RENEW | The 5th International Conference on the Histories of Media Art, Science and Technology An exhibition of contemporary photography by 12 leading women photographers from Iran and the Arab world | Museum of Fine Arts, Bostonhttp://blog.freundevonfreunden.com/post/60161624413/she-who-tells-a-story-female-photographers-fromhttp://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/she-who-tells-story [por] Vanessa QuirkAs you may have heard,The New Yorkers Architect Critic, Paul Goldberger, is leaving for Vanity Fair.If this registers no reaction from you, let me explain why it should. Paul Goldberger is the crowned prince of criticism. He began his career at The New York Times in 1972, where he worked under Ada Louise Huxtable, our reigning critical queen, and where he won a Pulitzer Prize. In 1997, he switched media empires:I thought it was as perfect a life as you could have, Goldberger told The Observer, to spend half your career at The Times, half at The New Yorker.But, after years of fighting for adequate space in an increasingly shrinking column, Goldberger wont be finishing his writing days as Architect Critic of The New Yorker, but as Contributing Editor of Vanity Fair.Many will conclude that this is a death knell for architecture; that if architecture cannot justify its own column at The New Yorker, one of the most influential publications in the world, then it must no longer be deemed relevant. This is what happened when Michael Kimmelman, an Arts reporter with no architectural training was appointed to cover architecture at The Times. Critics tweeted: NYT to Architecture of NYC: Drop Dead and Architecture: youve been demoted.I too will add a cry to the din: The Architecture Critic is Dead! But you know what? Good riddance. Because criticism hasnt died the way you think. Its just been changed beyond recognition. And frankly, for the better.Read more on the transformation of architecture & its criticism after the break...ver mais no link Arch Daily(...)readers, who, in addition to just star architect fatigue, have tired of the excesses of the last dozen or so years and are less interested in architecture if it isnt doing something to improve lives or radically transform the landscape or infrastructure of the city; if it doesnt have a social mission.So what does this mean for the critic? It means that he or she must transform too. It means moving beyond the description of the building as object and delving into its context; it means talking to the people who live down the block; discovering how the average man perceives it; determining the extent to which it serves humanity.It means the critic must be a reporter. And an activist one at that.The Times, They Are A-ChangingWhen Michael Kimmelman took over in September 2011 as Architect Critic at The Times, the response was ... pessimistic.While his predecessor, Nicolai Ouroussoff, had experienced much backlash for his apolitical, apersonal approach and slippery writing style (object architecture at its best, according to Lange), there wasnt much hope that Kimmelman would be a better alternative. In Langes words:[Kimmelmans] profiles of architects have been very good, but they arent criticism. But his hiring is insulting for the sense one has that The Times doesnt think it is