On Criticism in the Profession [Criticism of Place: A Symposium]

On Criticism in the Profession Donald Canty In a more lurid journal, this piece might be called Confessions of a Critic. For I write not as a theorist of criticism but as a practitioner. 1 came to be a critic, not through sadism or a special drive to be judg­ mental, but as an extension of my function as a journalist. M y par­ ticular approach to architectural journalism is experiential. That is, I believe the core function of an architectural magazine of the kind I have edited is to convey the ex­ perience of works of architecture through a combination of words and illustrations. Since that experience is seldom, if ever, totally positive, I am thrust into the role of critic simply to be true to my readers. The other papers pay some atten­ tion to the purpose of criticism. To me it is simply an extension of the magazine's function of informing its readers as to what is happening in the built work so that they can learn from it (perhaps even borrow from it). As much can be learned from shortcomings as successes, if suitably analyzed. Criticism intended to influence rather than inform the reader—to advance a particular style or theory or individual—to me is simply bad journalism. However, it is possible to hope that one's criticism can carry some broad exhortations, to pay more than lip service to context and user needs, for example. Before going on to the subject of applying criticism to subjects larger than single buildings, 1 would like to make a case that criticism need not be a one-shot exercise but can be applied to works of architecture profitably at various points in their lives. At the project stage, when a design is first unveiled, it is possible to discuss critically its composi­ tional aspects and any messages the architect may mean to convey. It is also possible at this stage to look for the position of this particular work in the designers corpus, to assess whether it marks any kind of departure in the architect's ap­ proach or perhaps a confirmation of earlier directions and predilections. Upon completion comes the time to be experiential. It is important here to give the work its due. It must be shown sufficiently so that the reader can form his or her own impression and make an independent judgment. It must be described as well as characterized. At this stage also one can begin holding the work up against the needs of the client and intentions of the designer. And one can deal with the crucial matter of fit to context. However, only by returning to the work after some years of use can the critic make a valid judgment of how well it has treated its users and surroundings and how durable a construction and creation it has turned out to be. In this respect, as in most others, criticism of places is much like criticism of buildings. For purposes of this discussion as I understand it, Places / Volume 4, Number 1