The Ouroussovian dodge
In the end, it is the public’s responsibility to do the hard work of parsing the difference between superficial creations designed to cover up a hidden, cynical agenda, and sincere efforts to create a more enlightened vision of a civilization that is evolving at a brutal pace.
Maybe so, Nic: maybe so. But if that’s the case, then surely it’s the critic’s responsibility to present things to architecture’s various publics in a way they can get their respective heads around? To explain the issues in play, many of which will be far from self-explanatory to people who don’t spend their days immersed in the domain? To demonstrate how a particular proposal responds or does not respond to one or another conception of the public good, or advances one agenda over another?
Not to mince words: it’s your job. You’ve been invested with a certain amount of power to frame these issues, lent to you by an institution with considerable reach and influence. I can hardly think of a pulpit bullier. Now use it.