At hylde arkitekturen. Bygningspræmiering som kritisk praksis

Abstract

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.