François Chasselin is an architecture critic, architect, and teacher. He was the editor-in-chief of architecture magazines Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, Cahiers de la recherche architecturale, Macadam. From 1999 to 2012 he hosted a weekly program on the architecture of Métropolitains on the national radio France Culture. As a journalist, he collaborated with the newspapers Monde, Nouvel Observateur, Libération, as well as the Spanish El Pais.
Author of the books Paris Francois Mitterrand (1985), Monumental Hatred. An Essay on the Destruction of Cities in the Former Yugoslavia "(1997)," Two Conversations with Rem Koolhaas etc "(2001)," Tadao Ando. Complete catalog of works”(2006),“Jean Nouvel. Criticism "(2008) and others.
Archi.ru: What is the main problem of architectural criticism in France now?
Francois Chasselin: Now the French, and indeed the entire European architectural criticism has two big problems.
The first is the absence of a struggle of ideas, the absence of a clear system of values, for the sake of which it would be worth "mobilizing" oneself. These conflicts are very important because they force people to generate ideas, argue them, place them in context, and approach critically the analysis of events. This was the case in the architectural criticism of modernism and postmodernism, but now the debate is muted, and this is to a certain extent characteristic of society as a whole. At one time, Rem Koolhaas, as one of the foremost critics of our era, played a crucial role in overthrowing "idols" and undermining the self-confident position of architects. He showed them that their value is limited, and our world is being taken over by other forces, primarily business.
What is happening now? There are disputes about the preservation of heritage, but they only arise when another monument is under threat. More intellectual is the discussion about "sustainable development", but it hardly touches on architecture as an art.
Another problem is the climate of globalization, when a narrow circle, the “elite” of architects, receives all the key orders: large museums, luxury brands, government organizations turn to them when they need an “iconic” and commercially successful building. What worries me most is that these reigning architects often do not embody any ideas, but just created an image for themselves - rough, or, on the contrary, polished.
These characters are very influential and literally terrorize the editors of the media: after all, without their consent, it is impossible to receive photographs and other materials on their projects. In addition, their names are like Louis Vuitton, Hermes, they are like monoliths. They are associated with the extremely influential world of fashion (now it is more influential than developers!) And with politics that put pressure on the press. And the press (including architecture magazines), dependent on advertisers and losing the competition for readers with the Internet, is too weak to resist this pressure.
Therefore, there is especially nowhere for criticism to disperse - one can negatively evaluate individual works, but not career and creativity in general, these architects are difficult to criticize! Perhaps, of course: I devoted a total of more than 200 critical pages to Jean Nouvel, but nevertheless, these authorities are hard to dispute.
And one more topic that has always confused me: this is the situation of nepotism, the collusion of critics with the stars, which arises thanks to press tours, closed presentations. And if we suddenly break this conspiracy, then … we are not invited anywhere else, and we are excluded from this world.
Archi.ru: In this situation, how can architectural criticism influence public opinion and society? Or does public opinion influence criticism?
F. Sh.: What is public opinion? It is also shaped by different forces. First, there are various associations and societies, in France this is a special social group: well-educated, but not too advanced, bourgeois people defending their shop interests, financially prosperous, often from a university environment, and very often already retired (after all, then there is more time for participation in public life) … They, as a rule, defend the "nostalgic" image of the city, although it can be said more sharply. They love paving stones, they always want to see brickwork in old districts and white walls in the suburbs - and their combined pressure on architecture is very strong.
There is also the world of politics, for French architecture this is very important: the largest orders are given by the state - municipalities, departments, etc. Of course, contests are necessarily held, which nevertheless creates a moment of competition. But cities and departments have been included in their own competition for 30 years, which did not exist before, with greater centralization. Similar competition exists on the world stage as well. Participants must show their economic well-being to both their citizens and other cities and regions in order to arouse their envy. Architecture is a good tool for such a demonstration, so sometimes new museums, etc. are built for the sake of prestige, contrary to the requirements of the economic and social situation.
A fresh example is the Louvre-Lens Museum: a magnificent building, the only architectural masterpiece that has appeared in the country in almost half a century, built in the poorest region of France, with abandoned industry and mines, which is now trying to compete with Paris in the field of culture, fashion, tourism. This is a famous example, but less noticeable - much more: even a high school is an architectural challenge, showing that the city is actively developing and modern.
And the third force influencing public opinion is the press. As I said, it is very dependent on advertising, especially free editions like Figaro Sunday Edition. And there is hidden advertising, for example, under the guise of the heading "Travel", paid for by the regions and cities that are described there. The theme of architecture in this context is raised as a description of places of interest to visit, for example, in addition to the story about festivals in Marseille, the European Capital of Culture 2013. The architectural press received this function not so long ago: it writes about real things, but at the same time is saturated with enthusiasm, which is closer to the tourist, entertainment genre.
Archi.ru: How much do they write about architecture in the "non-professional" press?
F. Sh.: Until recently, architectural criticism was widely represented in many central newspapers in France, England, Spain: there were two or three real articles a week. And now in France there are only Edelmann's articles in Le Monde, and nothing else. Of course, with film criticism, for example, the situation is no better: critical reviews of films are drowned in an ocean of filming notes, interviews of stars 3-4 pages long … So it is with architectural criticism: a lot of information about Pompidou in Metz or about the museum on Quai Branly, but the analysis is zero. This is very revealing.
Archi.ru: Is this related to the growing role of the Internet? After all, we are dealing with new readers who are accustomed to receiving information instantly, and more concise and synthetic than on paper "carriers"?
FS: Of course, the Internet has created a new type of media, for example, blogs, some of which are conducted at a high intellectual level. Although materials in the traditional press are shortened under the influence of the web and become “digestible,” I do not take the Internet era negatively. Yes, the web is dominated by notes with photos and short text, but excellent analysis can also be found there. Even if it was made by an amateur, I do not think that architectural education is necessary for an architectural critic (although it helps me myself): you just need to write well. Other critics, without going into technical details, create a vivid idea of a particular monument in the reader's mind. Let there be architects, art critics, philologists among them: I am in favor of a diverse landscape of architectural criticism.
Of course, so far the opinion of a critic in a newspaper is more influential than the point of view of a blogger, but in the future there may be their own "network" authorities, especially since the development of information technology is progressing rapidly, and paper publications are gradually turning into digital ones. I think that we are on the verge of the emergence of new forms, which are still difficult to imagine. But architectural criticism will not disappear, especially since the Internet now allows you to collect and compare different sources, say, to make a selection of 10 articles about the Louvre-Lance in order to create a complete picture.
Archi.ru: What is the level of subjectivity, personal preference that a critic can afford?
F. Sh.: It depends on what we mean by criticism. Personally, I am impressed by criticism that has a personal imprint, when the critic is a writer, with his own vision of the world, with his own shortcomings, idefixes, preferences, passions. The critic is not just a detached "registrar" of the surrounding world, neutral and therefore passive. I prefer a pronounced position, whatever that may be. I want criticism to be an arena of clash of opinions. It is good when it is a theatrical performance, a performance played by the critic himself.
Archi.ru: But should the criticism be negative or positive? And how do you find a balance between your personal tastes and possible objectivity?
F. Sh.: This is a difficult moment. Remember that criticism can seriously hurt people. This is precisely the complexity of the profession: how to build an authoritative judgment, but not step over the line when criticism becomes aggressive. Take our relationship with Jean Nouvel, I think he considers me his "enemy number one", although it really can be called an intellectual feud.
But, on the other hand, how else to explain to people why the project of the Pompidou Center in Metz Shigeru Bana is a complete failure? Therefore, for any assessment, including a negative one, a large analytical justification is required, an analysis of all the details.
Therefore, thoughtlessly praising criticism is not of interest. To tell about a successful beautiful project means to explain why the project turned out exactly like that, to fit it into the historical context, to find a place for it in the creative development of its author.
Archi.ru: Should the critic bring enlightenment to the masses, simplify the material?
F. Sh.: No, no, I don't believe that. I was the author of a radio show about architecture that has been on air for 13 years with a very wide audience and high ratings (over 200,000 listeners). I have never made a special effort to "simplify", and I believe that this is not required, even if people do not understand everything you say. Take Melville's Moby Dick, there may not be a single understandable word on 5 pages, but you don't stop reading. The general public should be given a chance to enjoy immersion in incomprehensible, but beautiful words, the same architectural terms. Despite the unfamiliar words, the audience still understands the main thing … It is necessary to give the public this pleasure of intellectual dialogue, literary, musical pleasure. No need to be a snob, no need to “condescend” to the reader.
Previously, the Liberation newspaper could easily publish a two-page article on equestrian sports with technical and professional details, and the public was very interested. Even if they didn't care about the horses: the author of the article wrote very well. And now the university and school environment presses, forcing you to explain everything in the most detailed way, as in school textbooks. After the name of the architect, brackets open, and you need to write his life dates with a note that this is a Swiss architect, for example.
Archi.ru: Should critics try to interest the public in the moments of architectural life that are important from their point of view: the appearance of socially significant objects, the works of promising young architects, while readers are more interested in stories about "stars" and widely discussed, spectacular projects?
F. Sh.: Everything depends entirely on the editorial approach. In "Liberation" for 20 years on the last page was the heading "Portrait", which sometimes talked about little-known characters, but they still interested the public.
And after my radio broadcast, I invariably received a large number of reviews, regardless of whom I spoke about: a modest architect from the province can also provide material for an interesting architectural dialogue and exchange of views.
Archi.ru: Let's return to the topic of globalization. This situation not only created a cohort of architectural "elite", but also allowed even small bureaus to work abroad - is that bad?
F. Sh.: This is just not of any interest: to go to China and do your project there, and vice versa. When the cultural exchange began in the mid-1970s, it was very interesting: Japanese, Italians, Scandinavians, Catalans came here. But now people everywhere have the same culture and artistic environment, with individual prominent figures. Now you need exactly these figures, and you will no longer be looking for a "Spanish architect": it makes no sense, since Spanish architecture no longer exists. Regional, national schools are now completely dissolved in each other, mixed. Although 15 years ago, these outstanding figures could have been formed by their own national school, for example, Koolhaas - the Dutch one. But now no longer. But I do not regret the disappearance of these schools, this is a new state of the world, its movement towards ever greater openness. Differences remain at the level of mentality, where, for example, one can speak of the Protestant world, but at the level of architecture, practically none.
But it cannot be ruled out that some event will not entail the highlighting of a new group of customers from an unexpected corner of the Earth with their special requirements and preferences. Or a certain person will revive interest in his national school.
