Architecture Criticism
Author(s): Ada Louise Huxtable
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 134, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp.
461-464
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/986900 .
Accessed: 27/11/2012 03:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.208 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:41:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Architecture
Criticism
ADA LOUISE HUXTABLE
Criticand Historian
Architecture
B eforeI talkaboutcriticism
as art,I wouldliketo talkabouttheart
ofcriticismas itapplies to architecture,forthisis likeno othercrit-
icism. To begin with, and this is not quite as obvious as it seems,
architecture is like no otherart.It is the mostcomplexand compromised
of the arts, subject to a batteryof restraints,controls and conflictsof
interest,always strivingto find the line where art and utilitymeet. A
buildingis not a studio work; it is the productof an enormousmixedbag
of programsand pressures that go farbeyond the unifiedvision thatis
possible forthe creator,performer, or translatorof otherart
interpreter
forms.It is caught in an endless strugglebetween the aestheticand the
pragmaticon a battlefieldof politics,money and power. Althoughlarge
sums are needed for the support of all the arts today, a circumstance
around which status wars revolve,the amounts are nothingcompared
to the megamillionsinvestedin leveragedreal estatedeals. The jockeying
among artpatronsis child's play nextto the piranha tacticsthatgo with
thepursuitofdevelopmentprofits.Nor is any otherartso constantlysub-
ject to environmentaland communityconcerns that are totallyat odds
with the superscale of building today.In no fieldof aestheticendeavor
is Ia captive public so brutallypitted against freemarketcapitalism-or
does itunderstandso littleofwhat itloses because itunderstandsso little.
The factorsthat shape, compromiseand corruptthe building art are
serious, constantand inescapable. Architecture is an impureartin every
sense ofthe word. The accommodationofcodes, zoning, cityreviewpro-
cesses and politicaltradeoffsis carriedout by expertswho have honed
savvy legal skills into extraordinary formsof manipulationdedicated to
the higherlaws of greed; real estatelaw is an artformin itself.The law-
yersand developerswho are most successfulin defeatingthe city'spro-
tectivemechanismsand reducingarchitectureto a sales tool, then dem-
onstratetheiraestheticconvictionby becoming collectorsof art.
The architectmust take this terminallyflawedbuilding and visualize
it in termsof space, form,lightand color, of the urban fabricand the
public realm. As an artist,he neverloses the beliefthathe can create a
structurethat satisfieshuman use and financialformulasand can still
PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, VOL. 134, NO. 4, 1990
461
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.208 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:41:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
462 ADA LOUISE HUXTABLE
transportthe eye and elevatethe soul. Well,it's no wonder thatit doesn't
happen very often,and that the resultingstructureis never perfect,or
pleases everyone.It would be simpler,of course, if a building could be
judged withoutthe messy interventionsof real life.It is easy to love the
Parthenonor the Taj Mahal; the gods have been gone fromthe Acropolis
fora long time,and the Taj Mahal was built, not forlife,but fordeath.
Criticismof architectureis also complex and difficult.The talent,or
genius, withwhich the architectputs thisraw and irreconcilablematerial
througha crucibleof creativeanalysis forsolutions thatturna building
into a place where the senses are engaged and explored, and even
exalted,is what makes a work of art. But criticaljudgmentinvolvesstill
more: because architecture is a public art,one must also know when the
process, and the product,breaks faithwith public responsibility.There
is, in today'scurious socio-bureaucraticvocabulary,a frequentlyabused,
but legitimateconceptcalled entitlement-inthe case ofarchitecture, this
would be the rightto certainstandardsof livability,amenity,qualityand
style.To abandon such rights,or even relinquishthe bare expectationof
theirfulfillment, leads not just to a loss of splendor or community,but
to homelessness and public squalor.
It is easier forthe criticto meet deadlines by ignoringthe architects,
builders and users, or skippingthe factorsthatcontroldesign, and this,
alas, is too frequentlydone. I am appalled by those who consider a walk
around the outside of a building, with a quick tripup the elevator,an
in-depth study. I do not find descriptionsof postmodern deconstruc-
tionistfrivolitiesan acceptablesubstituteforsound urban analysis.Arch-
itectureis a stunningrecordof a society'sstandardsand values. And yet
itis so invisibleto most,so simplythere,thatfewsee or read itsmessages.
The criticof architecturemust thereforebe a decoder, demystifier and
debunker; a guide to values and meanings as well as to technologyand
aesthetics,a link between past and present. The criticwho simply fol-
lows or inflatesfashion,whose prime motiveis to lead the bandwagon
and push the power buttons (that's not a mixed metaphor,the buttons
are on the bandwagon), is not a criticbut an "apparatchik."He, or she,
knows all the rightbuzz words and attendsall the rightparties.This kind
of criticismisn't worth the paper it's writtenon, and certainlyhas no
claim to being an art form.There is a lot of that going on and Hilton
Kramertells me thatit is all myfaultforgettingpeople interestedin the
subject during my years on The New YorkTimes.
What I am tryingto say is that I believe the criticismof architecture
can be, and should be, practicedas an art; that the process of analysis
and synthesisis a creativeone; that giftsof eye, mind and heart are as
essential to criticismas theyare to the artsthemselves.When the disci-
pline of intellectand the medium of language are used to explore the
intentionsand responses the artistseeks throughnon-verbalmeans, the
resultshould have the characterof art: a valid vision and style.Because
the criticis not a second-rateartist,a practitionerwho can't cut the mus-
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.208 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:41:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ARCHITECTURE CRITICISM 463
tard; that is a common and ageless canard. The criticalpoint of view is
the outgrowthof a particularkind of mind and temperament.Nor does
it followthatthe practitioneris the only one who reallyunderstandsthe
subject and is qualifiedto criticize;the confusionof creatorand criticto
the denigrationof the latteris anotherenduringand self-servingmyth.
The architect,in particular,can be close to totallyinarticulateand fre-
quently is; usually the betterhe is the less he has to say, and the more
off-putting it is when he says it. Occasionally, however,someone like
Mies van der Rohe will say "Less is more,"or "God is in the details,"
which will then be credited to everyonefromConfucius to the Pope.
There are a few architectswho make significantcontributionsto theory
and criticism-RobertVenturicomes to mind-and there are others of
whom I can only say thatI wish to God they'dkeep quiet. An architect's
worktellsyou everything you need to know about him,and the architect,
in fact,may be the last to know it.
This view puts me at odds with the currentsituationin architecture
in which theoryis the message and the buildingis itsmedium. It is truly
believed in certainelevated and influentialcirclesthatthereis no archi-
tecturewithouttheory,that its formsand meanings must stem directly
fromtheoreticalassumptions and discourse. This removes architecture
fromitsfunctionaland societalgeneratorsand increasinglystands build-
ing on itshead. When architecture becomes a spinoffoftheoryaccessible
only to the indoctrinatedfew,it frequentlyturnsusers into victims.If a
building does not stand on its own in every sense, fromstructuralto
experiential,if it does not draw its aesthetic fromits most basic rela-
tionshipsto user,site,communityand culture,ratherthan as an explica-
tionofliterarytextsor an abstractofideas, it abdicates responsibilityand
realityand the intrinsicsources ofitsmeaningand style.In a word, archi-
tecturefails. Clearly,an importantpolemical relationshipexists among
these constituentelements,but itis a two-waystreet,a process thatinflu-
ences and enrichesboth the product and the culture.It is here thatthe
criticlegitimatelyengages in a dialogue with the architectand history.
Do not believe fora moment that the criticdoes not love the art he
deals with, although that accusation is constantlyleveled by the artist
spurned. Only one who loves an artverymuch could be moved to out-
rage by seeing it practicedbadly. The urge to assign creditor blame, to
see justice done, wrongs righted,missingfactssupplied, misapprehen-
sions corrected,moves mountains of print. Even stronger,and much
more lasting,is the overwhelmingdesire to communicatepleasure, the
passionate need to make discoveryand delectationa shared experience;
to offerto anyonewho will listenan accountingofhow beauty and excel-
lence have been achieved and in what way this adds to our under-
standingofartand life,ofourselvesand our times.Criticismis a construc-
tive act thatcarrieswith it the obligationto informand educate, making
possible the kind of judgmentsthroughwhich the greatestunderstand-
ing and pleasure are reached. The criticmustregardlanguage and writing
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.208 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:41:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
464 ADA LOUISE HUXTABLE
withthe same awe and affectionand employthe same rigorousstandards
that are reservedforthe primaryart.
Because what the criticis tryingto do is to capture one art with
another,to translatethe kineticconcept and visual, sensory and three-
dimensional expression and experience of architectureinto words, the
only way in which data, rationaleand evaluationcan be communicated.
Criticismis no more creativedefaultthan architectureis frozenmusic;
by thatreasoning music is melted architecture, and I thinkit's time we
laid thatbit of foolishnessto rest.
Nor do I believe thatthe measure of architectural criticismis its influ-
ence on the art of architecture.No criticaldebate can shape or change
the talentand convictionof a JamesStirlingor a FrankGehryor provide
a thunderclapconversionfora Frank Lloyd Wright.No amount of ver-
biage, and we are drowningin it, can validate a sellout, or elevate the
second-rateor make bad architecturegood. The one thing that merits
the word derived, or betteryet, knocked-off,is the kind of pseudo-
philosophyskimmedfromotherdisciplinesthatpasses as theoreticaldis-
course among architectstoday.Whateveris written,whateverthe fashion
in interpretation, the reputationsof architectsand buildingswill rise and
fallwiththe tides oftaste.Eventuallythe good stuffcomes to the top and
the silliness sinks.
Criticismhas much moreinfluenceon architectural history-or at least
on the way in which it is taughtor written.WitnessLewis Mumfordand
SigfriedGiedion, two of the most influentialwriters,criticsand polem-
icists of this century.Lewis Mumfordsaw architectureas a humanistic
enterprise,in his words, "a home for man." For SigfriedGiedion, the
theme was the relentless march of machine-age modernism in which
"Mechanizationtakes Command," surelyone ofthe moreawkwardbook
titlesin the historyof art. Hitchcockand Johnson'smodernismmarched
to a different drummer;in The International Styletheyreduced it to a set
of rules fora sleek new look. Points of view differand are revised with
each generation;blind spots are correctedand othersappear; scores are
settled, not without malice. That, too, makes architecturalhistory.The
storynever goes stale.
Criticismshows us the world we build as art,culture,policyand prac-
tice. It is a combinationof intellectualand aestheticresponse: it is the
way we put artin context.Mencken went to the heartofthe matterwhen
he measured the critic'sworthby the abilityto make "the leap fromthe
work of art to the vast and mysteriouscomplex of phenomena behind
it...." These connectionsare what fascinateus, and itis thisleap offaith
and vision, as Mencken understood,thatleads "fromthe work of artto
life itself,"so that art serves its basic functionof enrichinglife. That is
the undertakingin which the artist,the criticand the public are uniquely
joined. And it is as a universallyshared experience,ratherthan as a sol-
itarycreativeact, that criticismcarriesits primaryobligationand earns
its greatestrewards.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.208 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:41:32 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
