Architecture Panel

I write in comment on a recent article by Allan Jalon, your Orange County art columnist. Mr. Jalon reported on a panel discussion convened under the joint sponsorship of the Modern Museum of Art (in Santa Ana) and the Orange County chapter of the American Institute of Architects. (“Architecture Panel Limited by Design,” Calendar, May 9.)

As is mentioned in the piece, I served as moderator for the discussion, and I was also initially responsible for the selection of the panelists. The following notations reflect this point of view.

Mr. Jalon was not present for the entirety of the presentation: He arrived late, and so missed several of the initial statements. His comment that David Neumann had little to say is off the mark: Mr. Neumann in fact had a good deal to say. Mr. Jalon was just not there to hear it.

Mr. Jalon apparently sensed some sinister, ulterior purpose to the event. . . . While we might not have pleased Mr. Jalon, we apparently satisfied our audience. All of the feedback that I have received, both immediately after the presentation and subsequent to the article, has been unreservedly positive.

Mr. Jalon quotes me as saying that I was naive in assembling the panel. He is mistaken. . . . In future encounters with the press I will be less naive, perhaps a bit skeptical, but certainly not cynical.

Mr. Jalon quarrels with my choice of architects. He points out that Carl McLarand (senior partner of Costa Mesa-based McLarand Vasquez & Partners architecture firm) consults Roger N. Torriero (president of Griffin Realty Corp., a real estate investment company), that Mr. Torriero and I sit on the Bowers Museum board of governors and that Norman Pfeiffer (a New York architect who has done some design work for Bowers) consults to the museum. The syllogism is nonsensical, and the implication of conspiracy is insulting to both the panelists’ reputations and to your readers’ intelligence.

I will stop here with the observation that The Times has developed its reputation on the basis of its objective, accurate reporting, and on the strict maintenance of a clearly defined line between this reporting and the paper’s editorial opinions. The paragraph--”The evening might simply be set down as another harmless wisp of Babbittry dispersing in the Orange County night, but Torriero and the Modern Museum do not seem likely to drift away”--reflects a vindictive and condescending attitude that conveys no useful information and reflects no informed opinion. It insults the panel, the sponsors, the evening’s audience, and all those organizations and individuals that work for the benefit of the arts in our county. Rather than criticize the process, why not applaud the effort?

ARTHUR V. STROCK

President

American Institute of Architects

Newport Beach

Allan Jalon responds:

I was there to hear the first words of the evening spoken, when curator Mike McGee thanked the evening’s host--and only private developer on the panel--for providing the champagne.

I reported that David Neumann, who oversees architect selection at UC Irvine, said relatively little. I heard it all.

The subject was the process by which developers select architects. An underlying gripe was that local architects are too often overlooked in favor of outsiders. Had other working local architects and developers been present, the evening might have done the subject justice. There were enough associations between Torriero and the museum, between Torriero and others on the panel to raise questions about whether the subject was addressed with the detachment it deserved. He says that adds up to “no useful information.”

He says I crossed a line between reporting and editorializing. It was a column, not a news story or a laundry list. He says I should merely applaud a museum’s programming, no matter what, “rather than criticize.” The Modern Museum of Art served up a panel to critique the selection of architects in Orange County. I examined the program as an example of how well a relatively new museum treated a potentially important topic. I think that is more useful than applause.