Landmark Overload?

This week’s readings had me thinking a lot about last week’s discussions regarding the opinions of architectural critics and how we should weigh them. My feelings on the topic were that the architect’s intent/opinion/sentiment should be weighed more heavily that anyone else’s. To continue that thought – I would actually say that my own personal reaction to the architecture is just as important (so too, I would argue, is everyone else’s opinions for herself). I think first and foremost it is truly between the architect (or artist) and the observer (me…or you) – an A + B relationship. By no means am I completely disregarding the importance of other’s thoughts and observations. I think these opinions are extremely important in our field and the catalyst for great conversation, debate and discovery.

This whole chain of thoughts brought me back to the idea of landmarks, our focus this week. Architectural landmarks most definitely come into existence based on the voiced opinion (or sometimes, vote) of others. Whether it is public officials, political entities or the general public, there needs to be some sort of consensus that a particular built environment is worthy of being dubbed a ‘landmark’. Lange had a great quote regarding the concept of landmarks and the activist critic:

“To be a good critic is to make the best possible argument for why the oddballs should be saved or built in the first place; to be a good citizen is to know them when you see them.” Lange, 89

I had to pause after reading this line and think about it a little more. It seems bold to say that the typical citizen needs to recognize a landmark on his/her own in order to be considered a ‘good’ one. If it truly is a landmark for all the reasons its supporters say it is, shouldn’t it be so obvious that the typical citizen can just be average and still recognize it as such? I guess what I am really asking is, shouldn’t a landmark only be considered a landmark if it is recognized and respected to the degree that even the most uneducated and uninterested citizen knows it is a special building? Otherwise, perhaps the word landmark is being thrown around a little loosely.

Furthermore, if we were to go by Alios Riegl’s five value system: historical value, artistic value, age value, use value and newness value, the span of potential ‘landmarks’ really expands. This rating system seems to open to the door to an incredible number of possible landmarks, which feels like it strips the specialness of the title. I could extend this thought to the concept of buildings, people, and places being dubbed ‘icons’. Could (or should) an icon or landmark ever be retired? Is there a magic ratio that needs to be maintained in order for these titles to be considered honored and special? When we lived in our beat up apartment in Brighton there were three named ‘Squares’ within four blocks of us. Celebrated intersections that consisted of nothing more than 4-way stops. I always wondered what kind of ceremony they had to raise the tiny demarcation signs, if any. Or was it simply an exchange of money for the title?