Outside the ticketed confines of a multitudinous and manic Biennale, two conversations drew together a distinguished panel of architects and institutions to discuss the value and significance of architectural awards today. Amid the many accolades available, what are the values and criteria that really matter when it comes to prizes for projects, practitioners and proposals? The consensus suggests a shift away from heroic objects, towards more potent forms of practice and purpose.
The nineteenth international exhibition of architecture at the Venice Biennale features over 750 projects in the main exhibition alone; an extravagant, exhausting overdose of ideas from the technical to the material, which leaves visitors to discern between impact, innovation and value at their own behest. Notwithstanding several dazzling moments, this year’s exhibition in its techno-utopianism and intellectual obscurity will leave many grasping for meaning and purpose amid the proliferation.
Beyond the bustle of the Biennale itself, and taking advantage of this periodic gathering of intelligentsia, a stellar off-site panel — hosted within the unfinished Baroque cloisters of Ocean Space, formerly the Church of San Lorenzo — addressed what it is that we value when we elevate, display and celebrate architecture. Beyond the Prize: How Architecture Awards Can Catalyse Meaningful Change tackled just this topic. In an evident spirit of horizontality, this double-barrelled panel discussion gathered representative directors, jury members and awardees from several of architecture’s most relevant prize awarding bodies — among them, the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Development, the Aga Khan Award for Architecture, the OBEL Foundation, the newly minted Ammodo Award, the EU Mies Award and the related Mies Crown Hall Americas Prize — to discuss the nature and purpose of awards in architecture today, and what recognition through prizes really means.
In the setting of Ocean Space, this open-to-all breakfast discussion elevated itself in several ways, not least through its distinguished panel and audience, nestled within the dreamy exhibits by Nadia Huggins and Tessa Mar that currently adorn the venue. Chaired by the writer, curator and cultural critic James Taylor-Foster, the conversation revolved around what seems to be a concerted effort to shift awards away from the heroic buildings or authors. It’s no secret that the commercial awards system generates its own economy, with pay-to-attend ceremonies that double as networking events. Yet it would be unfair to tar all such attempts with the same brush; as articulated by previous Biennale curator Lesley Lokko, to be evaluated and celebrated by a jury of one’s peers can be a profound learning experience, and the cyclical nature of awards can help us to chart the constant evolution of a discipline, its pioneering force, its avant-garde. The opinions converging at this event suggest a turn towards more holistic considerations for architectural awards — not focussed on ostentatious form or spectacle for its own sake, but rather towards an earthier, more ethical set of ideals.
To be evaluated and celebrated by a jury of one’s peers can be a profound learning experience, and the cyclical nature of awards can help us to chart the constant evolution of a discipline, its pioneering force, its avant-garde.
What emerged — across all the representatives of awarding organizations — is a sketch of consensus in contemporary values deemed worth rewarding. Although each institutional body has its own scope of action, there’s a definite and discernable shift away from the fetishised object of a building; away, too, from the figure of the designer as the lone author of a given project or scheme. Rather — with nuance specific to each award — there is a move towards an acknowledgement of a broader responsibility in architectural production.
The contemporary landscape of architecture prizes is increasingly defined by the tangible value they claim to deliver, rather than by the cachet of a laureate’s name. The OBEL Award, funded by the endowment left by Henrik Frode Obel (1942–2014) and housed within the OBEL Foundation, embodies that independence — indeed, the gathering of the many minds here is taking place thanks to OBEL itself. AsExecutive Director Jesper Eis Eriksen observed, its jury privileges projects whose present excellence forecasts credible future impact; this means that OBEL awards can be given to speculative initiatives, bodies of work, methodologies and patents, as well as to singular outcomes. Likewise, the EU Mies Award — represented by Ivan Blasi — frames its evolving methodology around society’s shifting realities and the decisive, collective intelligence of its juries, insisting that awards serve first as instruments of public understanding.
From the perspective of practice, award-winning architects Anupama Kundoo and Marina Tabassum — both of whom serve regularly on awarding juries and steering committees — remind us that global recognition seldom reaches the daily users of their regionally embedded work; yet, within the international conversation, peer acknowledgement remains a potent affirmation. Their remarks, echoing voices from the global south, inject necessary nuance into how cultural distance influences the meaning of prize culture. From the audience, former Biennale curator Lesley Lokko reflected that receiving comments from respected peers can provide a real opportunity for growth and reflection, whether one is a recipient or jury member. Kjetil Thorsen of Snøhetta notes the waning hegemony of the object-as-fetish: where once an award arrived as the retrospective cherry atop a completed cake, the more progressive model now acts prospectively — as beacon, not bauble — pointing the discipline toward responses proportionate to global urgencies. In concert, Kundoo, Thorsen and Xu Tiantian of DnA Design and Architecture characterise prizes as cultural platforms able to elevate social agendas and to catalyse coalitions among architects, clients and communities.
Taken together, these positions sketch a discernible consensus: architecture awards matter most when they transcend hero worship, foreground collective responsibility and translate accolade into actionable, real-world benefit. The apparent consensus around awards seemed to point towards a growing sense of responsibility, interpreted variously by each awarding body: in the case of Holcim, for example, innovation, implementation and above all, sustainability is perhaps an obvious focus, for a foundation backed by a manufacturer of building materials, which historically contribute to the carbon costs incurred in construction. The relatively new Ammodo award for architecture focuses on projects that welcomes entries for one of its categories from non-professionals, thus broadening the scope of who and what is included in architectural discourse. The Mies prizes, both in Europe and its American iteration, maintains a focus, in platforming emergent practitioners rather than heroic gestures; the Aga Khan Award for Architecture perhaps boasts the longest and most sustained track record of integrity and purpose, as the social and political contributions of awarded projects to the broader community have always been considered. As articulated by Farrokh Derakhshani, who has served as Director of Architecture for the Aga Khan Awards for over four decades, the values and the principles directing prestige prizes ought to be both baked in and transparent, in order to communicate exactly what we value about architectural action in the world.
Taken together, these positions sketch a discernible consensus: architecture awards matter most when they transcend hero worship, foreground collective responsibility and translate accolade into actionable, real-world benefit.
If one point of consensus is the acknowledgement of the transformative and meaningful capacity of architectural design, another note of harmony was struck in recognising the potential of awards as generators of critical discourse — which could be made more transparent. Many of the illustrious architectural figures at Beyond the Award remarked upon the unique focus and value of critical discussion which precedes the awarding of prizes to a particular project or practice. These discussions are, more often than not, closed-door affairs, yet held with a sincerity and care which is rarely shared with the public; those outside the room are often left wondering as to the criteria which vaunts one proposal, project or place over another.
There is an opportunity to share such discussions more broadly, conveying criteria and crucial conversation on how decisions are made. This could, according to panelists and participating architects, support the capacity for critical discourse for a broader public, beyond the confines of appointed juries. Architectural judgement is often perceived as somewhat inscrutable or opaque to a those far from the discipline; the possibility of sharing the criteria through which architecture is deemed to be responsible, valuable and impactful could serve as a stimulating conduit to amplify conversation about the built environment and who's included in it. Transparency in such conversations can only lead to greater critical appreciation for the difficult act of contributing to a fragile planetary ecosystem, in the way that designers dream and dare to do. Ultimately, it is this courage, the sincerity of an attempt and the generosity of thinking which is rewarded in this new era of prizes.
The possibility of sharing the criteria through which architecture is deemed to be responsible, valuable and impactful could serve as a stimulating conduit to amplify conversation about the built environment and who's included in it.
Finally, a discussion addressing the contemporary award system must deal with the actuality of the reward itself. Often, architectural awards materialise in the form of a cash prize given to a project or to a practice; as such, one might surmise that this capital investment would support either the project or the recipient in their future endeavors. How about extending the moment beyond the granting of the award, to follow up on how things have progressed post-prize? What happens after the podium, and how do the projects that we elevate fare beyond their moment in the sun? In a way, this concern extends the question of responsibility: how far does the glory of an award really extend, and how can we support communities in gaining from the promise of a given scheme or design?
One could, more straightforwardly, propose to view awards as one of several modes for capital redistribution. Looking at how awards are funded could help to clarify the ethical position of specific initiatives, thereby sharpening the perspective and criteria for recognition. In the proverbial act of one hand washing the other, if such private funds exist to be disbursed — even or especially if they tacitly offset, correct and invoke change in sectors that are damaging planetary infrastructures (and we know that construction is high on the list) — there is an indelible logic in directing them to reward ethical, sustainable and inspirational initiatives, actors, agents and achievements in the field of architectural culture. If architectural awards can act as a mode of redistribution — not only of funds but also of attention, celebration and respect — then this consortium of proactive awarding bodies bodes well for an emergent canon of a responsible, ethical and socially generous architecture.
Architectural writer and curator Lev Bratishenko, currently working on a book about architectural prizes, comments: “It's true that there are more awards than ever — we found more than four hundred examples during 'How to: Reward and Punish' — but there is real abundance hidden in there. These include striking as well as vacuous conceptions of what architecture can be — and how it can be improved. Looking at awards is like tracing architecture's power grid, you can learn many things, particularly about how award-winners and award-givers want to be perceived.”
This point is expounded in Reinier de Graaf’s essay Everyone’s a Winner, where the strictures and cyclical nature of award-chasing is also critiqued.1 While awards proliferate in various sectors — highlighting certain materials or commercial products, for instance — it is heartening to see the growing acknowledgement across this range of awarding bodies at least, the broader planetary and societal responsibilities, as well as recognition for the clients, communities and collaborators which support and benefit from the buildings, schemes and spaces in question.
If the representatives gathered here have it right, then future cohorts of architectural awardees will represent exemplary attempts, generous schemes, and inclusive programmes, inspiring future architects to maintain responsibility toward broader planetary conditions and concerns — rather than spectacular yet singular feats of design. This is not to say that beauty and esthetics are invalid, but rather that the remit of architecture can expand to acknowledge a greater political and societal value, consolidating the architect's role while allowing for a broader appreciation of architecture outside of the profession.
Bio
Shumi Bose is chief editor at KoozArch. She is an educator, curator and editor in the field of architecture and architectural history. Shumi is a Senior Lecturer in architectural history at Central Saint Martins and also teaches at the Royal College of Art, the Architectural Association and the School of Architecture at Syracuse University in London. She has curated widely, including exhibitions at the Venice Biennale of Architecture, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Royal Institute of British Architects. In 2020 she founded Holdspace, a digital platform for extracurricular discussions in architectural education, and currently serves as trustee for the Architecture Foundation.
Notes
1 See Reinier de Graaf, architect, verb: The New Language of Building (Verso, 2023)
