At hylde arkitekturen. Bygningspræmiering som kritisk praksis

Resumé

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.