"Writing About Stuff"

“We know what we already like but how to describe it, or how to change it, or how to change our minds.  We learn how to read a building, an urban plan, and a developer’s rendering, and to see where critique might make a difference” -Lange

After reading these articles, I started to understand how important critique really is in architecture.  As Lange states, “the critic would not be doing their job if they did not think today could be as good as the past”.  I really enjoyed this statement.  It is our job as architects and designers to create buildings and spaces that are as good as (and ideally better than) buildings and spaces of the past.  I think critique in architecture is imperative.  It allows us to look closely into the buildings we design, assess their strengths and weaknesses, learn from our mistakes, and grow so that we can move forward and create better spaces in the future. 

While reading these articles, I couldn't help but to reflect back to my experience of critique in graduate school.  Receiving critiques for projects was somewhat of a new experience for me.  After I was done presenting my projects, I would grab a notebook and pen and make a list of all the critiques and suggestions from my peers and teachers.  At first, this process was challenging for me.  However, I began to realize that these critiques were actually improving the quality of my design and making my project more complete.  When we stop evaluating our work, we stop growing. The sting we may feel from criticism of our work is just a growing pain that helps you to expand your mind.  Embracing criticism can help bring our designs to new heights. 

Even the greatest designers of all time are subject to some criticism.  While reading the article from Arch Daily, Architecture Doesn't Need Rebuilding, It Needs More Thoughtful Critics, it mentioned how contemporary architecture can often be perceived as ‘showy’ architecture.  Oftentimes, architects such as Zaha Hadid are criticized for being too ‘showy’ or ‘one-dimensional’.  This reminded me of an experience I had at MIT while exploring Simmons Hall.  Simmons Hall is a residence hall created by the popular architect Steven Holl.  From the outside, the building was very dynamic and interesting.  I remember I was excited to enter the building and see what the inside was like.  However, once I started touring I realized how much the space wasn't functional, in my opinion, for the users.  They had these large curved walls that jutted into the student’s bedrooms.  While this was supposed to be an interesting design element, it seemed inconvenient and intrusive in my opinion.  I remember thinking. ‘this is why we need interior designers, to create the interiors of the spaces so that is functional and aesthetically pleasing for the users’.  

As Lange mentioned, there are many different approaches to criticism: formal, experimental, historical, and an activist approach.  I believe all are valuable.  However, in my opinion, I believe a space should be critiqued on the success of the users’ experience.  Great design should be seamless.  Spaces should work for everyone who participates in it.  As the architect Toyo Ito says, “when I think about architecture, I think of it as a piece of clothing that must be wrapped around human beings."  Architecture should reflect the needs of the people using it.  He goes on to say that, “a lot of architecture looks more beautiful without human inhabitants, but I have always intended to design architecture to look more beautiful with humans present."  The more we think about the people we design for, the better our design will be.