What is the Social Utility of Architectural Criticism?
71
Our friend up there looks as..... I guess we'll settle for the word 'perplexed' as I feel. The title of this hub 'What is the Social Utility of Architectural Criticism?' is not a rhetorical device, a lever with which I will proceed to enlighten you, dear reader. I pose the question because -- at the risk of exposing my own provincialism -- I do not know. I am inviting any and all who are willing, to help me think about this. To that extent, therefore, this hub is something of an experiment.
Let me back up a step. In The Art of Criticism forum, we tried to discuss the social utility of criticism more generally. By criticism I mean the application of professional critical theory to various aspects of artistic endeavor (film, televsion, stage, literature, painting, sculpture, music, etc). I would 'link' you to that discussion but.... naaah!
I let it be known that I would be particularly interested in any insight anyone could offer as to the social function of architectural criticism. What do I mean by 'social function'?
Well this becomes clear when we think of the professional film critic, for example. Siskel and Ebert used to be my favorites. The movie critic, to my way of thinking, is a consumer reporter, telling us if this or that movie is worth spending our ten dollars for a ticket to (not to mention the twenty we'll spend on refreshments). The movie critic, therefore, helps us, in her way, to spend what little discretionary income we may have these days, wisely.
The same is true for the book critic. The same is true for the music critic. The same is true theater critic. They give us their best advice on what is and what is not worth our time and money. These critics are, in a very real sense, "consumer" reporters. You see, we may or may not buy a book based on her advice; we may or may not go to a play based on her advice; we may or may not buy a CD from a new artist based on her advice. This is so just as one might have bought a computer or a car or a stereo system based on the advice of a friend, a professional technology or automotive critic or product critic, or based on the advice from a consumer-based periodical of some kind.
Now, architectural criticism
What happens when we turn to the matter of architectural criticism? As far as I know, people don't refuse to go to a library, refuse to go to a post office, or refuse to go to a bank because they don't like the architecture; or because Architectural Digest didn't approve of the building design. Therefore what is the social purpose of architectural criticism? I am assuming there is a purpose. Otherwise why would the architectural industry permit this to flourish?
Art as a critique of life
I don't think its too controversial to say that architecture is art. Architecture is creative. Architecture is, especially at its most flamboyant, "artistic" in the classic sense. A building or a group of buildings, when designed well, add something to the aesthetic of a particular environment in which they are placed. We know this. Similarly, a building or group of building may not add anything, or indeed, subtracts from the aesthetic of a particular environment, if they are poorly designed.
Now, in trying to imagine a social function for architectural criticism, I began to imagine that this field or subfield, somehow, served a kind of creative function. As I say this, let me state first, that I categorically reject the old cliche 'Those who can't teach.' This is a ridiculous saying, but sadly I think is a sentiment that still underlies much of the education policy coming out of the federal govenment.
Teaching is a form of "doing." It is a profession. Why did we ever think it wasn't? Well, actually I think it has to do with the cultural damage done by what is called neoliberalism, which emerged in the late seventies and eighties. But we don't have to talk about that here.
I also reject the corollary to this ('Those who can't teach') argument, which says, in effect, that critics are themselves envious, failed artists. They couldn't "make it" as artists, so they became critics. I reject this because, to my way of thinking, proper criticism does have something to add to art.... even if I'm not always sure what that is.
Furthermore, I think that "art" itself is a criticism or critique of life. A painting, book or short story, sculpture, or dance, or piece of music may be melancholy, jubilant, optimistic, despairing, or terrifying. This is always a commentary on an aspect of life which the artist finds melancholy, jubilant, optimistic, despairing, or terrifying. Moreover, art is like a mirror which shows us things about ourselves and our world that we either cannot see or try to avoid seeing. Art is a kind of sight in spite of willful blindness.
If art is a kind of critique of life, then the artist might be "God," "fate," (or The Fates), or random happenstance, or indeed, the political and social order of a given society. This is the view I developed for myself, anyway.
Toilets
I wonder if the architectural critic sees herself as a participant in the creative process, somehow. By producing productive, and hopefully objective and aesthetically meaningful criticism, does she see herself in shaping, in part, the face of architecture to come? I'll leave it there, because that's just about as far as I can take this idea myself. I invite anyone who is willing to help me think about this.
If anyone stops by and requests it, I will tell the story of toilets in western civilization. I shall need to invoke the name of Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who tells this story. I shall recount his convincing analysis of how the world of abstract ideas contributed every bit as much as glassblowing and plumbing, to the creation of the modern western toilet.
I've talked about this on a hub or two, so I won't recount that in this hub. I will do so in the comments, but only upon request. After all, we wouldn't want this poor hub of mine flagged for duplicate content, now would we?
Ta-Ta! for now.
CommentsLoading...
Good Day billyaustindillon
Thank you for commenting on my unworthy hub. This piece represents a continuation of the discussion we started in the forums. Various forms of professional criticism have a clear, obvious purpose: movie critic, literary critic, etc. These folks and others, especially the movie critic functions like a kind of consumer reporter.
Architectural criticism gives me a different challenge for the reasons I outline. So, billyaustindillon, I really appreciate your helping try to figure this out. Yes, Frank Lloyd Wright is an important historical name in architecture, isn't he? A real artist is ever there was one.
Since you asked, the story of toilets goes like this. This is the story the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek tells. You can Google him, of course. In western Europe and America there are three basic types of toilets.
There's the German toilet which has the inner hole in the front -- the inner hole is toward the front of the bowl. Keep that in mind. According to Zizek, that's changing somewhat now, but fifty percent of them are still made this way. Another thing to know, according to Zizek (and I hope he was kidding about this!) but it is a part of German hygiene to inspect one's stool (you know, stool) every morning to check it for various..... things and so forth.
There's the French-style toilet which has the inner hole at the back.
The British and American style toilet has the hole in the middle.
One day Zizek got to wondering why toilets are made in such radically different ways. He asked engineers, who gave him various utilitarian answers. In other words, the German engineer would try to persuade him that the German way was the most logical, efficient, and proper way to make a toilet.
The same was true of French, British, and American engineers he talked to. This wasn't getting him anywhere, so Zizek asked himself where he had heard about this trinity before.
One day he had his Eureka! moment. It turns out that over two hundred years it was a popular idea in Europe, that European civilization was represented by three sparkling exemplars: France, Germany, and England.
It goes like this.
France:
Dominant political ideology: Leftist/revolutionary
Sphere of life: politics
Germany:
Dominant political ideology: conservative
Sphere of life: intellectual pursuits, poetry, philosophy, science, the arts, etc.
British/American:
Dominant political ideology: moderate/liberal democratic (we don't mean 'liberal' in the modern sense)
preferred sphere of life: Economics
Beleive it or not, billyaustindillon, the dominant political ideoloy and sphere of life of Germany, France, England, and America actually corresponds perfectly to the position of the inner hole in those kinds of toilets.
Germany: the inner hole is in the front. Remember, the propaganda about Germany was that that was the country that best exemplified culture, that arts, and the intellectual disciplines; Germany was supposed to be a very reflective country.
The inner hole in the front corresponds very nicely to this. The sitter (on the toilet) is literally confronted with his own waste as it goes down.
France, with its revolutionary past (executing its monarchy), would make a toilet with the inner hole at the back. Waste should be liquidated, removed immediately.
The American/British toilet has the inner hole in middle. This position of the inner hole, again, corresponds very nicely with the moderate, middle-of-the-road ideology of England and the United States. We are 'moderate' not only in the classic political sense, but also relative to France and Germany.
In France the preoccupation is political life and in Germany its philosophy. These are two areas in different poles of life, of equal and even "extreme" seriousness. The American and British preoccupation with economics can be seen as a kind of middle-of-the-road concern.
Zizek talked to the relevant authorities, and according to him, they admitted that this made sense, that this was perhaps correct. ideology, then, is the only way, ultimately to account for the varieties of a "vulgar" structure of the toilet. And so on and so forth. That's roughly how it goes, as I understand it.
Thanks for asking. Take care.
Have you ever had the experience of digesting both a work of art and its criticism, such that you came to think of both the criticism and the art as a unit; such that you found it impossible to think
See results without voting
billyaustindillon Level 2 Commenter 21 months ago
Very interesting points raised here. Yes I agree architecture is indeed art from the ancients to Frank Lloyd Wright and on. I think art is also used as a form of criticism, be it of a society, politics, culture or one's self. It also reflects mass criticism and often the herd will bend to positive and negative criticism - take the MOdern pyramid at the Lourve as a shinning example. Oh and yes I do want to read about the history of toilets!