Marzia Marandola (b. 1975 in Rome) is an architecture critic, a regular contributor to the magazines Casabella, Arketipo, EDA. Esempi di Architettura, from 2008–2012 wrote an architecture column for the Liberal newspaper. Author of books and articles on the history and problems of architecture and engineering of the 20th century.
An engineer by training, teaches the history of architecture at the University of La Sapienza in Rome. She lectured at leading Italian (Polytechnic in Milan, IUAV in Venice) and foreign (Harvard University School of Design, Federal Polytechnic University of Lausanne) universities.
Archi.ru: What are the main problems of architectural criticism today?
Marcia Marandola: Italy has a strong tradition of architectural criticism with its great figures, whose legacy is difficult to look at in a new way today. It is very difficult to break away from the line started by Bruno Dzevi, Manfredo Tafuri, they still strongly influence Italian criticism today. Another problem is the world's "arch-stars", whose authority negates the critic's autonomy.
Archi.ru: That is, criticism no longer criticizes?
M. M.: Yes, it is difficult for criticism to find its own way. It is outstripped by the releases of the press departments of the "star" bureaus, which also have a monopoly on images: you cannot publish material if they have not approved your candidacy, so you cannot avoid their verification. In addition, monographs about major architects are often written by people from their environment - not critics, but employees of their workshops. Thus, criticism loses the ability to distinguish between good and bad. In major architecture magazines, criticism is now given less and less space, and architecture criticism has almost disappeared from Italian newspapers altogether, although they used to present architecture as a topic for public discussion, and not only as a subject of interest to a narrow circle of experts.
Archi.ru: You write for both professional magazines and the general public. What is the difference between these "genres" for you?
M. M.: The reason for dialogue with the general public is most often such egregious cases as construction on Via Giulia in Rome [new construction on a Renaissance street has been started, but there is almost no information about the project - AV]. When the project is already being implemented, it turns out that they have overstepped some regulations, violated a certain law. And only then the controversy comes to the pages of newspapers, although during the competition and the development of the project they were not interested in this topic (however, the discussion of violations of the regulations is not real criticism). Daily newspapers today show no interest in architecture at all and only in the event of a scandal ask critics to speak out. For example, this was the case with the Museum of the "Altar of Peace", a project of Richard Mayer.
Some professional magazines want criticism, but there are very few of them: Casabella, Domus are still discussing the idea and form, and they are controversial. And magazines for architects, engineers, publications of trade unions, which are only interested in the publication of the project, prevail. They are interested in information about how the building was "made", a sterilized story about its design history, devoid of critical assessment. Criticism is losing interest, and magazines are giving it less space. In Italy, a huge number of architectural magazines have always been published, but many of them today are struggling to gain the required number of subscribers, and large firms that previously sponsored these publications stopped doing this because of the crisis.
Archi.ru: Does the lack of demand for criticism have only economic reasons, or are there cultural ones as well?
M. M.: There are, of course, cultural reasons as well. For example, in provincial cities, the Faculty of Architecture is still a cultural center that draws the attention of residents to architecture. And in big cities, especially in Rome, politics consumes all resources and all attention, the university loses its importance. Even magazine reviews of books about architecture are aimed at promoting the book rather than evaluating it. The conditions for the survival of architectural criticism have also been toughened by the Internet, which is ahead of any print publication. Even such important magazines as Casabella, which always sought to be the first to publish objects and give their original judgment about them, are losing this role today. The Internet consumes the time it takes to publish in print.
Archi.ru: Is it the difference between paper and online publishing for you?
M. M.: When I work for a magazine, I always need more time - to work on the style of the text, which needs to be perfected. An article for an online publication is like a job for a newspaper, where you write without so much attention to the language. One of the reasons for this difference is that it seems that it is the magazine article that will represent you as the author. But in reality, this is not entirely true: an Internet publication is much easier to find, and my newspaper and online notes, which I did not attach any importance to, were read by many more people than those texts on which I worked for several months.
Archi.ru: And what is more interesting to you?
M. M.: These are two different things. When you work for a daily newspaper, the most difficult thing is to reincarnate as a person who knows nothing about architecture, about its great masters, eras, does not know how a building is built and what legislation exists. Therefore, you need to express yourself as clearly as possible, but not be superficial. This is the difficulty of popularization. I had to deal with this when we worked with Claudia Conforti on a book about Richard Mayer, a popular publication that was sold alongside the weekly Espresso. A short text was required - 40 pages, but the work on it took a very long time, since it was necessary to speak succinctly and briefly and not forget that this book will be sold in a circulation of 20,000, while serious monographs, which take three years of reflection, searching archives, travel and large material costs are considered very successful if 2000 pieces are sold. These are two different types of activity, which, in my opinion, the critic should alternate, otherwise there is a risk of becoming isolated in one area and losing contact either with architectural practice or with the scientific component of the profession.
Archi.ru: Do you think that your subjective assessment affects public opinion? And where are the boundaries of your subjectivity?
M. M.: It is always difficult to define boundaries. It is important, as I always tell my students, to start not with the building being “beautiful” or “ugly,” not with a matter of personal taste. Thus, in recent years, the main subject of debate in Rome has been
MAXXI Museum of Zaha Hadid: all critics were divided into its opponents and defenders. And they should have known better the process of implementing this project, because some of the points they condemned depended not on the architect, but on the customer.
Ideally, the critic should not express a personal opinion, but teach the reader to see and understand architecture, because the object may not like it because it is bad, but because it is very different from what we are used to - Joe Ponti spoke about this. Architecture should be considered in all its aspects - formal, technical, economic … Of course, there are architects and buildings that I like more, but I always try to balance my judgment.
Archi.ru: Have you had to evaluate positively what you didn't like?
M. M.: Rather, I had to reconsider my position. For example, it's hard for me to love the works of Rem Koolhaas, they are very far from my vision of architecture. Perhaps I look at everything through the prism of teaching: there are architects, like Renzo Piano, whose work is easy to show how a project grows from components that appear in every detail. Explaining to a student Koolhaas's work, which has a more intricate idea, is much more difficult. In his office in Rotterdam, we were told about his method: an architect gives the same theme to several young employees, a week later they present him models, from which Koolhaas selects the moments of interest and rework them. Of course, in many ways this is a fairy tale, but it is still noticeable that its architecture is made of separate components assembled together. I am not close to his work, perhaps because his vision is not similar to what we are used to in Italy, where architecture is very close to craft, to tradition. Even young architects work this way, perhaps because there is no impulse to experiment. Among other things, Koolhaas facilities are designed to serve 10-15 years, while in Italy they are accustomed to the fact that each building is built for centuries.
Archi.ru: Should the critic preserve his national character?
M. M.: A critic, first of all, must be erudite, keep abreast of international events and trends, and also see objects in reality. However, we often judge what we ourselves have not seen. But each critic is nevertheless shaped by his own national worldview and always compares what is happening in the world with what is being built in his country. In Italy, especially in Rome, events in the field of modern architecture are rare (therefore, more often you have to write about foreign countries), but the problem of conservation is very important. But in neighboring France and Spain, entire complexes are easily demolished.
Archi.ru: You are an engineer: in your opinion, should a critic be a practitioner by education?
MM: Of course, education affects the way of seeing. However, many art historians are excellent critics, while there are architects and engineers who cannot be called such. It is important to combine different parameters, avoiding one-sided judgments based only on the morphology of the project, or on its design, or on its appearance. I don't think that just a "constructive" story would be interesting. But this is where critics often fall into a trap, which gives architects a reason to laugh at them. Eduardo Soutou de Moura talked about his stadium in Braga: a circle shape was used there, "cut" in the reinforced concrete supporting structures of the stands. Critics saw this as a reference to Luis Kahn. In fact, the design engineer demanded to lighten the weight of the structure, and of all possible shapes, the circle turned out to be the best option.
Archi.ru: Do you need a special course in criticism in architecture and engineering departments?
M. M.: Criticism must be taught so that there is no attachment to any one architect, but the ability to see different sides of architecture develops. Also, an architect must understand his responsibility to society, the ethical side of his profession. As Claudia Conforti once suggested, he should take a kind of Hippocratic oath: after all, if you build a bad building, then you force people to live with him all their lives. However, universities are more likely to teach history of criticism, that is, they teach to follow the great masters, rather than create a new, individual, judgment.
Archi.ru: Returning to the role of the Internet: what is the role of professional judgment now, when everyone can act as a critic on the Internet, and such criticism also shapes public opinion?
M. M.: Most of all - just such a criticism: after all, it is simpler, more emotional. I didn't want to talk about Rome again, but it is the most striking example of a city where any architectural intervention becomes a "tragedy" and it is very easy to say "No, we don't want that." And those who arm themselves with such a slogan are more likely to find associates than those who seriously undertake to explain the project, its history, the course of the competition, will mention that reputable professionals have voted in favor. On the other hand, the city authorities want the population to have no vote at all.
As for publications on the Internet, it is much easier and faster to put a lot of photos on the site than to layout and print a magazine that will be of higher quality, but limited in circulation. This forced many magazines to modernize their sites and partially publish materials on the network, sell their electronic version there.
Archi.ru: How diverse are points of view in Italian architectural criticism?
M. M.: In the current difficult economic situation, many publications publish commissioned materials. Obviously, such material cannot be critical. However, we ourselves are not used to arguing, expressing different opinions. There used to be many television programs discussing architecture. Now this interest has been lost, attention has shifted to individuals. The public knows Santiago Calatrava, Renzo Piano, Massimiliano Fuksas, but it never occurs to anyone to ask what they have built. Fuksas, for example, often appears on television, even participates in political programs, everyone knows that he is an architect, but no one knows his works (although he has a lot of them). The architect, as it were, separates from his buildings and turns into a public figure. So, recently, Renzo Piano was proposed as a candidate for the presidency of the Italian Republic.
Parody of Massimiliano Fuksas on Italian TV "Fuffas and buildings with soul"
Archi.ru: Do you often touch on politics when you write?
M. M.: It is clear that no matter how hard we try to separate architecture from politics, they are strongly connected. First of all, of course, through the personality of the project customer. But also the architect makes his political choice, dividing the space: when a site is withdrawn from public use, this is already politics. When they decide to build a building, and not to lay out a new park, when they decide whether the building will be public or not, it is the same.
Also architecture is often used as a political tool. The most comical example is Mayer's Altar of Peace Museum, which was built by the "left" mayor of Rome Walter Veltroni, and his successor, the "right" mayor Gianni Alemanno suggested demolishing and then taking them to the outskirts, as if the outskirts of the city were a dump. Or the Tor Bella Monaca redevelopment project, which involved the demolition of a 1970s residential area, was Alemanno's ostentatious project to renovate the outskirts of Rome. Separating politics and architecture is nearly impossible.
Archi.ru: What was the most interesting object for you to criticize?
M. M.: It was the object that fascinated me the most -
Brother Klaus chapel, built by Peter Zumthor near Cologne, I wrote about it for the newspaper. The order itself was unusual: a farmer who decided to build a chapel in the middle of the field as a kind of expression of gratitude to God for his prosperity. This work is only about 20 m2 in area, but very difficult; its implementation was similar to the ritual. After the completion of the reinforced concrete volume, the wooden formwork was not dismantled, but set on fire, and the burnt wood left traces on the inner surface of the walls. While the formwork was burning, local residents watched this "hut", from which smoke poured for several days, and they, as it were, took part in the implementation of the project. The details of the chapel are meticulously executed: crystal glass, lead floor. I was very impressed by this implementation, which makes architecture akin to a work of art. For Zumthor, this connection is generally important. When we met in Rome, he did not want to see architecture at all, he was more interested in the phenomena of contemporary art, for example, performance. And in the text about the chapel, it was very interesting for me to go beyond the story of construction and look at an architectural object as an art object.
