Moses and Aaron or architectural criticism in other words

In its mission statement, the ^Biennale1 calls for an "interactive platform between authorities, architects and beneficiaries". Well, that's a wonderful dream, but it will remain so until there is at least a common language of communication between these partners in need, a kind of Global English of architecture. It is the first step for the current Deaf Dialogue to turn into a constructive negotiation, despite the different educational backgrounds and goals of the parties to the action.

The architect thus finds himself in the middle, alone between two powerful armies of laymen - one with political power, the other with the power of money - each with all sorts of interests, at least extraneous, if not contrary to the quality the architect desires. Moreover, the architect's primary duty is to serve the general interest of society - i.e. a third group of concerned laymen. The interests of the architect and the public should coincide, except that the massed, inertial, heterogeneous, and disoriented, innocent public is as alien to the values of the architect as the other two. My thesis is that we still have no chance at any interactive platform with officials and funders unless we make the public our ally. Unless we regain at least some of the sympathy and respect we once had. If we don't rehabilitate ourselves in his eyes. We can revive his old esteem for artists, but we can also take advantage of the public's weakness for the weak like him in the face of official power and the power of money.

Out of the need for a good relationship with the public, a democratic tool called criticism was once, but not very long ago, created, which architecture associated with itself in the struggle against ignorance and opposing interests. It was created as Moses, aware of his inability as a good communicator, created Aaron, his brother, as a spokesman to a mass of unhappy and bewildered Jews who were also bewildered. The move was extremely clever, and many heroic prophets would have saved their necks if they had had this strategic skill - from Grahi, through Savonarola and Thomas Műnzer, to Louis XVI and Nicholas II.

In 1754, Blondel also realized the problem and argued in a speech that the lectures at his Academy were designed in such a way that they could be followed by laymen. Because - Blondel explained - "if architects had constantly explained to the public what they were producing, there would be no need today for so much effort to excuse the lack of judgment of the people in the face of architecture".

But perhaps the key moment when architectural criticism was born was in 1747 when, at the Salon des Arts in Paris, a thinker of the arts called Etienne La Font de Saint-Yenne invited everyone, of whatever profession, to comment on the exhibits and "by his judgment to be able to change the course of events".

It is therefore certain that it was not until the 18th century that architecture was "enlightened" by the wisdom of Moses. Why was criticism not born earlier, along with theory, for example? Because it was not until the Enlightenment that the written press - the instrument of democracy that allowed the public to enter the game. So criticism was born linked to the public. Since then, journals have hosted free debates about the arts and architecture. And the ideas disseminated have attracted a wide range of interested commentators.

The architect is therefore caught in the middle, alone between two powerful armies of laymen - political power on the one hand and the power of money on the other - each with all kinds of interests that are at best alien, if not downright opposed, to the quality desired by the architect. In addition, the architect's primordial duty is to serve the general interest of society, i.e. a third group of involved laymen. The interests of the architect ought to coincide with those of the public, but the massy, inert, heterogeneous, disoriented and innocent public is just as alien to the architect's values as the other two. My theory is that we will have chance on any interactive platform with officials and sponsors unless we make the public an ally. Unless we win back at least a part of the public's erstwhile sympathy and respect. Unless we rehabilitate ourselves in the public's eyes. We can revive the public's former esteem for artists, but we can also profit from the public's sympathy towards those who are similarly helpless in the fact of official power and the power of money.

Not very long ago, out of a need for good relations with the public, a democratic tool known as criticism was created, which architecture has taken up in its struggle against ignorance and hostile interests. It was created in the same way as Moses, aware of his lack of skill as a good communicator, made Aaron, his brother, his spokesman before the disgruntled and disoriented mass of the Jewish people. It was an extremely shrewd move and many heroic prophets would have saved their own necks if they had had the same strategic ability, from the Gracchi to Savonarola, Thomas Münzer, Ludovic XVI and Nicholas II.

In 1754, Blondel became aware of the problem and argued in a speech that the elections at his Academy were conceived in such a way as to allow laymen to follow them. For, explained Blondel, "if architects had always explained to the public what they built, there would not be any need of so many efforts today to pardon people's lack of judgement in architectural matters".

But perhaps the key moment in the emergence of architectural criticism occurred in the year 1747, when at the Salon of Arts in Paris a thinker named Etienne La Font de Saint-Yenne invited people of all professions to comment on the exhibits and "by their judgement to be capable of changing the evolution of events".

What is certain is that it was not until the eighteenth century that architecture was "enlightened" by the wisdom of Moses. Why did criticism not emerge longer ago, at the same time as theory, for example? The reason is that it was not until the Enlightenment that newspapers appeared, a tool of democracy that allowed the public to enter the fray. The birth of criticism is therefore connected to the public. Ever since, newspapers have been home to free debate about art and architecture. And the ideas they have disseminated have attracted a wider field of interested commentators.