Article

The Last Taboo: The Issue of Progress

A Discussion on the Criteria of Judging

Kamran Afshar Naderi · Memar 15 · Winter 1380 / January 2002

Introduction

In judging the recent competition for the Grand Memar Award, the opportunity arose to reflect more deeply on the criteria for evaluating works that differ from one another in every respect. After eliminating works that were weak in terms of professional skills or that lacked any distinct differentiation, a group of works remained that required value-based assessment according to fundamental and overarching criteria — different from competitions in which I had some prior experience. In a typical architectural competition, the goal of the contest is defined in the form of a project brief, and the superiority of entries is assessed based on the degree of their success in achieving that goal. Fortunately, the architect of today is not merely answerable to a set of predetermined needs; rather, the architect intervenes in transforming those needs and in formulating and solving new problems related to the concept and methodology of architectural practice. Although most jurors pay greater attention to the latter category of issues, they can also weigh the variables of judgment against certain factors specific to the project. After all, even in a competition, evaluating works that are completely different from one another in terms of approach is an extremely difficult task.

In judging the Grand Memar Award, works were compared that differed not only in approach but also in purpose, scale, economic resources of the project, and even the site — and perhaps for this very reason, the conventional criteria of judging in established competitions within our professional community were once again reassessed and tested in a new light. In the notes below, I address several points in this regard:

◆ ◆ ◆

Dernières Vidéos

Catégories

Types de bâtiment

Populaire

Restez informé

Suivez-nous