This article was downloaded by: [University of Washington Libraries]

On: 18 February 2015, At: 20:43

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer
Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Architectural Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjae20

Methods of Criticism and Response to Criticism

Wayne Attoe
Published online: 26 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Wayne Attoe (1976) Methods of Criticism and Response to Criticism, Journal of Architectural Education, 29:4, 20-21, DOI:
10.1080/10464883.1976.10758059

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1976.10758059

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this
publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor
and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the
use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

METHODS
OF
CRITICISM
AND
RESPONSE
TO
CRITICISM
Downloaded by [University of Washington Libraries] at 20:43 18 February 2015
A fter several years of performing as a design
studio critic and a short-lived effort at writing
criticism for a wider, newspaper public, I was
struck with the fact that though criticism is all
around us, we never specifically teach criticism,
methods of criticism, retorts to criticism, etc. An
integrated view of criticism, it seemed to me,
would have to start with an identification. What
sorts of criticism are there? (Does Ada Louise
Huxtable do it differently from Peter Blake?)
Then one would want to be clear about where
criticism takes place. (Is it significant that an
article in The New York Times, a new book by
Scully, and what I tell my design students are all
called "criticismP) Finally, it seemed important
to ask about the significance of criticism and
about its role in a professional curriculum. (Is
criticism just newspaper filler, heady entertain-
ment, or perhaps a key to excellence in profes-
sional work?)
With help from literary and art Criticism, I
undertook to answer the questions above, the
product being a manuscript, The Built Environ-
ment and Critics, to be published in 1977. The
following are some of my conclusions:
Perhaps the most common forms of criticism of
environmental design are the verbal assessments
of buildings published in newspapers and profes-
sional journals, and the remarks of teachers
about students' work in design studios. But
environmental criticism is found in other aspects
of life and environment as well. Criticism exists
from the moment a designer proposes an idea to
himself, and his "other self" passes judgment on
that idea. A similar criticizing process takes place
between designer and office principal, between
client and architect, between architect and con-
Wayne Attoe is Assistant Professor of Architec-
ture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
He has an AB from Cornell (in Enlisb litera-
ture), a BArch from the University of California,
Berkeley, and a PhD from Union Graduate
School. His lengthy manuscript on criticism, to
be published in 1977, is in partial fulfillment of
his doctoral work. Last year's three-day confer-
ence at UW-M on "Criticism and Architecture"
was moderated by Wayne Attoe; five one-hour
videotapes are available from Phil Galligan,
WMVS channel 10, 1015 N Sixth si, Milwaukee,
20 Wis 53203.
tractor, between urban designer and Urban
Design Commission, between the users of a
building and the building itself. Criticism in
relation to environmental design is pervasive;
we should be aware of its uses and possible
abuses so that instead of intimidating us, it can
give us impetus and support.
Etymologically, "criticism" derives from verbs
having to do with separating, sifting, making
distinctions. Judgments of goodness and badness
may be a part of such sifting processes, but are
not necessarily involved. Plain description with-
out judgments is also part of criticism.
When the critic sifts and makes distinctions he is
limited by inherent biases and limited by his own
conception of the role of the critic. Biases in a
critic are usually more readily seen than are his
particular conception of the critic's role. Adjec-
tives like "safe," "conservative," "retardataire,"
and "fresh," clearly indicate Ada Louise Huxta-
ble's bias in her assessment of Lincoln Center in
New York. From her point of view, the complex
should have been new in its concept ("possibili-
ties") as well ~ new in its fabric. The bias in
favor of experimentation, exploration, and inno-
vation is not uncommon among journalist-
critics.
Detecting a critic's particular conception of his
role as a critic is not so easy. Critics seldom come
right out and declare themselves on this point,
yet this should be done if criticism is to help
rather than intimidate. Whether the critic sees
himself as missionary, or as purveyor of good
taste, or as steward of the environment should
affect the hearing we give him.
In sum criticism is first and foremost about the
critic, ~ot about the object criticized. The self-
image of the critic, his view of his role, and his
inherent biases as a thinking, feeling, self-
moving creature are important considerations,
when designers and others must face criticism
and respond to it. This is true regardless of
where the critique appears, whether in the daily
newspaper, the design studio, or in the form of
vandalized windows in a housing project. Once
the bias in a critic's assessment or position is
recognized, those who are the objects of criticism
are freed of the burden of Final Judgment and
can drop defenses to learn from the frank
encounter with someone whose life has been
touched.
Incidentally, it must be clear now that criticism is
not only a negating activity and that the re-
sponse to criticism need not only be defensive.
Biases also underlie criticism that is positive or
neutral. Thus criticism is best characterized as
behavior; and it should be seen, like other
behaviors, in relation to underlying motives,
fears, intentions, and habits.
Given this background regarding critical behav-
ior, how might we answer some of the questions
posed above?
Criticism is broadly concerned with prescribing
and judging, interpreting, and describing. More
specific concerns and intentions fall within these
general categories. Seldom is a critical commen-
tary responding to a single concern, like judg-
ment; more often it will reflect a collection of
concerns and concomitant methods.
Prescriptive criticism has as its basis either a
doctrine, system, type, or measurement. Pres-
criptive criticism depends upon our believing in
some thing outside the realm of the environ-
ment itself and assessing the environment in
relation to the standards implicit in that belief.
We prescribe, and then we make judgments
based upon those prescriptions.
The range in complexity, abstractness, and speci-
ficity of prescriptive models accounts for the
distinction made here between doctrine, system,
type, and measurement. A doctrine is an abstract
statement of principle: for example, "form fol-
lows function." A system is an assemblage of
elements or principles which are interrelated, for
example Vitruvius' "Architecture depends on
Order, Arrangement, Eurythmy, Symmetry,
Propriety, and Economy." A type is a generalized
model for a specific class of things like fifteenth
century English churches which AWN Pugin
felt epitomized ecclesiastical architecture and
ought to be the model for contemporary (nine-
teenth century) churches. Measurement is the
assernent of a built environment against well-
defined, usually numerical standards: Is the
reverberation time in the room reduced to two
seconds? Yes/No.
The central feature of interpretive crusasm is
that it is highly personal. The critic, acting as
interpreter for the viewer, does not claim to
serve a doctrine, system or type, nor does he
claim to be objective. The interpreter-critic
simply seeks to mold others' vision to make
them see as he does. To do this the critic either
constructs a work of his own art around the
object of his criticism, thus transforming it; or he
provides a new perspective on the object, usually
by changing the metaphor through which we see
the building-object. We can call these two tech-
niques impressionistic and advocatory criticism.
The key to effective interpretive criticism is not
accuracy but plausibility.
Charles W Moore and Donald Canty engaged in
impressionistic criticism when they turned the
Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts into a
theatrical production in the September 1966
issue of Architectural Forum. The Met, the State
Theater, the Philharmonic, and the Vivian Beau-
mont all became actors behind a proscenium
facing Columbus Avenue. By giving the buildings
roles and even dialogue, the authors create a
graphic and literary objet that stands on its own
without actually having to be called "criticism."
The critics are artists.
Montgomery Schuyler's critique of the 1893
World's Fair in Chicago exemplifies advocatory
,criticism. While others complained that the
"White City" of lath and plaster was a sham, a
tacky version of a noble Classicial city, Schuyler
spoke not of "city" but of stage sets and illusion.
By changing the metaphor through which the
Fair was seen, he hoped to affect others' percep-
tions and subsequent assessments.
Descriptive criticism seeks to note facts that are
pertinent to one's encounter with the environ-
ment. The assumption is that if we know what
actually has happened or what actually is the
case, then we can in fact begin to understand the
building. Descriptive criticism aims not at judg-
ing nor at interpreting but at helping people see
what is there. There are three types of descrip-
tive criticism: depictioe, in which static, dynamic,
and process aspects of the environment are
pictured either verbally or graphically; biogra-
phical, in which pertinent facts about the makers
of the buildings are noted; and contextual, in
which events associated with the design and
production of the building are recounted.
Andre Kertesz' Washington Square depicts for
us graphically what happens in and to that
 environment. Nikolaus Pevsner's 46-volume
series, The Buildings of England, is a monumen-
tal piece of depictive criticism in which static
aspects of the environments are described. While
Huxtable, too, describes to help us see buildings
berrer, she has also made an effort to poim out
processes that cause cities to be the way they are,
nor ably the "redevelopment" process as it oc-
curred in towns like Manchester, N H.
Armed with this outline of methods for crin-
cism, I attempted with my teaching team in the
design studio to make criticism more pertinent
to the design process. In doing so I had to assume
that something was wrong and needed changing,
so I assumed that designers are defensive and do
not welcome criticism. In fact some may well
refuse to listen at all. If criticism is intended to
help create better environments, it must first be
heard; a study of criticism can first show that
criticism is not equivalent to FinalJudgmem, but
is just human behavior.
Downloaded by [University of Washington Libraries] at 20:43 18 February 2015
Critical behavior is time- and place-bound and
limited by language and world view. If the critic
can be shown to be as much a hypothesizer as the
designer ("every design is a hypothesis about
how to solve a problem"), then every critique is a
hypothesis about what is happening in a design,
what the design means, and how well the design
measures up to some standards.
A second assumption I made was that criticism is
nor one thing, but is quite varied. Such an
assumption reduces opportunities for ignoring a
critique because it does nor address what is
perceived as the most pertinent issue. For exam-
ple a student might want technical criticism of a
design while the teacher-critic is offering doctri-
nal criticism: "A city hall should be a...." If the
student understands the difference he can direct
the critic to service his specific needs. Similarly,
if a client's only reaction to a proposal is, "It
looks like a... ," a designer who understands the
methods of criticism can evoke responses with
broader implications than allowed by the "looks-
like-a" critique.
Assuming these two basic problems, defensive-
ness and failure to discriminate between me-
thods of criticism, we introduced a unit on
criticism into the design studio. With the study
outlined above as a guide, students undertook the
following: 1) analysis of critiques that instruc-
rors gave ro other students; 2) analysis of a
critique in a newspaper; 3) analysis of a layman's
critique of a building; 4) an original critique
using one or more of the methods identified. We
have no measure of the significance of this unit,
especially whether defensiveness is reduced and
sensitivity to critical methods and their implica-
tions is increased. But if nothing else, exposure
to the wide range of responses to the built
environment is an excellent introduction to the
field of design.
One unexpected outcome of this effort to intro-
duce a study of criticism into the design studio
was that a few students asked about possibilities
for graduate work and careers in criticism. After
cautioning them that it would be safer to have
academic credentials in journalism or history, we
agreed ro formulate individualized programs in
criticism, integrating design experince with ana-
lytical activities.
The analysis of methods of criticism and the
experiments with a discussion of criticism in the
design studio have given me some convictions
about criticism and its role in the school setting.
Foremost is the conviction that the ends of
criticism should be. beginnings. Along the way
criticism may be enjoyable and elucidating, but
always there should be what I call an evolution-
ary bias. It is this possibility of being forward-
looking that in fact distinguishes environmental
criticism from literary and an criticism. Few
literary and an critics would claim to be working
in the cause of better literature and an. Their
words, their insights, their artistry will not turn
second rate writers into major literary figures,
nor will their words change history. Literary and
an criticism are princially for other critics who
appreciate the insights and the anistry of cri-
tique, and for others who enjoy seeing more than
they would if left to their own devices.
What is special about environmental criticism is
that it can have an effect on the future. Decisions
about the environment are much more in and
about the public realm, and the public realm is
sensitive to influence. To capitalize on this
unique feature of environmental criticism, the
critic should emphasize what is in the future and
should not be satisfied with categorical judg-
ments about the past. Content of the critique
should focus on how events in the present can
teach us better how to handle the future.
Another conviction is that criticism should dis-
play processes as much as products. If a corpo-
rate headquarters is ugly, how did that happen?
If a housing project works well, how did that
happen? What is the chain of events that causes
the built environment to be the way it is?
I am also convinced that much criticism is too
narrow in its scope. Grady Clay and Allen Temko
in particular have made efforts to overcome this
by making terminology more inclusive. We do
nor need architecture critics, they say, but envir-
onmental and urban critics. Buildings should not
be treated as isolated objects.
Finally, I propose that criticism be seen as
"purposeful response" instead of simply as "sift-
ing" or "making distinctions." I know that it is
unwise ro tamper with Greek roots and estab-
lished careers and professions, but purposeful
response, or purposeful sifting and making of
distinctions would better reflect the potential of
environmental criticism. Such a perspective on
critical activity would make the work seem less
that of a parasite (a typical view of the critic in
an and literature) and more that of a co-worker.
21