Ideas about Architectural Criticism - Literature review Example

Architectural Criticism Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Architectural criticism has been there since introduction of structures. The architectural stakeholders have present different views on designs through criticism and one of these stakeholders is Hayes (2002). I do agree with the Hayes (2002) that almost everyone would want his building to be functional, structurally sound as well as aesthetically appealing. Roger Scruton in The Aesthetics of Architecture lists five elements of architecture, which distinguishes it from any other art. According to Rogers, architecture is distinguished by highly localized quality, function or utility, technique, character as a public project as well as continuity with decorative arts as well as a corresponding variety of objectives. To put it in professional terms, architecture is technical, that is, it is an art and a science, architecture is a vernacular with several goals, buildings are public utilities, site specific that is buildings are situated in a particular environment and places and finally functional, that is buildings are designed to meet a specific need. However, to some extent Rogers definition is to some extent skewed since he seems to have followed the dictionary definition of architecture, which dictionaries define as art, science, buildings and profession. According to Hayes (2002) architecture students take courses in the strength of materials, which are mostly taught by faculty of the university’s engineering school. However, this is not true since there are several universities offering architecture worldwide therefore, not all of them can take course's strength in materials. Therefore, Hayes (2002) state the notion of function was adapted from biology; however, its use in modernism looks with the functionality of machines. In another twist, Frank Lloyd Wright did not accept the title and argued that architecture was organic “organic.” To some extent, Frank Lloyd is right. However, it is clear that architecture cannot be entirely organic. It is true that architectural criticism employs an open-minded set of complex as well as variously incompatible principles. I do agree with the Hayes (2002) when he states that architecture is not a kind of specialty in the building trades. I disagree with the author when he states that architecture is not an audience or studio art since when exhibitions are conducted the main aim is getting audience to view various artistic works. Other authors have raised their concerns including Boddy (2009). Boddy (2009) begins by stating that everyone likes architectural criticism, but few people like the practice of architectural criticism. According to Boddy (2009), architectural criticism arose in consort owing to the increasing popularity of magazines and newspapers in Europe. In the twentieth century, the traditions of criticism spread to non-western countries. During this time, architects in this side went through the paroxysms of modernization, sometimes there was a debate regarding the conflict between contemporary and traditional technology. There was also another debate between universal ideas and forms. Latin America and Japan were the first to explore this debate, followed by the rest Africa, Middle East and Asia. The freedom for quotation of historical traditions sparked fresh critical debates in these regions, and the debates evolved simultaneously with those of Euro-American architectural culture. Evidently, public criticism is important to architectural culture, however its present unevenness has its origin from how architects are trained. I do agree with Boddy (2009) regarding this point since they way one will be trained will determine his understanding of a particular subject. Boddy is right when he states that the long list of nonsense which is taught in architectural school does not include big ego showboating, faux-intellectual; fadgadgetry adapted from cultural studies and literary theory. Boddy further argues that architects can react better to public criticism if they would have had a higher level as well as focused critical commentary when they are students. The authors' argument could be true since when one is trained on a specific topic he understands it pretty well. On the other hand, this is not true since the student could have read about it without tutor instruction. The student can also read it from the internet among other sources at his disposal. In the same breath, Leatherbarrow (2009) postulates a conception of artistic work, which emerged during the romantic period though, is still being promoted today, inventive works lead to exploratory or experimental exercises that are now in the scientific but “open-ended” sense of the word. I concur with Leatherbarrow (2009) when he states that controlled experiments as well as creative explorations are uncertain of the outcome. Exercises that are unplanned and unforced are not helped by reflective judgment. It is a fact that criticism is a symptom of creative impotence. Evidently, architecture is improved by its critics; therefore, this field would be less interesting in the absence of critics. Just like anything else, critics help in ensuring that they correct the wrong by commenting on it without favour. Every built work has a location in which the development occurs (Leatherbarrow, 2009). The work of criticism is territorial; its aim is to locate the work among others of its similar type, either great or poor. Criticism does not have specific standards, which one can gauge how it has been done. Criticism does not provide general theories, common opinion, impressions. The suitability of an account is gauged by its accuracy with respect to specific work being reviewed as well as information that is available. It is expected that criticism offer the correct as well as complete information regarding a number of agents responsible for the design as well as constructing a façade, courtyard or an interior. This type of information is explanatory and ought to be very transparent. Similarly, criticism is expected to provide clear information of spaces, materials, as well as uses which are specific to the subject. The role the critic takes is setting the record straight as well as depicting a clear picture. This cannot be achieved while sitting down; it involves making visits to the site, conducting interviews, reviewing documents, close observation as well predicting untold information (Leatherbarrow, 2009). It is upon the critic to determine which facts are important and what to say. The author is supposed to be corrected when he states that no special training is required if conventional norms of a building’s use, durability as well as appearance are thought to be part and parcel of horizon of assessment since not everyone can be an expert critic. According to Whiteley (1997), referencing the works of Banham, Banham states that history is his academic discipline and criticism is what he does for money. He explained his preference for writing about design and architecture rather than fine art in terms of their dealing with the problem. “use” and “symbolic expression” are very important in Banham’s literature about design. The modernist combination of use as well as symbolic expression was very different from Banham’s version. To him function was less a case of primary function. Use was a human aspect of design by which modernist designers tended to mean the grasp ability of a handle on a spout. Banham was a matter of the object in social use since the way one could assess its symbolic expression. Banham liked to use the term “use” and “symbolic expression.” Symbolic expression was part of the object’s design as well as usage. Understanding design led to a type of design criticism that became established post-modern discourse. Banham’s criticism is different from today’s type of criticism. In one of Banham’s criticism, he discusses the design of contemporary sunglasses (Whiteley, 1997). He begins by describing the “Boywatcher” sunglasses, fashionable on the American west coast that could restrain the compulsory long, sun-bleached tresses of surf-girls-USA. A consumer magazine testing function could have found significant flaws in their design. Sunglasses were used as a fashionable element of constructing identity and Banham realized that it was an important element of the role of design in post-modern society. Other elements of Banham’s criticism (design), such as rejection of the modernist idea of the kind of form, social and political values of design as well as its role in consumer, however are not addressed. Paternalism and moralism were being isolated from humanity by the Humanities. Designers creating glamorous dreams which money could buy were at the heart of the marketplace as well as subject to its appealing whims as well as seductive fancies. Political ramifications of a market economy caused trouble to Banham since it left him with the other Independent Group (Whiteley, 1997). At one point Banham described “revenge of the elementary school boys” on the British public school-educated who comprised the establishment of art as well as art history. Banham was not only at home with the culture of academic scholarship and marketplace but also claimed to revise the approach. It would be wrong to think of a one-way journey and carrying the discipline’s cultural baggage might have been predominantly in one direction, however secure was maintained in both locations. In short, the “return” to popular culture as well as marketplace was not made at the expense of high culture as well as its Olympian (Whiteley, 1997). This helps in distancing Banham from the present design critics. I agree with Banham when he states that one of the main roles of a critic is to evaluate as well as judge. For instance, in Banhams’s “Machine Aesthetic” article of 1955, Banham commented on the “rapid evolution of an anti-purist and eye-catching language of car design.” According to Huygen (1997), there are three forms of criticism but one of them had died out, operational critique. How to live, the instruction as well as propaganda on how to design and what taste to acquire. This type of critique as well as the old ideal of bringing civilization is gone. Each type of criticism says something regarding the time in which it was formulated, regarding the perception of the author as well as judgments and values, which change over time. Design criticism ought to focus on people/critics, media as well as different forms of criticism. Presently, many critics have become reporters and journalists. News value as well as people became more important than the responsibility of the critic to evaluate. References Boddy, T. 2009. The Conundrums of Architectural Criticism. Journal of Architectural Education, pp. 95-1000 Hayes, W. 2002. Architectural criticism. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 326-329 Huygen, F. 1997. Report from Holland: Design Criticism after Postmodernism. Design Issues, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 40-43 Leatherbarrow, D. 2009. The Craft of Criticism. Journal of Architectural Education, pp. 95-99 Whiteley, N.1997. Olympus and the Marketplace: Reyner Banham and Design Criticism. Design Issues, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 24-35 Read More