Tarja Nurmi is an architect and architecture critic. Author of programs for the national television of Finland TV1 and TV2, books and numerous publications in Finnish and foreign publications, including professional ones. Lecturer, curator of exhibitions.
Archi.ru: What is the main problem of contemporary architectural criticism? And what is its purpose?
Tarja Nurmi: The problem is that there is less and less architectural criticism in the civilian media. And a related topic: writing about architecture is entrusted to ordinary journalists, often very young, who compose their texts, having obtained all the information on Google. They are looking for "trends" and "iconic" buildings and do not know anything about history, architecture, the basics of urban planning. Therefore, their articles are one or two spectacular renders and very little "to the point" text.
Architectural critics writing for professional magazines or regular newspapers should be well aware of their topic, and should also have a solid "baggage" from the buildings they have visited, should know how they are built, with the help of what technologies and methods, even even innovative, and how these buildings function afterwards. Such work takes a lot of time and money, and modern media require journalists to work quickly and travel a little, but mostly to look for sensations. At the same time, the quality of publications decreases, and the general public ceases to understand the surrounding “built environment” and the foundations of architecture in general.
In Finland, many architects admit that they only look at photographs in Arkkitehti magazine (the official publication of SAFA - the Finnish Association of Architects), and rarely read texts. This means that there are serious problems with the architectural press. In the recent past, articles were done like this: an architect would describe his project (often rather boring), and then his colleague would comment on it. As a result, everyone politely "criticized" each other's high-quality projects (bad works were not included in the magazine). And in the current situation, when they only notice which buildings have been published, it is even more difficult for impudent and independent critics to appear.
The leading newspaper Helsingin Sanomat used to have a full-time critic with Leen Maunul's strong position, but now no one has replaced her.
Modern critics and architecture journalists are struggling to survive financially, as many of their colleagues, for example, architecture professors, are willing to write for free: they only need to publish their text. The result is unfair competition. Editors take advantage of this and often spend almost the entire budget of a publication on themselves, while professional authors are paid very little or not at all: this situation does not contribute to the high quality of critical texts.
Archi.ru: How great is the power of an architectural critic? Can he influence the development of architectural trends, or public opinion?
T. N.: A good writer can do a lot, but he needs a platform, an audience. He can clearly show that development is going in the wrong direction, can influence future planners and designers, supporting them. Good writers matter - but where the public will find their writing, that is the question! In their place, readers are getting "entertainment journalism" of an increasingly inferior quality.
Archi.ru: Should criticism be "critical"?
T. N.: Of course, she should be critical, but not petty or mean. Architectural journalism should be interesting, witty, although writing like that is not easy. It should also be understandable for a reader with "average" intelligence and education. I hate researchers, architectural historians, etc., who want to show their academic "wisdom" and therefore write in an almost incomprehensible language that should impress their colleagues. There are scientific publications for this, you should not confuse this with architectural criticism.
Archi.ru: To what extent can a critic allow himself to be subjective?
T. N.: I do not see anything wrong with subjectivity if it is stated directly. It's another matter that the personal opinion of only the author who knows a lot, saw a lot and visited a lot is interesting and important. But more often you meet with "opinion for the sake of opinion" or the desire to be funny, without any solid base. Sometimes we are talking about complete ignorance like: "I would like more skyscrapers to appear in Helsinki, because even Tallinn now has them." This means that the person has not been anywhere further than Tallinn, and also saw a photo of Manhattan, and that's all. I am not against skyscrapers, but against people who want to get them at any cost, because they already exist in some other city.
Archi.ru: If a critic prefers a particular architectural direction over others, can he manifest these preferences in his texts?
T. N.: If he's frank about it, that's okay. Then he can be called the "author-popularizer" of this or that style. But if he is the only regular critic in the publication, then the propaganda comes on behalf of the entire publication, and, in my opinion, it loses its credibility.
Archi.ru: Can an architecture critic be friends with the architects he writes about?
T. N.: As an architect, I cannot help but be friends with colleagues or be well acquainted with them. In addition, to find out how the building was born, what people had a hand in it, who gave the money, etc., you need to talk to a lot of people, not only with architects, but also with builders, customers, investors and “consumers »The project.
But in architectural criticism, only buildings and spaces should be judged, while forgetting about personal relationships. Of course, there are wonderful people who are also great architects, for example, Juha Leiviska, who, among other things, is also a wonderful pianist. Among young people, this is the Estonian bureau KOSMOS (now called KTA Architects). But if they make a bad project, I will tell them about it directly, and I will never write anything good about it. Architecture is the most important thing here.
Archi.ru: What is more important - the wishes of the readers or the responsibility of the critic? If the public is only interested in "stars", is it still necessary to write about urban problems or about socially significant projects of little-known young architects who do not look too enticing in the photo?
T. N.: The problem is not with spectacular renders or photos. The public often loves what they have been "taught" to love! For example, in Finland people were "taught" to mock even Alvar Aalto. When the tribune is occupied by ignorant but lively journalists, it is not surprising that readers have a poor idea of what architecture is and why it is important for everyone's life, it can make this life much better, add beauty to it.
Therefore, a person writing about architecture should be aware of their responsibility. It is uninteresting and frustrating to write about ugly, low-quality buildings, but it is also necessary. And even an outwardly attractive building must be viewed from all sides, visit it to check if the atmosphere is not oppressive there, etc. Not everything can be understood from the photographs. And wonderful buildings, for example, Renzo Piano, must be described in the context of their architectural, engineering solutions, and not only in terms of form
Archi.ru: How did you become an architecture critic? Does a critic need an architectural education?
T. N.: Everyone in my family wrote and writes - both fiction and journalism. I wrote my first book myself - a little novel - as a teenager. Therefore, I did not "become" an architectural critic. But I was the editor-in-chief of a student architecture magazine, writing to the aforementioned Arkkitehti since the early 1980s. I had my own successful workshop, but in the early 1990s Finland went through a deep financial crisis, and there was no work at all. I made a TV program about architecture and ecology, convincing the producer at the very top that I could do it, then I started working with other media, but my “professional identity” is 100% an architect, an architect who writes, among other things. Although in Finland the "architectural elite" does not consider people like me to be people.
Everyone can write about architecture, but special education is still needed, for example, an art historian diploma. Opinions are not enough. Also, a good critic should be passionate and persistent.
Archi.ru: How broad should a critic be educated? Should it deal with urban planning, landscape architecture, green building?
T. N.: He should touch on all these topics, although, of course, there are people with a narrower range of interests. Even to learn deeply only one architecture, you need to spend a lot of effort, you need perseverance and even courage. I remember I was climbing a skyscraper under construction in New York on a lift, and once I was inside a huge machine that mines coal from a depth of 1300 m - it was very interesting! But I want to give advice: if you do not know anything about this and you do not have the time or funds to find out everything, do not try to convince anyone that you are suitable for the role of the author!
Archi.ru: How much attention should a critic pay to various urban issues - transport, etc., as well as the political and economic "circumstances" of the project? Do I need to write about this at all?
T. N.: Yes, but it often turns into a journalistic investigation, and again the question of time and money arises. A “part-time” critic writing a short text for Arkkitehti does not have these funds.
Therefore, civil media should hire a staff member for such topics. But if earlier the media were "watchdogs", now they have turned into decorative dogs: they are too dependent on advertisers and therefore are afraid to take risks, covering some topics: what if they stop paying money? But some publications still publish bold and sharp criticism, including my texts of this kind.
Archi.ru: In the era of Web 2.0, anyone can become a critic by creating a blog. How much has this changed the "professional" architectural criticism?
T. N.: Yes, everyone can write about what they like and dislike on their blog, but serious criticism is more than witty comments (although I love to read them). The difference is in quality, although with the development of the blogosphere it has become easy to demand from a professional author to write for free, and this just kills the quality. Searching for answers on Google does not give us anything: a real journalist has to get to where others have not been, find what no one knows about yet …
As for blogs, I also run my own, but this is not always "architectural journalism". I also write there about the practice of management and decision-making in the Finnish Association of Architects (SAFA), sometimes I criticize them harshly, so once I was even threatened with a trial and summoned to the police on a complaint from there. Of course, it ended in nothing, but no one ever apologized to me. The readiness of the SAFA leadership to put pressure on an unwanted author by any means speaks volumes.
Archi.ru: Should a critic in a major newspaper, magazine, radio be primarily a citizen and write about the problems of his city? Can this be combined with the global nature of modern architecture, when even small bureaus make interesting projects abroad? And how can you evaluate these foreign buildings in terms of context and functionality: after all, you have a maximum of one or two days to compose your own opinion?
T. N.: We are all citizens, and we must always remember this, besides it is interesting to write about the everyday life around us. But it's also great to see wonderful structures in reality, wherever they are, because photographs are photographs, and buildings are buildings.
But press tours, when journalists are put on a bus, taken to their destination, given an excursion, fed with sandwiches and returned home, I hate and try to avoid this "journalistic tourism". It's the same with buildings abroad. I try to spend a few days there, to communicate with people, and not only with architects. I wrote about architecture in reports about different countries for the newspaper Kauppalehti, the "Finnish Financial Times": at the same time, I stayed in interesting hotels and cheap boarding houses, walked a lot, talked a lot with people, traveled on public transport, attended local conferences. The result was, judging by the reviews, excellent texts.
Archi.ru: Who are your readers? Who are you writing for?
T. N.: Even when I write for my colleagues in architecture magazines (for example, in the European A10), I try to use a language that anyone interested in architecture can understand. In the more popular art and design magazines, I sometimes end up with more humorous writing. But I always try to highlight the process of creating a building and the roles of everyone involved from customers to end users, not just architects. This is especially important to explain to the general public, so I would like to write more for newspapers.
The Finnish architect now lacks an open, free discussion: the existing "table of ranks" pressures, from which it is necessary to get rid of. Among the architects, there are workshop owners, bureaucrats, researchers, great educators, even politicians and terrific literary men - well worth listening to. And also among them are architectural critics and journalists who connect the essence and practice of architecture with society. It's high time - especially in a small country like Finland - to give credit to these professionals, no matter what or where they publish.
