Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:00:08.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Less than interesting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2002

Helen Mallinson
Helen Mallinson
Affiliation:
London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Does Giles Oliver (letters, arq 5/3) mean to connect the success of the Tate Modern in ‘sucking in huge crowds’ with the success of architectural education? Both in his view seem suspect achievements. The Tate is not proper architecture — it is too brutish and poorly lit — while current architectural education avoids all that is proper to architecture. His message is that both public and consumer opinion counteth for nought in these matters. But what else have professionals ever said? Particularly the generations brought up to believe that unpopularity was architecture's native condition. Frankly I am rather encouraged by the popularity of supposedly arcane subjects like modern art, modern architecture and architectural education. At least we seem to be getting one thing right. Not that I am advocating complacency. Keeping anything alive in our management sodden culture is tricky, particularly the kind of creative team spirit required to make projects work.

Type
letters: Koolhaas fails to impress Teaching and teachers
Information
arq: Architectural Research Quarterly , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , September 2001 , pp. 293 - 295
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Letters should be addressed to Peter Carolin, arq, c/o University of Cambridge Department of Architecture, 1 Scroope Terrace, Cambridge CB2 1PX, UK F +44 (0)1223 332960 or Email [email protected] The Editors reserve the right to shorten letters.