Architectural critique

Architecture is a complicated business. It isn’t as simple as creating beautiful buildings or buildings that serve a specific function, or a combination of the two. Throughout history architecture has stood for something, whether it was to honor a deity or to commemorate a victorious war or general, but it was always in response to what was happening in a particular society at a given time. Every era has had its movements and new movements come by way of architectural critique. Critique is what gives form to new ideas and new insights, ways of improving what is already there. We see this happening throughout time, and not just in architecture.

During the time of Le Corbusier and Gropius, their critique was based on creating a new architectural ideal, an escape from the over ornamentation that had pervaded architecture during the Arts Nouveau and Art Deco movement. The ideal became simplification and the appreciation of a stripped down geometric form. Writings upon writings, we were sold on why this new ideal made sense, the “form follows function” mentality. But what they failed to see was that architecture is beyond just built form, that it affects those who occupy it not only physically, but psychologically as well. To strip ornamentation, in a way, is to strip identity. Many of those modern buildings did not function for the end-user but thanks to those who dared to speak up and critique this ideal, new and improved ways were developed that pushed for humanity (the end-user) behind architecture.

In this week’s readings, the plea is to have more critics writing about architecture.

In the world of the “starchitect”, I question what are we to critique? It seems to me that there is a push for the avant garde, even as a student of interior architecture, to create environments that have a visual impact and that can ingrain your reputation as a star in the field. Think the likes of Zaha Hadid who is famous for her neofuturistic designs with “multiple perspective points and fragmented geometry to evoke the chaos of modern life.” When looking at the work she is producing, what would be the focus of the critique? Granted, not everyone is a fan of her style but does the architecture work? Does it meet the needs of the end-user?

Maybe I am naïve to think that this is how we should critique architecture, with the final outcome of its success based on the end-users experience. However, in an age of sick buildings, it’s irresponsible to ignore that the end-user needs to drive the architecture. Architecture is in response to that as well as a world faced with the depletion of natural resources, increasing energy costs, overpopulation, and many other socioeconomic factors. But these alone cannot be the basis of architectural critique. Architects need to push the envelope in terms of the built form. But what is our responsibility as interior designers/architects? What is the basis for our critique?