Learning How to Critique Architecture Thoughtfully

I really appreciated this week’s batch of readings because architectural criticism is completely new to me. Often times when reading architectural criticisms, I’m left with the realization of how much I don’t know. I felt like the readings this week all attacked the topic of architectural criticism from slightly varying angles, which provided a nice overall picture for someone like me who is just starting their foray into architectural critiques.

The reading that resonated with me the most was Lange’s chapter “Introduction: How to be an Architecture Critic” out of Writing about Architecture.  I felt that Lange’s introduction was incredibly helpful for a novice architecture critic. Firstly, she takes a lot of pressure off the critic by establishing that several people looking at the same piece of architecture can notice different things and not be in disagreement. I feel like this will certainly be the case in class as we begin to look at various design icons. Lange also highlights that in architectural criticism, there is no wrong answer! I was grateful to read that, as it is pretty overwhelming to start thinking about critiquing architecture with no real experience in the field. Knowing that there is no wrong answer, it is important to remember that over the course of the semester, we will be in both roles: the critic and the reader. As I was thinking about how subjective architectural criticism can be, it reminded me of how critical the reader of the criticisms must be as well. As with research articles, the reader must use a critical eye, and not take what is written at face value.

 I really appreciated the way Lange laid out the various methods of attack for critiques, without going into too much detail up front. Lange did a nice job of setting the stage for what we can expect as readers. I often feel like the introductions to books don’t provide the reader with any critical information, but I found this introductory chapter to provide real value. Lange gave us clear examples to demonstrate her points, and made me feel like the rest of her book would be a real asset to me while learning to critique architecture.

I thought the other articles this week provided a nice perspective on architectural criticism in general. I think Matthew Johnson and Alexandra Lange would get along pretty well, as Johnson is issuing a call to arms with his article on the need for more thoughtful architecture critics, and Lange is working to provide insight on how to better write about architecture.  Based on this week’s readings, it seems as though there is a consensus among professionals that the realm of architectural criticism needs some help. Hawthorne writes about how the development of technology has drastically changed the face of architectural criticism, though he doesn’t seem to believe as Johnson does that this is necessarily a bad thing. I thought this article provided some food for thought, as blogs have really changed the way readers absorb information and the expectations for receiving that information. Hawthorne makes the point that due to the influx of technology, architectural criticisms are reaching a wider audience, which by and large is a good thing, but not when the criticisms lack substance.

Overall, I think these articles and chapters are setting the class up well to start tackling architectural criticisms ourselves. They have given a strong foundational understanding of what a good critique should encompass, while also informing us of some of the present day challenges of the field of architectural criticism.