A Letter about Architectural Criticism
In what is probably an insightful critique of criticism, Non’s response sparked off a reply which is as follows.
[1] Maybe you have to rethink “the criticism method� and how to express your thought that work with Thai culture.
I know that it is difficult because criticism is not our nature, but I believe that you can do it. From what I understand, criticism is not about ” good” and “bad”, “acceptance” or “rejection” and “being open-minded” or “being close-minded”. Please try not to just express your thought and hard on yourself. I think this will lessen the barrier, and people will enjoy and appreciate your work more.
Non then suggests that we look at the comment, “Please try not to just express your thought and hard on yourself,” and how this raises the first seminal question of literary incorrectness. Non comments, “How could one make criticism only by “expressing one’s thoughts”? Since criticism is about commentary made to the external, and/or how could one be “judgmental” only by being “hard to oneself” ?”
To me, it is clear that this is a case of 2 individuals with varying understanding of the concept of ‘criticism’ and as Non mentions in our email conversation, “totally misunderstanding it.” This begs the question, what does it mean to give a ‘critique’?
Architecture magazines (and those who claim to be) all suggest that their articles present ‘architectural critiques’ of the various buildings that are featured. Similarly, ‘critique sessions’ are held in Architecture schools but are we engaged in the correct form of criticism?
Here, Non offers the definitions.
“Criticism” (as a terminology) is about (based on Oxford Dictionary and theory of literary criticism by Foucault): ” the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistake.” On the other hand, the OTHER and perhaps true meaning of criticism in the context of architectural academia is “the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.”
It is thus clear that criticism is a qualitative judgment. It IS about good and bad , it is about being accepted and not being accepted, and, of course, criticism (the productivity of criticism is based on Hegel’s dialectic. Ultimately, it is 100% ABOUT open-minded and close-minded, because if the windows of idea aren’t open, how could anyone be able to understand the essence of ideas?
Adib is the co-founder of 5ft Creatives and he loves to walk on the FIVEFOOTWAY.
Discussion
2 comments for “A Letter about Architectural Criticism”
Post a comment
Related Post
- 5ft Creatives » Blog Archive » Canteen Brick Down on Canteen Brick-Down
- Popo Danes: Architect with a green conscience | aboutCREATION on Popo Danes: Architect with a green conscience
- Scoorbroyarry on Call for entries: 2008 International Bauhaus Award
- Kyu Sung Woo wins Ho-Am Prize | aboutCREATION on Kyu Sung Woo wins Ho-Am Prize
- abhijeet on Are you cut out to be an Architectural Journalist?
ADVERTISEMENTS
I admire Non and FFW to take this important issue seriously… as it is far overdue! In Thailand, we don’t really have a foundational stage building for ‘criticism’, especially in the field of architectural and urban studies. Different interpretations of ‘criticism’ from different persons are always possible because we have different understandings of ‘how’ to criticise - if we even would understand its root meaning at all! Usually, ‘respect’ and ’seniority’ play far more priority than using intellectual ‘content’ to be frankly discussed. Therefore, less capacity to accept and react to criticism is the result. Are we ready for the paradigm shift? Yes for a few independent ones but there would be “No” answer from many, I guess!!!
Adib and Non,
I admire the effort to raise the issue of architectural criticism too. I fear however, that the real issue of criticism is in effect a bag of worms.
Firstly, as pointed out already, the word criticism carries multiple overtones. Etymologically, the word “critic” is derive first from the latin “criticus” (which itself came from Greek “kritikos”), which means “able to make judgements”.
The second meaning of criticism - to censure, to fault-find - stems from the idea of being “of the nature of a crisis”.
The notion of “criticism” thus becomes loaded with multiple meanings which is why I sense the the problematic has to be further framed on finely-grained levels.
Even in the realm of architectural criticism, one cannot help but notice its sheer diversity. On one hand we have the uber-brainy critical theorists like Michael Hays, Mark Wiggley, Foucault, Beatriz Colomina.
On another level, we have the architectural historians - like Vincent Scully, Robert Stern, Peter Blundell Jones, Nicholas Adams. Their writings on architecture are of a different language and frame of approach as comapred to the first group…. often placing the studied architecture within a socio-historical framework.
And then again, this group differs from the kinds of architectural critics we see in the newspapers - people like Nicolai Ourousoff (NY Times), Edwin Heathcote (Financial Times), Ada Louise Huxtable, Paul Goldberger … they cater to a different readership, are more often cultural commentators whose personal readings of buildings are not honed from architectural training but from an understanding of how architecture relates to popular culture, society, history and the issues of the day.
We all believe that a culture of criticism is important because it opens a kind of discursive dialogue that is the stuff that gives substance to form. But the sheer diversity in ways of engaging in this architectural criticism means that this dialogue isn’t always direct. How does the historian speak to the esoteric theorist?
The problematic is further confounded by the fact that a building can be read in 1001 ways by 1001 people…. across the trajectory of time, contemporary issues will re-alter the frame of how architecture is being judged, and re-judged, and re-judged. How then can criticism honestly reveal the truth underlying a real building when truth itself is amorphous and ever-changing? (think Mies’ less-is-more giving way to Venturi’s less-is-a-bore, which gives way to Johnson’s I-am-a-whore !)
Perhaps because of the complicatedness of the issue, I view criticism in more modest terms - that of being a feedback channel and a means of opening discursive dialogue/debate. An excellent Singaporean example Tay Kheng Soon’s stinging rebuke to Soo Chan’s professed “Neo-tropicality” (around year 2000?), in which TKS argued that Soo Chan’s works were mere formal derivations from European modernism (Van Doesburg, Rietveld, Malevich..) and should not pretend to live under a self-invented title of “neo-tropicality” since it was discursively nothing new
My concern with Singaporean architectural criticism culture is that writings on Singapore architecture still deal with the formal (how the plan was laid out, etc etc) in too deferential a manner, and often stop short of asking the crucial deeper questions that underlie the work.
To dare to ask such questions, there must be the sense of individual autonomy that is part of modernity. We still seem to be a culture that panders to a canon (or a trend) than to dare to ask the deeper questions that generate substance.
( On the side, I so want to see an architecture column on the Straits Times….. it’s about time!)