Criticism In Architecture

In the field of architecture, one can find different ways of understanding and studying it. The following essay discusses the fields of knowledge of three subjects: History, Theory and Criticism in Architecture, which often tend to be confused and used for the same purposes. This paper tries to explain each one in order to find the differences, and then discuss why in the last years, the limits between them have been blurred.

To understand more about the three topics in question, it was needed to understand the concepts from another fields, such as literature, in order to be able to explain them with ease, works about different fields were consulted.

The earliest definition of history is made by Aristotle, who said that history is “an account

The professionals of this field are theorists and historians specialized in architecture and the media commonly used are books, specialized magazines and journals.

Architectural Criticism is an estimation of the value in a piece of work in architecture, which can be about different topics, such as the form, function or aesthetic. Dennis Sharp, a British architect and historian, defines Criticism as "the art of judging the qualities and values of an aesthetic object" (2016).

The of realm Architectural Criticism is vast, since it is deeply related to other fields, such as Philosophy and Theory. Criticism can go from the function of a building, to its aesthetic qualities or its relation with its surroundings. One example of the vast realm of this field can be found in one of the works of Paul Goldberger, an American critic who wrote Why architecture matters, in which he discusses different works of architecture in order to explain that architecture is something beyond the fact of a

Furthermore, people may not have the experience or the knowledge, yet they have the information (from the experts) and want to have a say about it. The problem that this can bring, is that some information may be misunderstood, or interpreted the wrong way when its being published.

With this essay one is able to understand each one of the fields, then be able to differentiate between each one of them. Although these fields tend to be seen as inextricably mixed, it is clear that they are separate ones, since one relies on hard data (Architectural History), one tries to understand intentions (Architectural Theory) and another one gives an estimation of value (Architectural Criticism). These three subjects have proven to be of great importance, since each one of them show a different side of architecture and humanity