As a first step, even if I know the career of the laureate, I always take a look at the statement of the jury to understand the reasons of the decision when choosing the annual award. This year, once more, I end up reading with extreme attention the statement to better understand the values of the new "Nobel Prize in Architecture". It is true, that when talking about a Nobel, you always think of someone who has made significant contributions in their area of expertise, and you can also think that it will always be someone with a sufficiently long career path, so when these conditions are not met, because the prize-winner is much younger or with a less explicit path, the reading of the previously mentioned statement of the jury is done with greater intensity.
I have read several times the announcement unable to draw from it any conclusions, given the ambiguity, lack of clarity in the arguments and the generalization of their claims, which could be assumed by any good architect of the thousands available in this planet. As the Prize is not just anything, it is, after all, the "Nobel Prize in Architecture", I kept on insisting and I moved over to the graphic material that goes along with the statement.
Gazing at the extensive image feature provided always by the award, as a press kit, I saw that yes, it is indeed a good architect, many of his works have been realized for the Catholic University of Chile, with an eclectic repertoire of works (some project has even remembered me, obviously, to the Townhall of Murcia by Rafael Moneo), much of it presented with photographs in which the construction works are near completion. Digging a bit more I found a path full of declarations and some actions in which there is a recognition of the problem with social housing; and last but not least, he is an architect who until last year was a member of the jury for the Prize that he has been now awarded.
I won't go deeper into the fact that there are numerous architects with equal or better credentials than the latest prize-winner, it is obvious that this is the judgement of the jury, but i will do so into what a prize such as this one means.
That is, if these is the criterion, I fail to understand what is the reason why this architect is more extraordinary than a mass of good architects. I find myself seriously challenged to explain my colleagues, friends, readers and students, what is the uniqueness, which is the role model we should look on this occasion. I do not know, over many other architects, what is the excellent career that makes him deserve such a "distinguished recognition." It is not explained in his work, nor explained by the Pritzker jury, despite the noise his clappers make.
- In any case, one of the less edifying issues in this award was the fact that the winner was member of the jury, as we colloquially say, "until the day before yesterday." There is no rule to prevent it but, for obvious reasons, political charges in Europe after leaving their position can not participate for several years in those matters in which they have participated during their term of office. Something like this should be taken as an example of honesty for such a "distinguished award."
- Also unedifying is the rush of the award. Many of the award-winning's works are not even finished. If they are not finished, how can they be valued? Who has had this premonition capacity? And what is worse, have they valued a fashion? Because there is no critical perspective visible.
- Everything was very strange since his designation as the curator of the next Venice Biennale of Architecture. The public declaration of the prize has been brought forward several months, usually used to be announced in spring. Last year, the award presentation came earlier as Frei Otto sadly passed away, after a long career. The prize dalliances with other architects made the award came late to recognize this famous German architect. It seemed that this year they did not want the same thing to happen and I received the announcement of the proclamation long before Christmas. I thought that the early announcement of this year, on January 13th, would mean that the winner was a senior architect and the organization did not want last year's situation to happen again. Now I do not know whether to think that the Venice Biennale starts in May and they did not want to steal the limelight from them.
Different comments in social networks transmit the feeling that the Pritzker can be a set up, a joke or only a farce, faced with such a sloppy way of working from the Pritzker prize (not to mention the leaks, lack of rigor in their own announcements of dates and times, etc.). There are already other proposals emerging to try to fill the position of the "Nobel Prize in Architecture", as the Moriyama RAIC International Prize.
On Wednesday, the networks were burning with indignation at the award announcement with more virulence than in other times, and perhaps in this occasion with more reasons than ever. Therefore, the lost of direction of the Pritzker award makes more evident than ever the question: Where are you going, Pritzker?
