Culture of Criticism: A Morning Thought

In 1984, opening the new era of architectural criticism, Stanford Anderson, a young professor of an American architecture institution wrote an essay “Architectural Design as a System of Research Programs,� proclaiming that there is indeed a “possible way to say that some architecture are more progressive or robust than other,� using the basic premise of a famous scientific research model of Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos. Inaugurated by Anderson’s own dissertation on Peter Behrens’ architecture, in which Anderson extracted not only the formal architectural quality that gave birth to the early 1900s modernism in Europe, but also the social and cultural values of Peter Behrend’s architecture and architectural practice, this “Research Program� essay is not an ad hoc sequel. Knowing comprehensively that architecture is not purely scientific, Anderson derives only the methodologies, which were to be adjusted to particular lenses of architectural criticism. He presumed:

Conventions of architectural production are epistemologically compelling only insofar as they involved considerations of relevant alternatives to the beliefs they support and the worlds they construct, and can show themselves capable of being sustained over time.

To understand this, we need to understand the particular area of architecture in which Anderson was interested: the notion of “quasi-autonomy� in architecture. Historically, prior to this time, the term autonomy has never been associated with architecture due to the popular perceptions that architecture was either art or science. Anderson believed that quasi-autonomy is the irreducible specificity of architecture at an almost untranslatable dimension. The degree of autonomy of architecture is represented through its capability to accommodate other influences such as programmatic, political, social, and cultural. That is to say, the notion of “quasi-autonomy� represents architecture as a “record� of other influences. Therefore, it is the “social value� that Anderson believes is the true account of architecture.

With his extensive teachings various schools in North America and writings, Anderson has developed a method of criticism based on a quasi-scientific dimension, which is to, first, “read� the architecture deeply in a formal dimension, and then “contextualize� it in the various contexts to critically understand it, such as cultural, social, historical, political – or even larger contexts. The mediation of the reading and the contextualization will allow the two dimensions to express and interpret each other by a process of mutual disruption and transformation. Anderson places emphasis simultaneously on critical method and historical substance, which “leads to real change in the ways we think about art and architecture and write their history.� This is the first time that the program of study of architecture accepted the adding in of “criticism� into the formal curriculum. The renowned advanced research unit that Anderson had directed until the early 1990s is called the “History Theory Criticism of Art, Architecture, and Urban Form.�

From the entire lineage I present here, it is clear that architects, theorist, and historians have tried rigorously, if not risking their intellectual life and academic credentials, to understand architecture by virtue of its quality, so that architecture can remain, at least, “quasi-autonomous� as a socio-cultural practice. The only way to do so is to be able to establish a standard on which architecture should rely and then allow the production of criticism to operate within the framework in order to derive the practical understanding of architecture, knowing what is right or wrong so that the whole discipline can move forward or shift to the next paradigm. That is, criticism is about “constructive� value judgment. It is about having an “object� – which can be an idea or perceived knowledge – of curiosity for intellectuals to critically analyze, investigate and search for the critical points that lead to the development of the object itself whether or not through the manipulation of its creator. Criticism has become a culture for a good reason.

Therefore, back to Sophie’s words: “Criticism is not about “good” or “bad,” it is not also about “being accepted” or “not being accepted,” and lastly, it is not about “being open-minded” or “being close-minded,” I shall reconstruct this popular perception of criticism again. Despite the usual sense that criticism as faultfinding, it is crucial to understand that the purpose of criticism is by all means to conserve the truth or to reveal the essence in the work per se. Criticism encourages us to be argumentative and urges our sense of interpretation to work harder in order to strive for the mutual understanding of our own environment. So, Sophie, I am sure you know that criticism is about good and bad because it is a hardcore qualitative judgment by nature, which makes the (architectural) world goes round. Second, maybe Sophie is right, criticism is neither about being accepted or not being accepted, but it’s about both. Without architecture, critics would have nothing to say. Without critics, architects would not know whether what they do is good or bad. The fun part of the criticism is the ability of both the critics and architects to mutually comprehend the resolution they find from the texts and to move beyond the realms of idealistic to the realm of practicality. And lastly, our world is, perhaps, too small for architecture to be closed-minded towards criticism. But if one decides to not accept criticism, it is definitely a defect on the person’s own intellectuality. To this point, I do not think there is anything negative about criticism. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the intention of the critic that counts. In “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form,â€? Architectural Theorist K. Michael Hays says:

Architectural criticism and critical historiography are activities continuous with architectural design; both criticism and design are forms of knowledge. If critical architectural design is resistant and oppositional, then architectural criticism – as activity and knowledge – should be openly contentious and oppositional, as well. We must seek alternatives to entrenched modes of operation and canonical forms.

We must strive to invest critical discourse with something more than compensatory, appreciative reflections or methods of formal analysis for objects whose cultural meaning is thought to be undecidable. It is precisely the responsibility of criticism that this cultural meaning continually decided.

Spending some twenty minutes writing this response, I found myself, still, breathing the Saturday morning’s fresh air. I wanted to have a cup of coffee to stay awake for the rest of the morning but my contentment seemed to preside over. So I went to bed again without knowing when I would get up again. Thank you, Sophie.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Non is an academic based in Thailand and educated in the U.S. in History and Urban Studies. His core research topic is on the culture of criticism.