There's a degree of certainty and good taste in what the New York Review of Books' architectural critic Martin Filler (pictured right) does as a critic that doesn't entirely translate to the building culture of places outside of the five boroughs. However, what he has always been superb at is invective. I say this not to diminish - it's an, underrated and historically important virtue, too often overlooked in an art form which likes to pride itself on pragmatism and consensus. A book could be compiled solely from Filler diatribes - his surely accurate blasting of post-1989 Berlin as the missed opportunity of all missed opportunities, his dissection of the failings of celeb architects like Santiago Calatrava and Daniel Libeskind. Now that he's finally been slapped with a lawsuit from Zaha Hadid, we should insist on the necessity of such viciousness before it is legally silenced.
展开▼
