All prizes are cartographic: they distinguish individuals, but also help represent a whole territory. Along with publications, exhibitions and competitions, architectural awards put markers in the motley contemporary landscape, and these singular landmarks facilitate the recognition of a plural panorama. Like the stakes o f a surveyor or the levelling rods of a topographer, prizes delimit the site of cultural debate, and like thin posts dotting a blanket of snow, they eventually make it possible to discern the roads along which thought has traveled. The multiplication of awards multiplies such maps, and, though each drawing highlights a particular aspect of the terrain, there also comes a time when the superposition of charts will sooner confound than orient the traveler.

A pleiad of new trophies has emerged in the past two decades, joining a parade of long venerated distinctions such as the medals conferred by American and British architectural associations, or Finland s Aalto Medal. After the USA s Pritzker Prize was instituted in 1979, the eighties saw the launch of the Aga Khan Award for Muslim countries, the Medal of the International Union of Architects, Europe s Mies van der Rohe Award and Japan s Praemium Imperiale, and in 1992 came Denmark’s Carlsberg, the latest and also the most generously endowed o f architecture s grand slam. I f we add the spluttering of miscellaneous accolades such as the Wolf, Gish, Brunner, America, Erasmus, Tessenow, Secil, Feltrinelli or Prince o f Asturias, as well as academic honors, honoris causa doctorates and the rewards accompanying biennials, festivals and fairs, the result is a cacophony of glitz and glitter that blurs any effort to chart the territory.

Perhaps for this reason it is good that one of the prizes should end up becoming a tool for critical reference, like the Nobel in other fields of creation and knowledge: a scale of value and a thermometer of taste, but also a road map to help us find our way through the terrain of recent architecture. For many reasons, the Pritzer Prize now ranks high in the ladder toward such a canonical consolidation. Despite the occasional slips ofjudgement of its jury and certain notorious absences in its hall of fame - from Sert to Utzon and Candela to Van Eyck, not to mention the likes of Nouvel, Eisenman, Koolhaas or Herzog & de Meuron - its sketch o f the recent scene is the most complete and the most plausible of them all. The Pritzker s growing status as a reference makes it necessary to subject its decisions to close scrutiny, and this is what Martin Filler offers on the occasion of the prize s twentieth anniversary. Today s proliferation of distinctions may be but an ephemeral bursting offireworks, a celebration of the provisional splendor o f architecture that ends up vanishing in the dark of the night. But while it lasts we should demand that these prizes light up our landscapes and show the way forward.


Included Tags: