Rifat Gökhan Koçyiğit; B.Arch., B.Phil., M.Sc., PhD.
Asst. Prof., Department of Architecture, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Abstract
Under a general perspective, criticism can be defined as a systematized judgments produced within the cognitive process on human actions and artefacts. We can talk about the necessity of three important elements in order to realize the activity of criticism. These are: criticizer, criticized and the judgment that criticizer develops over the criticized. Within epistemological analysis -similar to the conventional knowledge analysis- they can be called as the subject of criticism, the object of criticism and the critical judgment respectively.
The activity of criticism differs from the knowledge analysis in terms of these three elements. First of all, the object of knowledge can be all existing things while the object of criticism are the assets resulting from voluntary activity. For example, self-existing stone or tree in the nature can be an object of knowledge but not an object of criticism while all kinds of thoughts produced by humans, like work of art, work of engineering, scientific work or activity that can produced by human labor can be both an object of knowledge and criticism.
The subject of criticism separates from the subject of knowledge in terms of his attitudes and intentions. The subject of knowledge has the intentions such as describing, explaining, comprehending, discovering and recognizing while the subject of criticism has the intentions such as affirming, liking, encouraging, motivating, directing or vice versa and the related attitudes.
Criticism as a form of judgment is different from information as a form of judgment by being value-oriented and normative. Knowledge takes its power or resistance of existence from "truth" which is the only value that determines the relationship between itself and its object. The properties such as measurability, quantity and objectivity of knowledge are important in order to arrive at the truth value. Nevertheless, criticism takes its power or resistance of existence from various previously accepted values in an open or covered manner between its object and itself such as goodness, beauty, efficiency, effectiveness, affordability and the consistency among these values. Together with this, obtaining and expressing information in terms of truth value can be a criticism object while criticism can be an object of knowledge as in this writing.
Theory in architecture is accepted as both knowledge and criticism field of the practice. Mostly these two types of judgments are consciously or unconsciously loaded with an integrated function to create a combination of theoretical narrative. It can be said that this case is due to having the judgment object of the willpower together with the object of knowledge of the description together visible, mostly in the same asset. Similarly, the fact that architectural problems being not only understanding, discovering, learning and knowing, but also making decisions and being a problem-solving activity explains the coexistence of knowledge fields with criticism.
However, this situation also forms an epistemic barrier in front of the scientification of the architecture as an academic study field. Due to the nature of the normative qualified critical judgments, they are not considered within the scientific information knowledge field as they are resistant against measuring, quantifying and objectifying. In spite of containing how much descriptive knowledge, theories containing normative-quality judgments cannot be considered as scientific theories.
This statement will discuss the aspects of the fields of architecture that are open to the judgment field and the epistemic information field. Architectural subject, architectural object, architectural knowledge and architectural judgment concepts will be intended to be analyzed in epistemological terms. The knowledge and the theories produced on this subject in the literature will be discussed within the perspective of the put forward definitions. Understanding Architectural Criticism
The major difficulty in understanding architectural criticism stems from the fact that the concept of architecture has a multi-dimensional semantic content. We can define architecture partly as an artistic activity directed towards sensations and emotions, partly as an area of technological applications related to how an architectural product is
produced, partly as a scientific field where the necessary information for this technological application is produced, and partly as a philosophical study area in which we question the reason why we do all of the above. There are a series of problems that are related to art, technology, science and philosophy that stand together as an intertwined ball or an amalgam in the area of architecture. Undoubtedly, each of these areas has their own purposes, methods and knowledge regimes that are quite different from each other.
Any type of architectural entity or activity is forced to simultaneously feed the requirements of this multitude of purposes, methods, and types of information. However, this is not possible. It is not possible for all of these areas to come together with a common purpose, method and knowledge regime. This means that every architectural activity and entity is charged from the very beginning with a deep existentialist contradiction. Any production, decision or judgment related to architecture cannot meet the requirements of art, technology, science and philosophy at the same time.
What makes architectural criticism different from criticism in any other area is that it cannot just adhere to one of these areas’ purposes, methods or values. When this happens, the emerging criticism would be an artistic, scientific, technological or philosophical criticism rather than being an architectural one. Yet, architectural criticism must take place exactly where this differentiation does not occur or where all these dimensions are carried out together. What forces the architectural activity to exist in all of these areas together, cannot be possibly explained with the professional or academic passion of people that work in the field of architecture. Likewise, it is misleading to see architecture as an outdated categorical coding that collate many different information areas that cultural history brings. What forces the architectural activity to exist in all of these areas together, is the multi-dimensionality of the social and individual needs and expectations that push humans to shape the space in order to live. Human needs and expectations for the space cannot be restricted to art, technology, science or philosophy only. The intervention that is made to space in order to live is carried out in the unity of human existence that encompasses all of these areas together. In order to give a meaning to this unity, human beings decompose it mentally and reassert it into the areas that have different purposes, methods and information regimes. This brings art, science, technology and philosophy into existence.
The difficulty and complexity of architectural criticism stem from the difficulty of understanding and explaining the human existence as a whole. Architectural criticism always requires to analyze these multiple areas together. This makes it difficult to determine the dominant value, norms and standards for architectural criticism; because each area has its own values, norms and criteria according to its purpose. The validity and importance of critical judgment is related to understanding which values are taken reference according to which criteria. For example, a critical judgment that references factual correctness, logical consistency, mathematical certainty etc. may be considered valid in the field of science, however, in the field of art it can be said that these values are far from being predominant values.
Thus, all architectural criticism must start with an explicit or implicit assumption on what architecture is or ought to be. Then, the values, norms and criteria required by this assumption would be determined.
Architectural criticism, despite the uncertainty and the multiplicity in the values, norms and criteria, has an indispensably important position in architecture. Human needs and expectations related with space take its source from the ever ongoing existential contradiction between him and nature. On one hand, the human is a part and a result of nature. On the other hand, he is at the outside and against nature with his consciousness and free will. This leads him not to be always himself, but to be something different than himself. No entity in the nature that does not possess consciousness and free will cannot try to be something else. It can only change and evolve to become something else to the extent driven by the forces of nature. However, human beings, create a second nature within the nature with both individual and social consciousness. This second nature, brings out "what should be" and “what is desired" instead of “what exists”. From this moment on, the human loses his completeness and recognizes his shortcomings in the face of what is required or desired. The search for an answer to his self-felt shortcomings in spatial human life, brings architecture into existence. Prior to that, what determines this shortcoming is the criticism that he directs to his spatial existence and only that directs the human to architectural activity. Therefore, if we're going to define architecture as the search for answers to the multi-dimensional needs that the human feels in the space in order to live, architectural criticism always precedes architecture and even makes it occur. This is valid for every new situation that comes out from every intervention the human makes to the space. Thus, every architectural action begins with a criticism to the existing reality.
Science tends to accept and understand the existing, instead of criticizing it, yet scientists produce concepts and theories and may criticize the already existing concepts and theories. Hence, we can talk about a criticism to the
area of thought, instead of criticism to the area of physical/social reality. However in architecture, criticism to both physical/social area and mental area are inseparably intertwined with each other.
The Object of Architectural Criticism
When we look at the nature from the field of architecture, no entity is an object of knowledge only for the sake of knowing, without having any other intention. Every entity becomes an object in relation to human spatial needs. For example, a stone is a potential construction element rather than just a stone; a land is a living space, a view loaded with the value of natural landscape, rather than just a part of nature. That is, entities become objects by the intentions determined by needs. In this regard, any object or phenomenon that exists by itself in nature can be the object of criticism in relation to the architectural meaning it has. Similarly, a social group, an organizational structure, or an organization that gather together for architectural activity, can be the object of criticism within the framework of their intentions and activities.
Furthermore, since the ancient times, we can say that architecture still preserves the validity of the categorization of "poiesis", "praxis" and "theoria" as the three basic frameworks of architectural critics’ object. What may be the object of criticism in the context of poiesis , is the architectural product, aesthetic experience of architectural product, and that product's technical and procedural processes that are responsible for the emergence of the product. Whether architectural products meet the expectations like targeted form, functions etc., whether the process that is conducted for these purposes are executed or not can be the subject of criticism. In the poietic Criticism, mastery (phronesis) and production, in other words, architectural product and technical information are the focus of criticism. As for the Praxis dimension, architectural attitude, architectural acts, architectural decisions or architectural intent can be the objects of criticism. Here we can see architecture as an operation linked to the responsibilities and duties required by the policy framework and processes that determine this process, rather than a process of obtaining a predefined product. In this sense, ethics emerges as an important discipline for the establishment of values, norms and criteria of architectural criticism. Being object of criticism, architectural praxis means problematisation of architectural subject and its relation with the society. Because every ethical problem, problematizes the individual as an actor with the effect of his actions on others, and on society and what it means for society.
Another dimension that may be the object of criticism in architecture is "theoria" part. Architectural theory, as an integral part of architecture, is a conceptual study area where ideas on architecture and its problems are generated, what architecture is/is not, what it should be/should not be is questioned. In this regard, we can say that architectural criticism is also an area that can be included into architectural theory. At the same time, architectural theory being the object of criticism, can be named as the theory over theory, the theory of theory or the critic of criticism. This can be called as second order criticism, just as knowledge over knowledge is called as second order knowledge (Brakel, 2010, 24) in epistemology, or it can be called as “meta criticism” just as theory over theory in philosophy is called “meta theory”.
The Subject of Architectural Criticism
The other element of architectural criticism that we analyzed in the introduction from an epistemic perspective was the subject of architectural criticism. Here it is important to emphasize the difference between architectural subject and the subject of architectural criticism. We understand architectural subject as the subject that is in architectural activity. That can be a subject seen as an actor in architectural production or action, or a subject that experiences the architectural object. We can see both of these in the concept of architectural subject. However, when we talk about the subject of architectural criticism, we point to a subject that makes an architectural judgment beyond all of these and that can objectivize these subjects when required. As we mentioned in the introduction of this study, the subject of the architectural criticism differs from the subject of architectural knowledge in terms of their intensions. While the subject of architectural knowledge aims at purposes such as to describe, to explain, to understand, to explore and to create awareness, the subject of architectural criticism has purposes such as to affirm, to motivate and to mentor.
In this regard, in the architectural universe, we can mention subjects that have quite different positions and purposes. Most of the time, naturally, mentioned subjects' positions can intersect with each other. Executive subject, experiencing subject, knowing subject, criticizing subject are intellectual constructions and abstractions created to present the complexity of the situation epistemologically and prevent misunderstandings. In practice, it is difficult to say that there is an individual with only one of these positions. Thus, what is expected from the architectural critic is not merely making judgments but making analyses and descriptions to uncover the elusive background of the object
of criticism, and form a basis to justify his judgment according to the values and criteria that are considered to be valid . In this respect, architectural criticism is valuable as long as it is based on a good analysis with sound knowledge. Architectural criticism wipes out prejudice, and presents the different sides instead of taking sides. Thus, the subject of architectural criticism goes beyond, and tries to look back on the object of criticism from a distant location. In epistemic analysis of architectural criticism, the concept of subject is important in terms of defining the context of criticism. The context of architectural criticism is all kinds of conditions that reveal the judgment of criticism (Sharp, 1989, 11). The element that makes most of these conditions visible is the subject. The subject puts forward critical judgment based on its previous cultural background, values and the relationship it has with the object of criticism. When these conditions change, the critical judgment will inevitably change as well.
The subject alone does not determine the meaning of critical judgment. It is the relationship of the subject with other subjects, meaning patterns that are previously constructed among the subjects and common value judgments. Each and every criticism is based on acknowledging the existence of other subjects implicitly or explicitly. In that respect, each criticism is a message from one subject to the other. This condition is valid even for architectural self-criticism. Here, the subject makes himself, his architectural work or act the object of criticism and transfers the critical judgment he acquired to other subjects. In any case, how other subjects will perceive the criticism or what effect it would impose on other subjects is taken into account or directly aimed by the subject.
The Judgment of Architectural Criticism
The final element that we will focus on in the epistemic analysis of architectural criticism is “the judgment of architectural criticism”. Like in knowledge classification, the judgment of architectural criticism can be evaluated in two main frameworks; namely implicit and explicit. Implicit criticism is not expressed in words and in concepts. In architectural setting, message and meaning are expressed through architectural symbols and forms, rather than oral symbols. That is why, in every architectural work there is criticism about a previous solution to a similar architectural problem, definition of architectural problem in similar situations or the previous use of the location of the architectural work. This criticism is put forward by the architectural executer and is an implicit one embedded in the architectural work, in the architectural building process or in the architectural act. The object of criticism is not the architectural work or the process itself but the previous architectural approaches.
Implicit criticism is uncovered by analyzing and re-criticizing the architectural work, process or act through language and concepts (Huxtable, 1990, 461-464). Explicit criticism consists of judgments formed out of explicit knowledge and basic expressions such as “A is B”. Here, A always stands for the object of architectural criticism. B is A’s attribute. The difference of critical judgment from knowledge does not stem from the object of criticism but because of what is attributed to the object. If the attribution does not present a quality based on an assumption but on an objective framework that could be assessed, experienced and acknowledged, the end result is knowledge. However, if the attribution presents a quality based on an implicit or explicit assumption, value or norm, what we have is normative judgment or critical judgment. For instance, in proposition “K1 pillar is 2m high”, "K1 pillar” stands for A, and “2m high” stands for B. If this proposition is in line with reality and could be justified and proved, it has the potential to be knowledge. But, the proposition “K1 pillar is short”, which can be reckoned as a criticism judgment, needs the question “in comparison to what?” in order to test its truth value. This leads us to an implicitly or explicitly accepted