Judging Architecture
How do we judge if Architecture is good or bad?
Going through many years of school, work, and now teaching over the last decade, I’ve had to come up with a way to explain my responses to other people’s projects, and to better judge my own work.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about how I think that Architecture is closer to Law than art or science, in the way that we produce meaningful arguments to convince people that beyond reasonable doubts, our solution is the right way to go.
One part of that conversation, that I didn’t get into, was “what are we judging against”? When you’re dealing with legal arguments, there are written laws to work within. In science, there’s a process that has to be repeatable. In Art, it’s another thing altogether, but remembering what the critic Ada Louise Huxtable notes, that “Architecture is a compromised art, subject to a battery of restraints, controls, conflicts…”, this all puts Architecture into a very gray area.
It’s not that interesting to discuss things on the basis of “I like it” or not. There’s just not much to digest with comments like that, and more importantly, it doesn't help us improve our projects and as designers, so how do we have a more meaningful and critical conversation?
Ask a Question and Critique the Solution:
I had a critic say to me once that “the more interesting the question is, the more interesting the answer can be”. It’s really stuck with me as a way to push ourselves to find the better answer, not just a passable answer.
At the time, I had been struggling with a project, and I ended up coming up with a much more simple solution that met the criteria, but certainly wasn’t very interesting. That comment really stuck with me (clearly), and it’s part of why so much of the work I do today is based on getting a design’s “screenplay” figured out, to get those initial drafts figured out in a compelling way with compelling questions, because without that, there’s no chance of the result being extraordinary (more on that here, if you’re curious).
What is the question you are trying to answer with your design?
Come up with a design that answers that question.
Have a discussion about if you’re successful in your attempt to answer your question.
To me, that’s the process of design and criticism.
Presenting a Design (Argument):
I ask students to not even talk about what a building looks like when they present it, and I generally follow the same guidelines when I talk with clients.
Why? Because aesthetics and the “form” or the shape of a building is incredibly subjective. If your presentation disregards the final look of a building, and sets the objectives and ground rules for your design, you have more to discuss that’s beyond pure appearance.
What is the problem?
What are you trying to achieve?
What are the constraints?
What are the opportunities?
How did you solve this problem?
What it looks like.
To be convincing and believable, consistency needs to be developed through arguments that are embodied in your design. That way, the success of your design can be evaluated against your intention and the criteria that you set up in your argument.
Note: When buildings are sitting in the real world, you’re not typically there to explain your thoughts, and it has to speak for itself, so that clarity of your intent needs to speak for itself… but that’s a different situation.
Presenting a design is not about being consistent within a conventional system, but to be consistent within the set of conditions and parameters defined by a project. That’s how we can end up with solutions that can be unique or unexpected, but make complete sense in a given context.
Being a Critic of Work (including your own):
Of course there’s more going on here, specifically because the entire history of humanity involves creating shelter (and therefore Architecture of some sort), so there’s a LOT of historical precedent that we’re all carrying with us.
That’s one of the big parallels with Law in my mind, because without that awareness of history and theory, you’re back into the “I like it this way” camp, which may create remarkable work, but is probably not enough of a foil for those of us (like me) who need a more tangible platform to work from.
Looking at things as successfully or not-successfully meeting the stated criteria and intent can help us be more objective critics, because it frees you from your personal and aesthetic opinions, to a degree.
It’s hard to step back far enough to give an objective assessment, but if you can, it makes you a better critic of other people’s work, as well as your own.
The things that I think of as a critic:
Is the project’s goal reasonable or believable enough?
Is the project doing what you say you want it to do?
How does it relate to other projects historically (it does inherently somehow).
Where is it in today’s discourse (which can be pro or con).
Judging things based on “I like it” seems to be the least important comment you can really make, even if you hear it from someone you want to like your work.
Why would I say that?
Owning It, Regardless:
As important as criticism is to help us evolve and evaluate Architecture, it also doesn't always mean shi*.
People have bad days. They might not like a certain color, or a certain shape. They might not like you. They may have got a speeding ticket or a bad coffee on their way. They may be an a**hole, (in the Team America sense).
That’s why I also advocate for students to own their work. They are the ones who will have it in their portfolio going forward, not me. I’m just trying to help as an “expert” with 25 years of education and experience, but it’s their work that they will be showing other people in the future, and they need to like it, regardless of what I say, or what a stranger may say, no matter who they are.
Confusing? Probably, yes. It certainly gets to the idea that we’re playing by a very gray set of rules in Architecture.
That’s why I like this Buckminster Fuller quote so much, which gets at the objective and subjective blend that Architecture mixes.
“When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty… but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.”
- R. Buckminster Fuller
As I get older, I’m less concerned with one thing being true. Sometimes that’s the case of course, but very often, multiple things can be true at the same time, and that’s where Architecture lives, where function and beauty both battle for their piece of the pie.
Gratefully,
-Chris
Please consider joining my newsletter, for weekly posts like this one.
P.S. I specialize in delivering meaningful Architecture, quickly and efficiently. More information here.
