K.

Michael Hays' Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form is an informative and insightful
interpretation of how culture and theories of architecture opposes one another. Along with the analysis of
the work of Mies van der Rohe, this article identifies ‘critical architecture' as being resistant to both culture
and form. One that resist the risk of architectural design being absorbed in the ‘self-confirming processes
of a prevailing culture and a retreat to a ‘dissociated individual freedom of a conceptual given structure.
The critical realm between culture and form poses a challenge to those views whose
interpretations fall into one side only. Therefore the need to identify the difference between the
influence of culture and form is a great factor that architects have to consider as it creates a massive
difference that affects the architectural design process.

The author deliberates the works of some modernist architects such as Mies van der Rohe as
somewhat placed in between “architecture as an instrument of culture” and “architecture as an
autonomous form.” The first viewpoint states that architecture is influenced by cultural and social factors.
What we see around us creates a relationship that is formed through its buildings and the community.
Architecture is an instrument of culture one that is ingrained within the community where the ideas
revolves and with this, it helps assure its continuity. Meanwhile, the second viewpoint regards architecture
as being formal in its functions. To be recognized and criticized without considering the influence of
society and culture and is purely built for its functionality.

How Hays describes Mies’ work as a response to the modern city is less clear. Van der Rohe is
related to the Dada movement with their shared “antagonism against a priori and reasoned order”.
Although Mies’ buildings were a startling change in style, and his designs often refused to follow the
textures of the existing city, van der Rohe’s reproducible style of skyscrapers encouraged the
development of cities, as today his influence can be seen in cityscapes everywhere.

Hays also claims “that each architectural object places restraints upon interpretation…because
contingent and worldly circumstances exist at the same level of surface particularity as the object itself”,
but this is a bit irrelevant because interpretations will always be subjective. There don’t need to be ‘right’
answers in criticism, as each criticism is only an opinion anyways.

Hays concludes, based on his interpretation of Mies, that critical architecture is resistant and
oppositional to both formal and cultural interpretation and, in accordance, “criticism should be contentious
and oppositional as well”. This frictional questioning yields criticality, resulting in a work that indicates key
aspects of modern society as well as parallel currents in architecture and cultural expression.

Summary

 State architecture as an instrument of culture

 State why architecture an autonomous form
 an architectural object, by virtue of its situation in the world, virtue of its situation in the world, is
an object whose interpretation has already commenced but is never complete. It can be gleaned
from the article how the author
 discuss points from mies van der rohe
 discuss what modern architecture has done to us