Foreningen Periskop - Forum for kunsthistorisk debat
Abstract
Architectural critique is often considered to be in a long-term crisis. Suggested causes
are theoretical changes to the role of the critic, as well as reviews being expelled from a
changing media landscape. However, critique acts to separate architecture from mere
building. The critical assessment is an instrument for qualitative valuation of the built,
and through the critiques an architectural canon is established within architectural discourse.
The question then is: What instruments take over this role of critique? In recent
years, the attention towards awards within architecture has been extensive in social
media. Public institutions and foundations institute awards to promote specific aspects of
the built, while manufacturers and interest groups establish awards with the aim of propagating
specific building materials or products. But what are the conditions surrounding
these ovations and what authority should they be ascribed? This article addresses these
questions by comparing three types of critical practice surrounding the Mærsk Tower, a
major research and teaching facility in Copenhagen completed in 2017. The building has
received a significant number of awards and has been the subject of traditional reviews
and a competition process. By comparing these three types of critical practice and discussing
them in relation to theoretical notions on the role and potential of critique, we
point to potentials and weaknesses in the award system. We conclude that awards do possess
critical potentials, but that the award-granting processes need development in order
to significantly contribute to a landscape of critical discursive practices
