Given the nature of architecture school and how constructive criticism is crucial to the learning process, how do professionals grow and learn from other prominent projects when nearly everything written in major publications about new buildings lacks depth, insight, critical feedback, and reads like a plug for the designer and/or profession?
Is a shift in the architect's understanding of the critique to be once again accepting of legitimate criticism about a project possible in the professional realm? If so, how?
I think as long as critique publications can be used to get commissions or greatly can hinder that goal it makes it much harder to help a critique that is going to be harsh if your an architect. As long as money is involved and critiques enter the public realm its hard to imagine critiques really being able to become more then they are now.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, I believe that a critique has the potential to be truly valuable. It is odd that architectural critiques are typically light hearted and fluffy, when other artistic fields greatly depend on the status of a critique. A good review transforms the image of a Broadway play, and a bad review can destroy any hope of success. In result, the creative arts is constantly pushing its boundaries and striving for innovation. This challenge has the potential to benefit the realm of architecture.
ReplyDeleteCritique is a tricky subject. Architecture as a profession is incredibly self-referential. Additionally, it is a strange fusion of arts culture and business culture. It is in the nature of art to use criticism to push boundaries, and the stakes are very different than business.
ReplyDeleteBecause architecture depends on development, and development on capitalism, Architectural literature must be pro-development almost as a given. This mindset means that a lot of really critical questions are continually left unasked.
Architectural criticism is far too tied to analysis of form and technology. When you read positive reviews of a building you are most likely to hear a description of it's most essential moves, some new or interesting technologies involved in it's making, and then some sort of general cultural reflection from the reviewer.
I think all buildings must, absolutely must pass a simple litmus test: Is the world a better place because this building has been built? If yes, then awesome! If not; it should never have been built. We can start asking how many trees were cut down, how much petroleum was used, how much energy, how much gas in transportation costs, and so on and so on.
Once you've established that the building is worth the cost to the natural world (a test I think the majority of "High Architecture" buildings fail miserably) then it makes sense to discuss the new and/or interesting ways the architect chose to utilize those resources for the buildings construction.
Instead of challenging issues of social and environmental justice and striving to hold architects accountable for the impact they have on the both the built and ecological environment, the culture of architectural critique offers nothing more than a fashion catalogue, detailing the best and worst dressed new lineup of bland interchangeable ghosts.
I feel criticism comes in many forms, but generally for most negative comments there is something positive to be said. It is a matter of learning from other’s mistakes. It is also apparent that many critiques are not nearly as harsh or forthright as they could be about a particular building. This might come from the reality that architecture involves a large amount of economics and sometime political background. The sensitivities of tearing apart something that is not easily re-done may not only affect the architect’s reputation, but also the critic’s reputation. The building may not last forever, but the effects a critique may have on one’s reputation very well might be passed down generation after generation.
ReplyDeletecritiques are important especially for a designer to better understand their weaknesses and strengths; however, in the public realm it is necessary for a critical discussion to be heard rather than just the critique. Who is to say that the critics opinion is correct? It is essential for an architectural criticism to have both sides of the argument because every person has a different architectural agenda and ideology; therefore, if the judgment of a building is left at the hands of the critique, reputations could simply be wiped out by the competition and no progressive understanding would be made.
ReplyDeleteI find that a lot of critics are “soft” as for as architecture is concerned; I have been in the restaurant profession for 25 years, the critics are brutal there, and can make or break a persons business like previously mentioned about the Broadway show. If a critic is soft with their comments the growth of the design process is also soft and slow, if the work is bad it should be noted so, and the work should stop, or improvements made toward a better design. A dialog around a specific Architect or their work would be more appropriate, as in a piece of art or the artist. The dialog would create a better understanding of architecture and it's processes, this would help the public be more aware of the architecture around them, and not just the façade or skin of the object of design. This would create a more transparent business of architecture, removing the secrets of the operations though.
ReplyDeleteCriticism is an important part of any architect's life. Whether its bad or good criticism, it can be used to identify the flaws in a design, like Jake said. I believe that professional architects today have two group of critics that live around them. One is the society around, and the other is the family or the people they know best. The society would negatively criticize them while being positively criticized for their work. This still would not be enough. Before there were schools of architecture, the only way to teach architecture was through apprenticeship. Having a mentor to look over your work to bring out the best of you in your work. I think that that ideal should be brought back to life in today's world. Having a mentor to constructively criticize your work is crucial to step forward in the profession of architecture and should be considered even after years of schooling.
ReplyDelete- Flavius B.
@Is a shift in the architect's understanding of the critique to be once again accepting of legitimate criticism about a project possible in the professional realm?
ReplyDeleteI think that one thing to recognize about the professional realm is that the ultimate critics are not just the clients and fellow architects, but society in general. Which architectural monuments are most beloved but the societies which surround them? Were the cultures who built them aware of their significance? It seems to me that the litmus test of a building is not simple because it is up people beyond the architectural and construction industries to appreciate architecture. Is the world a better place because this building has been built? Only time will tell.
In considering the usefulness of said subject, one must first acknowledge the construct which the critique is given in. This of course involves not only the inner-workings of the business world, but the overlapping practices of art, the university system and further complicated by sociocultural expectations. In this sense, rather than a general label of favorable or fodder for the critique, all the separate elements should be reflected upon.
ReplyDeleteWhen you ask around, a lot of people will suggest that architecture criticism is about making negative judgments on unwanted tendencies in the built environment, or stuff like that. But for me, I also think like Flavius that, it becomes an important of all architects' lives. The architectural critiques give people better understanding of the subject being discussed. It should not only provide a judgment based on critical theory or ideology, but instead providing an insight about the subject and the way to make it better.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is up to the person being critiqued how valuable the feedback really is. They can decide what to take from the critique and apply it to their project or disregard the comment. Otherwise, I think it's always good to gain a new perspective about your project and what your project can offer on a deeper level than it currently stands. I think that some of the most frustrating criticism strips a project of all its worth without providing any feedback as to other avenues of opportunity to take that project along. In that case, the best solution would be to seek other's opinions and obtain what knowledge they have and decide what to take from it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that critiques are very valuable when it comes to a finished product. I don't think that any architecture is truely finished, but I do believe one cannot be anywhere closed to the finished product without having a critique. One needs to get other people's opinions and views, to bring up issues easily overlooked, and to generate some more ideas, maybe not for that particular project but for the next one.
ReplyDeleteAs a first year student and Fine Arts Major transfer into the architecture program, I have migrated from one form of the critique process to quite another. I've observed the critiques of upper level students' architectural design work and listened to the feedback they've received, and feel that it is fairly skewed by their personal experiences and beliefs without so much embracing new ideas and concepts. A perfect example of a biased critique, rather than open in concept and objectivity, would be that of my studio instructor, who severely discouraged the use of the color red in our renderings and was, in my observation, hypercritical of the use of bright colors and favoring pastel renderings of upperclassmen work produced. If more than one architect were biased in even their own right to favor or discount their own personal preferences as seen through their eyes of the design work presented to them, a critique could slide very sideways for a student and hamper that students' enthusiasm to continue to think outside of the box.
ReplyDelete