, and I had to make a choice in favor of criticism: I realized that this was my calling.
But I am very glad that I learned to be an architect: I imagine the essence of the project, the structure of the building, otherwise I could only appreciate its appearance without understanding the content.
Archi.ru: Has architecture criticism changed your view of architecture?
R. M.: I can't say that my approach to it has changed radically. Although, when you interview architects and analyze their buildings, you think quite differently from when you design yourself. On the other hand, any critic runs the risk of becoming “too professional”, losing the freshness of his eyes due to the fact that he knows the heroes of his articles too well or thinks more about his environment than about his readers.
Archi.ru: Can an architecture critic be friends with the architects he writes about?
R. M.: There is a kind of network of architects and critics that I try to stay away from. But, if you are interested in the work of some architect, and you like him as a person, friendship is almost inevitable. I have friends, architects, about whom I sometimes write, but there are always pitfalls in this: you can write softly out of friendship about a very bad project. But it's hard to defend your negative opinion in a situation when an architect cordially shows you his project, and you like him as a person - if you don't like the project, you find yourself in an awkward situation. Therefore, I always warn you what exactly I am going to write.
Archi.ru: What is criticism for you?
R. M.: There are different forms of criticism, most often it is the author's subjective reaction to the object, and this does not really appeal to me. Much more interesting is the reasons for certain decisions and their relationship with the final version of the project. Architecture is very politicized because big money, developers, politicians, etc. are always involved in it. I am very interested in how architecture interacts with these factors, how it “overcomes” them, and how something new and unique is ultimately created.
Archi.ru: But hasn't modern architecture lost its deep meaning, since developers are very much involved in the design process?
R. M.: Developers always want architecture to be something that sells well, without creating any problems. But architecture must in this case show firmness and fight this tendency. Developers often get good office buildings, etc., but the sphere of influence of development should be limited exclusively to commercial properties.
But in the UK, especially in recent years, there is a process of "programmed" design and construction of public buildings (schools, hospitals, museums, libraries), which is imposed by contractors and unspoken rules of business. It is effective because it uses the most efficient construction methods, but as a result, these important buildings are designed and built in the same way as offices, factories, technology parks, etc., so their aesthetic qualities leave much to be desired.
On this issue, I speak as a liberal social democrat, because I believe that there should be a balance in everything. In the design process, business should have its own role, and the government should have its own. But as the private sector has become very influential, in London many good urban planning ideas and traditions of quality architecture are being supplanted by developers' decisions, sometimes meaningless. Therefore, my task as a critic is to point out these problems, and not just declare that this or that building is bad, but to explain why it is bad.
Archi.ru: Do you see architecture as an autonomous discipline?
R. M.: Architecture matters only in context, so it cannot be a completely independent discipline. It is influenced by economic factors, politics, technology: they determine how buildings are designed and built. But various artistic movements, which 50, 40 and 30 years ago strongly influenced modernism, postmodernism and deconstructivism, have already disappeared from modern architecture, and the most interesting architects are now trying in vain to find traditional support in them. In the context of globalization, they are forced to make huge, expensive international projects, from which the most valuable elements of architecture have been displaced: high-quality interior space, proportionality and beauty.
Today, there is a clear development scheme that a business prefers if it is not controlled: this is an office + a store + suburban housing + an airport, where the entire environment is programmed, and the intermediate spaces are empty and uninteresting. This model leaves people with no choice: what they want to do and how they want to "interpret" the space around them. Unfortunately, this process is already underway in the UK, in China, around the world, and the best modern architects are trying to deal with this problem - both on a large and small scale.
Archi.ru: Has architecture retained its national features in the context of globalization? Why are Western firms mainly designing all over the world?
R. M.: This happens for two reasons. The commercial reason lies in the American business model of building on a large scale, to which architecture is also adapting. No one has yet come up with a more successful scheme than this, although Chinese and Indian versions have already appeared. And since this is a long process, even in 100-200 years we will still see the legacy of the American model, despite the fact that local modifications are possible in different countries.
The cultural reason for Western hegemony lies in the large and unique experience of Europe and the United States in the construction of large public buildings: museums, libraries, concert halls. It also has a very strong urban tradition that has spawned outstanding architects who have no alternative yet. The only country that can compete with European and American craftsmen is Japan. 50-60 years ago, Japan went through a stage of rapid development, including architecture. The same process is going on now in China and India, therefore, in a maximum of 50-60 years, a new wave of high-quality architecture from the East can be expected.
Archi.ru: Which architectural style do you prefer?
R. M.: None! I am against the idea of the only true path of architectural creativity. It's like saying: I like only rectangular or only round buildings.
Archi.ru: How “critical” should the critic's opinion be? Isn't there a predominance of positive and neutral views now?
R. M.: My rule: don't be afraid to call the bad bad and the good good. Although there is now a tendency in architectural criticism to smooth over rough edges.
As a critic, you should only say what you think, without forgetting, of course, to justify your opinion. But it is also important to understand: your voice is not the only one, it is part of the dialogue.
Archi.ru: How great is the power of an architectural critic? Can he influence architectural trends?
R. M.: Since the critic is a participant in the discussion, he always has a certain degree of influence. But it is impossible to predict how far this influence will spread. In my practice, there were several cases when my articles provoked a change in the project. But at the same time, the authors of the project did not fully understand my point of view, or rather, they did not want to understand the deep problems that I spoke about. And they used only those ideas of mine that were easy for them to implement.
Archi.ru: Who are your readers, who are you writing for?
R. M.: I would like to write for the widest possible audience, but so far I am writing for the readers of The Observer [a Sunday weekly, owned by the Guardian Media Group], that is, for the capital's middle class. Some of them, of course, are architects, but I would not like to write only for them.
Archi.ru: Is the problem of public taste in the field of architecture important to you as a critic? If the readers are more interested in the projects of the "stars", will you still write about the socially important, but more modest works of young and talented architects?
R. M.: Different people like different things, so the question is not so much in public taste as in public interest. And the most important thing is the impression that buildings, cities, and architecture in general make on society.
Of course, especially if you write for a newspaper, you always ask yourself: why would anyone read my article? - simply because there is no point in writing a deep, meaningful text if it is not read. This is a kind of game: some problems have to be slightly dramatized, and the mention of star architects is not the only, but one of the most effective ways to attract the attention of readers. But if there is an architect who seems interesting and important to me, it is not difficult for me to explain my position. However, a balance must always be struck between fundamental values and the availability of information to readers. Avoiding cynicism is one of the most difficult tasks for a critic.
Archi.ru: Has architecture criticism changed in the Internet era when everyone is tweeting?
R. M.: I think so, but how exactly is still difficult to say, because people continue to write articles about architecture, as before. The speed with which information is disseminated has a significant impact on criticism. Plus, a Twitter post will inevitably trigger a reaction, even if you didn't really want to. With the help of Twitter, it is easier to find out the opinions of readers, which are often more interesting, more human and less aggressive than comments on the newspaper's website, since they come from people who are interested in architecture. However, some things can only be explained in 15,000 words, and no shorter.
Thanks to modern technologies, information becomes more accessible, for example, there are more people reading newspapers [in the electronic version], so my number of readers has increased significantly.
Archi.ru: Is the new model of blog or Twitter format criticism capable of supplanting the "old school"?
R. M.: Hopefully, the demand for solid, well-founded criticism will never pass. The danger of this new model of criticism is that everyone expresses their opinion, and everyone's opinion seems to be equally important, and the result is only a hum in which no one hears or listens to anyone, and everyone tries to shout down each other. But I don’t think this is an irreversible process: in the end, people will get tired of listening to 200 different opinions, which are all based only on superficial reactions.
Archi.ru: Do you think an architecture critic should educate his readers?
R. M.: Certainly, but not in the way a school teacher does. Most people don't know how architects work, how they construct buildings, and why they use a particular language. Explaining all these points is one of the main tasks of architectural criticism.
