Architectural Criticism

Criticism means the ability to form judgement and opinion, especially the analysis and evaluation of
a given field of man's activity from a given point of view with regard to definitive values. Since
architecture is a complex and complicated branch that penetrates into all spheres of social life, the
terminology and methods of architectural criticism should be properly developed for it to be of any
use in social practice.

“While architecture is the most public art form, it is the one least subject to public debate”
- (Survey) National Arts Journalism Program at Columbia University

What the architecture community think !!!!

“If you take architecture to be less about individual buildings, and more about the structural,
political, and conceptual framing of the shifting relationship between public and private space,
(which I do) then the role of the architecture critic merges with that of the social critic and, in that
respect, is immensely important. When that framing is thoughtful and brilliant, she should make sure
we hear about it; and when the framing is uninformed or unfair, she should also make sure we hear
about it. She should remind us of the past, respond to the current situation, and anticipate or lead
future moves. She should advocate for the right of every public citizen to access the aesthetic and
practical benefits of the built environment whilst being protected from it failings and harmful effects.
And if that sounds like hard work, and that it encroaches on the territory of urban planning, social
politics, environmental science, ethics, and philosophy, that’s because it is, and it does.”
- Alice Twemlow (Head of Design Curating and Writing Masters at Design Academy Eindhoven and
professor of design at The Royal Academy of Art, The Hague)

“Architecture has made so many heroic and visionary claims, and also failed so many people for so
long. The architecture critic can sort through these claims and failures and new potentials, both for
us and for a wider public.” – Mitch McEwen (Assistant professor at Princeton University School of
Architecture)

“I think there is an old notion of a critic who tells you if something is good or not. This is outdated and
it probably comes from [Gene] Siskel and [Roger] Ebert on television, watching movies—‘thumbs up’
and ‘thumbs down.’ Here the critic is an arbiter of taste. It’s not helpful: it’s about judgment rather
than a new opening of discussion. It’s a closure, stopping conversation cold. Once you call a movie
bad, why discuss it?

I believe a critic is a person that opens people’s eyes as to WHY certain things are notable in various
disciplines (or outside of them). A critic should be opening conversations, prompting curiosity, and
inciting interest. I also think it is the responsibility of the critic to focus on contemporary work and
issues—‘the new’ is always in most need of support and discussion, especially among those who feel
intimidated or uncomfortable about it. This is what the critic is supposed to do, make it possible to
bring more people into the conversation about any type of work. They are stewards of curiosity and
interest, not judges of success or failure.” – Mark Foster Gage (Principal of Mark Foster Gage
Architects and the assistant dean of the Yale School of Architecture)
Architectural criticism: Who is it for ?
- Criticism exists in all fields like architecture, art, theatre, film, music dance etc.
- Criticism mostly targets the consumers.
- Even though criticism is mostly authored for the consumers and not for the practitioners, it is not a
complete consumer guide for any field. A part of mission is to help people understand whether
something is worth their time and money but the work also needs to push its boundaries and go
beyond for it to be of any real value.
- Descriptive critiques - featured in academic journals and highly regarded artistic publications.
- The audience can be the curious observers among the public, politicians & various departments
who deal with appropriation, budgets and preservation, people who aspire to own things.

Architectural criticism (societal perspective): Why do we need it ?

Criticism helps to inform one about a particular work or create a sense of connection to any field.
The different intentions and expectations of the readers from critics contribute to a contrast in
learning and experience.

Architecture comprising of so many different subjects makes it difficult for the common people to
understand the design – what it is and how it works. The most important and basic purpose of
architectural criticism is to educate and fill the gap between the profession & the public. It is
promoted through general media like television, internet, newspapers & magazines

Architectural criticism helps to create a better educated, more critically aware, more visually literate
constituency for architecture, and thus, presumably, increase society's demand for good design. It
ultimately impacts the quality of life and the quality of the community.

Urban context and land use is an essential part of architecture and design criticism, no building is an
aesthetic object in isolation, the way a painting or a piece of sculpture is. Architectural works should
be conceived and evaluated as an aesthetic object, it must also be conceived and evaluated in terms
of what we might call the aesthetics of context.

Architecture criticism is aesthetics and it is politics and it is sociology and it is culture, they are
intimately intertwined and form the foundation of all the writing about design.

Public activism on matters of design, planning and preservation has now become part and parcel of
the way things are built, of the way we construct what passes in this day and age for a public realm.
But it is in the nature of architecture that it cannot be wholly an act of social criticism; it is partly a
matter of creating a civilizing and comforting environment. The critic has to balance all of this, and
try to figure out where so-called smart growth is truly smart. it is the critic's job to determine which
difficult buildings yield pleasure and meaning, and which ones are merely difficult and hostile; and
whether the natural imperative that places evolve and change over time results in a net gain or a net
loss in the quality and meaning of cities and towns and villages.
Types of Criticism
Descriptive criticism provides a factual analysis, evaluation or judgement of the quality of a literary
or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit or dramatic production. Descriptive critics focus on
the art work form, describing important aspects of that form in order to improve our understanding
of the characters, settings, structures, details or interrelationships present within the work or among
the aspects depicted. An untrained person can easily miss things that are observed by a critic when
viewing works of art. Good descriptive critics call attention to what might otherwise be missed in an
artistic form.

Unlike a reviewer, whose intent is to provide his opinion on a work of art, a descriptive critic
analyzes the work in greater detail, targeting an audience of those most knowledgeable in the
particular art form being critiqued. While a reviewer can be anyone with an opinion, a critic is
expected to have a deeper knowledge of the history, content or design of the work being critiqued.
Unlike reviews that are created for public consumption, descriptive critiques are often featured in
academic journals and highly regarded artistic publications.

Peer criticism Peer criticism gives one the opportunity to watch and evaluate debating strategies
from ones position as a member of the audience. Such peer criticism is also extremely helpful to the
debater who receives the criticism since the debate itself seems to go by so quickly. Keep this in
mind: peer criticism is a part of the learning process like doing the debate is part of the learning
process. One will not receive a higher grade on peer critique if one is really hard on the debater one
is critiquing, nor will one raise his/her grade or the debater’s by providing only positive comments.
Peer criticism provides a helpful balance of positive and critical comments.

In Architecture and Critical Imagination, Wayne Attoe stresses the importance and prevalence of
criticism in the field of architecture, ranging from: critics columns in newspapers, journals, and
magazines; teacher remarks in the design studio setting; between architect and client; architect and
contractor; architects and policy makers, and between architects. His opinions of criticism come
from his experiences as both a student and a teacher and he observes that, “Too often when
criticism starts, excuses begin, and so defensiveness gets in the way of good, responsive work”. Since
criticism is prevalent in design fields, Attoe strives to bring a better understanding of the methods of
criticism, “so that instead of threatening and intimidating, criticism can be used as a tool for
generating better work”

Attoe also reiterates the behavior of criticism includes the three categories of description,
interpretation, and evaluation. He also identifies that criticism falls under three basic groups:
normative criticism, interpretative criticism, and descriptive criticism. Below is a summary of
Attoe’s categorization of criticism, which will be followed by an explanation of the different types of
criticism.

1. Normative criticism-
Doctrinal criticism
Systematic criticism
Typal criticism
Measured criticism
2. Interpretative criticism
Advocatory criticism
Evocative criticism
Impressionistic criticism
3. Descriptive criticism
Depictive criticism
Biological criticism
Contextual criticism

The first category of criticism is normative criticism, which is grounded in the belief that there is “a
model, pattern, standard, or principle against which its quality or success may be assessed”. In the
category of normative criticism falls doctrinal, systematic, typal, and measured criticism. Doctrinal
criticism has as its basis a doctrine, such as; form follows function, and tends towards “the belief
that there is a single approach for accomplishing our purposes and a single standard for measuring
our achievements”. Systematic criticism is an “alternative to the single doctrine…[it] is an
interwoven assemblage of principles or factors, a system for judging”. Typal criticism is based upon
structural, functional, and form types. Finally, measured criticism assigns numerical standards to
provide the norms against which something is judged. For example, criticism of a public square may
take into consideration the proportion of the size of the square in comparison to the height of the
buildings surrounding it.

The second category of criticism, interpretative criticism, is highly personal. As Attoe explains, “the
interpretative critic seeks to mould others’ vision to make them see as he does”. The three
techniques of interpretative criticism include: advocatory, evocative, and impressionistic criticism.
Advocatory criticism is employed by a critic who is an advocate of a building or place and is,
“concerned primarily with engendering appreciation, not with passing judgment”. Evocative criticism
“uses whatever means are needed to arouse similar feelings in the reader/viewer. The evocative
critique is not right or wrong, but a surrogate experience”. Finally, impressionistic criticism “uses the
work of art or building as a foundation on which the critic then constructs his own work of art”.

The third category of criticism is descriptive criticism, “more than the other forms of criticism,
descriptive criticism seeks to be factual…it does not seek to judge nor even to interpret, but to help
us see what is actually there”. Descriptive criticism includes depictive, biographical, and contextual
criticism. Depictive criticism does not judge, but merely depicts what exists; such as, how people
move through a space. Biographical criticism provides others with and understanding of the artist in
order to allow a better understanding of their intentions. Finally, contextual criticism provides
information about the social, political, and economic context in which something was designed.

Status-quo of Architectural Criticism

A well-positioned voice is very important for the contemporary cities as they are going through
drastic built changes. Without these critiques the city will lack professionals to alert them to or
analyse these built changes, or an advocate to critique decisions that, as they so often do in the
developer-driven city, advance private interests over the public good. A critic can and must do much
more, from awakening us to triumphs in sustainability and technology to suggesting ways to
minimize sprawl or enhance public space. We do not have to always agree with them, but he or she
plays an essential role in instigating and informing a vital public discourse and to alerting public to
the critical role design plays in their lives.

Critics nowadays can be found both online and offline - design magazines, tv shows, design blogs
etc. Critics in general, even in this fractured media landscape, have the greatest ability to reach a
wide audience, outside the bubbles of design or niche journalism. Meanwhile, critics, as with so
many players in the ailing journalism world, are increasingly being sidestepped for computerized
engines like Rotten Tomatoes or for blogs that aggregate other work and churn out press releases.
Or even worse, for abbreviated Facebook or Twitter posts. Algorithms and big data have their place
in showing us where we are, but they can’t replace analysis, critique, understanding, common sense,
and heart.

The problems with criticism today are the same as the ones with architecture: it is extremely hard to
go beyond client-oriented work, to produce designs that question the status quo and the forces at
play. The making and buying of history in the PR age is an issue to be investigated thoroughly. It is
extremely hard for editors, critics, and architects to keep a critical distance. While this might not be
any different than in times past, at least I think there is now a more transparent understanding of
sponsored articles, and the influence and power of certain lobbies.

The real difficulty of being a critic is that we do not have editorial structures that support criticism in
its full flesh. As in many other fields false criticism, sensationalism, scandalous headlines, are more in
vogue than rigorous maybe less sensationalist- forms of criticism. The problem is that bad criticism is
more profitable in terms of business models; good criticism needs of idea models, less business
models.

Different Approaches for Achitectural Evaluation

- Aesthetic or philosophical and ideological approach with semiotic approach
- Utilitarian aspect
o Functional
o Technical
o Aesthetic (Building as an art)
o Cultural
o Economical (eg. Is it built for the mass or elite)

- POE (Post Occupancy Evaluation)

o Psychological influence on recievers/users

Typologies to be addressed for Architectural Evaluation

- Housing (individual and dwelling houses, hotels, dormitories, boarding-schools, etc.).
- Commercial and skilled services (commercial centres, department stores, shops, workshops).
- Culture and entertainment (museums, theatres, cinemas, concert halls, libraries, exhibition halls,
cultural centres, sports and recreational centres).
- Transport (railway stations, air terminals, bus stations, sea terminals, vehicle facilities, garages)
- Religion (churches, chapels, convents, meeting houses, cemeteries).
- Administration and management (offices, seats of authority, banks, stock exchanges).
- Industry and manufacturing (industrial plants, enterprises of agricultural production).
- Health and social welfare (hospitals, sanatoria, social welfare centres, nurseries).
- Science and education (schools, universities, research institutes, laboratories).
- Justice (courts, prisons, community homes)
- Defence sector (barracks, military facilities).
- Engineering structures (masts, towers, bridges, dams, viaducts, flyovers, tunnels, etc.).
Parameters of Evaluation Process
1. What is the object of the evaluation? (architectural structure).
2. What are the conditions of evaluation? (circumstances).
3. Who makes the evaluation? (evaluating subject).
4. What are the reasons for evaluation? (reasons, motivations).
5. What are the objectives of evaluation? (purpose).
6. What is the method of evaluation? (method).
7. What is the result of evaluation? (result).

Architectural Evaluation
Of the numerous psychological needs of a human being, one can distinguish those which, in a
particularly evident and principal way, are connected with the development and usage of the
environment (Niezabitowski, 1987), They can be divided into several basic groups:

1. Cognitive-informative needs, which, first of all, should include the need for sense, value and truth.
2. Social needs, and among them, especially, the need for contact, attachment, appreciation and
importance (i.e. prestige).
3. Biological needs, particularly those of comfort, activity and calm.
4. Emotional needs, and particularly the need for safety, beauty, new experiences and psychic
comfort.

The ability to satisfy these needs to the highest possible degree seems to be the main criterion of
architectural evaluation. However, this statement has to be of a rather general nature, if it is to be of
any practical value. It should, therefore, be developed and translated into a language of concrete
connections between the level attained in satisfying a given need and satisfaction derived from the
evaluated environment. Such procedure leads to the distinction of several basic aspects of
architectural work, of a universal nature, which are to be evaluated; this means that such aspects
concern all evaluating persons in general and refer to all architectural structures. They are as
follows:

1. The cognitive-informative aspect, which takes into account the need for an understanding of the
environment, and, above all, a knowledge of its purpose and structure. In this case the ability of the
environment to offer effective information about its own purpose and ways of management
constitutes the subject of evaluation. Thus, two principal criteria should be taken into consideration
in this situation, namely:

a) Ease in identifying the purpose of a given object as a whole.

b) Ease in recognizing the main constituent elements of the functional program and legibility of
spatial relationships between them (this especially concerns such transport elements as entrances,
halls, corridors, stairs, lifts, and also such general-service elements as toilets, cloakrooms, etc.). This
problem is sometimes defined as «finding the way».
2. The aspect of functional efficacy, which takes into consideration many biological needs,
especially the need for comfort, understood as ease in satisfying other basic needs. The subject of
evaluation is concerned with the usefulness of the object for a given purpose, that is, the ability to
achieve the assumed utilitarian task. Its direct expression is the adequacy of rooms and their
facilities in relation to the character and type of activities which are to take place in them. The
adaptation of the object to the anatomic and physiological properties of the human organism is
taken into account, i.e. its construction, dimensions, possibilities of movement, needs relating to
microclimates, lighting, acoustics, etc. This aspect is, then, a domain of anthropometry, human
engineering, hygiene and the physics of buildings. Two basic criteria of functional efficacy should be
distinguished in this context

a) The criterion of «environmental filter», which signifies the creation of a desirable microclimate
and control of the impact of various factors of the surrounding environment (noise, heat, cold,
pollution, humidity, rainfall, air movement, light, people, animals and things).

b) The criterion of «spatial frame», which signifies the arrangement of activities according to the
assumed program. Here we differentiate such factors as the shape of rooms, their size, the
arrangement of main architectural elements (supports, covers, openings), the arrangement of the
elements of additional fittings for interiors (healers, lamps, furniture, etc), spatial relations between
rooms (distance, location: above, under, beside, opposite, behind), spatial relations between the
rooms and the object as a whole, spatial relations between the object as a whole and its direct and
more distant surroundings, etc.

3. The aspect of technical efficacy, which takes into account the need for safety and also that of
comfort. In this case, the ability of the object to ensure the stability of its basic attributes in a given
period of time is being evaluated, which in turn will ensure fulfilment of its assumed utilitarian tasks
widiout any hazard to human health and life, and provide the basic comfort. The following criteria
are involved here: stability, durability, maintainability, feasibility of probable modifications,
impossibility of clashing with the function, harmlessness as regards health conditions.

4. The psychological-perceptive aspect, which takes into account among other things the need for
understanding and the need for sense. Here, the object of evaluation signifies the adaptation of the
structure to the psychological system of man and especially his perceptive capacities such as
thinking, memory, susceptibility, creation of images, perception, receptivity, ability to associate,
concentration of attention, etc.

5. The social aspect, which takes into account, among other things, the need for contact,
attachment, independence, appreciation, and prestige. Here the object of evaluation is the ability of
the structure to participate in the formation of the social environment, and particularly the social
reasons—both collective and individual— supporting the existence and use of the object and
justifying only these and no other properties. The starting-point is an analysis of the social purpose
of a building (group of buildings, town, etc.), which can be of two kinds:

a) The creation of the space providing various forms of social contacts, or various types of required
isolation.
b) The expression of the social status or role in relation to an individual, group, community or
institution (Norberg-Schulz,1963).

6. The economic aspect, which takes into consideration, among other things, the need for sense
and value. The object of evaluation involves the social costs connected with the production and
operation of a structure. The economic aspect is clearly connected with the social aspect.

7. The aesthetic-formal aspect, which takes into account, above all, the need for beauty and new
experiences (variety). In this case the ability of the structure to meet various requirements is being
evaluated, within a range of broadly understood aesthetic values. In this evaluation it is not only
beauty that is taken into consideration, but also other aesthetic categories, such as
splendour, sublimeness, a pathetic, tragic or dramatic character, an idyllic and lyric character, etc.
They describe the «atmosphere» of the structure attained by the application of concrete artistic
means.

8. The aspect of cultural symbolism, which takes into account the need for value, sense and
prestige. The ability of the structure to reflect clearly what is essential for a given society (and
thereby primary leading ideas and values) is evaluated in this case.

9. The ethical aspect, which considers the need for value and truth. Here the object of evaluation is
the conformity between the structure and the whole context from which it comes; that is, the social,
cultural, technical, economic, natural and spatial context, etc. Such conformity is evaluated as truth,
while inconformity is falsehood.

10. The aspect of positive emotions, which takes into account the need for safety and psychic
comfort. The object of evaluation here is the ability of the structure to produce positive emotional
states, such as satisfaction, acceptance, joy or, at least, not to cause such negative emotions as fear,
anxiety, aggression, sadness, depression, etc. (Hesselgren, 1987).

Note : Please find the following pdfs

01 - Architecture Review - Transit hub by Santiago Calatrava

02.a - An architectural analysis of Frank Gehry's Walt Disney Concert Hall
02.b - Review of Disney Hall - Reflection of the city around it
03.a - Chandigarh - Le Corbusiers's Master Piece
03.b - Chandigarh Criticism by Vinayak Bharne
03.c - Le Corbusier - Utopian Vision
04.a - BRASILIA_CITY_Brazil – City planning concepts
04.b – Niemeye’r Brasilia - Does it work ?