If there is anyone more annoying than an Architect, it is an Architecture Critic.  These are folks who write about something that, when done properly, cannot be written.  Yet there I was on Tuesday night, packed into the damp, cramped, and drafty Storefront for Art and Architecture, listening to a panel discussion about the state of contemporary architecture criticism.  The critics on the panel did not disappoint, using words like “modality,” “temporalities” and, with disarming frequency, “criticalities."  Panelists from England and Italy lent the proceedings a cosmopolitan flair.  And the woman moderating the panel wore a fluttering yellow Post-it note as an earring.  Was she waiting for an idea to arrive?

Each time a critic took the hand-mic to speak it flared up and buzzed like a light saber.  That only brought to mind how bloodless the discussion really was.  The critics commented lucidly about the decreasing authority of print media and the rising popularity of new media.  They expressed reverence for magazines like Domus, and for the days when architecture critics had travel budgets.  But they exhibited no real concern for architecture or for writing.  The conversation remained meta-critical and, ultimately, rather tame.