Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane
We've been over this so many times. Inga is a critic. It's her job to find fault and offer criticism.
But just as well, 1487 has a right to his/her opinion, just as everyone here does (without being verbally abused or silenced), so long as the expressed opinions are focused Inga's specific arguments of the specific project she is critiquing. Posts that are focused on her and/or her overall body of work are off-topic.
GOOD: I disagree with Inga's opinion about the glass curtain, I think it's very classy the way it is.
BAD: Inga of course hates this project just as hates every project that's not in NYC.
Can we please set some guidelines so we don't have to go through this every time she write's an article? Please.
|
The problem is ... I can't. Attacking the messenger instead of the message is clearly an
ad hominem fallacy, but you can't tell people not to say things because you don't agree with what they're saying, or what they're saying is wrong, or is illogical. The only time when a mod can ban a poster from talking about a particular topic is when that poster's contributions have become persistently and actively detrimental to discussion
of that topic, and even then, you do that after all other options dealing with the issue have been exhausted.
I will admit, a certain poster is kiting ever closer to that line. But they haven't crossed it ... yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1487
exactly. In all my posts I have never agreed with anyone who has ever posted here on any subject, EVER. You are 100% correct. If you don't bow at the altar of Inga Saffron you are obviously disqualified from knowing anything about anything. The notion that someone who has no real world experience in a very complex business is far more knowledgeable that those who practice a particular trade simply because they have written a lot of articles makes no sense. I understand that everything she writes is to drive home a very narrow agenda that she has and that's fine- but that shouldn't be mistaken with being a subject matter expert. Many of the things she writes betrays her ignorance when it comes to architecture and engineering. Put simply, being an architect is much more difficult than criticizing architecture. It's no different that working for a car magazine- those who are paid to criticize cars likely wouldn't last a couple weeks working as an automotive engineer or designer. I do see that most here seem to agree with Inga that decisions made about design and construction are made on a whim by simple minded people that aren't capable of complex problem solving, but that's not reality. Which is why she typically doesn't actually talk to anyone involved in the projects she criticizes. That's no coincidence. Much easier to make presumptions without any background information and then infer the developers and architects you are criticizing are lazy, greedy and incompetent. She does the same thing when talking about politicians, zoning and planning officials and even community members who don't align with her POV. Everyone is wrong or is lacking vision about Philadelphia- except her.
|
As somebody who has had experience doing the job she does, let me inform you:
You. Are. Dead. Wrong.
Trying to translate intensely technical knowledge into an article for mass-market consumption is hard. Enormously hard. Tremendously hard. I am one of maybe a dozen people in the city who can do it, and let me tell you what it requires:
Besides the usual requirements of running a beat (being able to write quickly for deadline ... speaking of ... procrastinating while writing this post, having a mature writing style, finding and following stories, developing relevant contacts, etc.), the job
requires them to have tremendous theoretical knowledge of the field they're criticizing. This is for several reasons:
-Obviously, you can't be a good critic if you don't know what you're talking about
-Good critics are able to
distill complex issues into simpler and more generalized ideas
-Good critics
explain complex information needed to understand an issue in easier-to-understand metaphors and associations
-A good critic also has to develop their contacts in the field, and those contacts respect pressmen who are able to make valuable contributions in the discussion phase. If my experience is anything to go by, I'd assay that 95% of Inga's major contributions have been behind-the-scenes
-Need to ask topical questions. Bad critics can only throw softballs
...you get the idea.
Love her or hate her -- and I'm certainly more-often-than-not skeptical of what she considers "good architecture"* -- you have to admit that Inga is a
good critic. She has been an architecture critic for fifteen years or more now, and if you follow the rule that somebody has to do X for ten years or 10,000 hours to truly master it, then she has truly mastered it. Whatever else she may be, she is
not incompetent.
In other words, debating whether or not she is right in any given column is fine, but attacking
her is off-limits. Do that again and expect to see your posts get removed, at the very least.
__________
*
Also, I would love to have her job.
Prev
)
Linear Mode
