The Historical and Intellectual Evolution of Criticism in Architecture and Urbanism

The First half of the • Karl Friedrich Schinkel

19th century • Horatio Greenough

• John Ruskin
The Second half of the • Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc
19th century

The First half of the • Henri-Van de Veldi

20th century • Adolf loos
The First half of the 19th century

Karl Friedrich Schinkel

▪ Timeless human values

▪ Philosophy and architecture
The connection between architecture and the
philosophical and intellectual aspects.

Concert Hall - Berline

Friedrichswerder Church Interior view with sculpture gallery
▪ Horatio Greenough (1805-1852)
He was an American sculptor and architect who made significant contributions to architectural criticism and theory in the 19th
century.
He is best known for his views on the relationship between form and function in architecture, Greenough argued that beauty in
architecture and design was a result of fitness to function.
“Architecture as a social arts” his advocacy for a distinctly American architectural style.

"The Law of Adaptation"

Greenough critiqued the uncritical adoption of classical styles in American architecture. He believed that architects should be
mindful of the materials and conditions of their specific environment rather than merely replicating European classical forms.
He was a proponent of developing a unique American style of architecture, distinct from European influences.
His book (Form and function) is one of the earliest statements of the doctrine of functionalism that was so famously adopted in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by architect theorists such as Louis Sullivan and Mies van der Rohe.
▪ This book offers advice to practitioners of all the arts, and sound reasoning to students
of aesthetics. Stating his principles in the mid-nineteenth century, Greenough was three
generations ahead of his time.
▪ He reads today like a progressive contemporary, and many an architect, artist, and
student of art may benefit by what he has to say. It was Greenough, not Whitman, who
first protested against meaningless ornamentation.
▪ It was Greenough, not Ruskin, who first expressed the idea that the buildings are art of
a people express their morality.
▪ It was Greenough, no Le Corbusier who first said that buildings designed primarily for
us "Building may be called machines.“
▪ It was Greenough, not Louis Sullivan, who first expressed the principle that, in
architecture, form must follow function.

▪ Greenough's ideas on architecture are impressively modern and come under the
heading of what is now called "functionalism," a term used to denote adherence to the
principle "form follows function," and the analogy between architectural and organic
form. This principle, reflective of the adaptive laws of nature, suggests that the design
of everyday things should conform to the inherent rules that govern natural designs.
The Second Half of the 19th century

▪ Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1879-1814)

He was a French architect and author, He is considered the
founder of the rationalist school of architecture.
His writings on decoration and on the relationship between
form and function in architecture had a fundamental
influence on a whole new generation of architects, including
all the major Art Nouveau artists: Antoni Gaudí, Henry van de
Velde. He also influenced the first modern architects, Frank
Lloyd Wright, Mies van der Rohe, Auguste Perret, Louis
Sullivan, and Le Corbusier, who considered Viollet-le-Duc as
the father of modern architecture.
His architectural theory was largely based on finding the ideal
forms for specific materials and using these forms to create
buildings. His writings centered on the idea that materials
should be used "honestly".
• In his book (lectures in Architecture), Viollet-le-Duc
systematized his approach to architecture and
architectural education, he concentrated in particular
on the use of iron and other new materials, and the
importance of designing buildings whose architecture
was adapted to their function, rather than to a
particular style.
▪ John Ruskin (1900-1819)
Ruskin's developing interest in architecture, and particularly in the Gothic, led to the first work to bear his name, The Seven
Lamps of Architecture (1849). The title refers to seven moral categories that Ruskin considered vital to and inseparable from all
architecture. These Seven Lamps of Architecture are:
▪ William Richard Lethaby (18 January 1857 – 17 July 1931)
William Richard Lethaby was an influential figure in architectural criticism and theory, one of the early critics who
practiced criticism in newspaper.
Lethaby contributed to architectural criticism through his writings, which combined a deep understanding of history,
aesthetics, and symbolism in architecture. He authored several important works, including Architecture, Mysticism and
Myth (1891), which explored the spiritual and symbolic meanings behind architectural forms. His works encouraged
architects to think beyond mere function and utility, urging them to consider the metaphysical and cultural aspects of
their designs.

In his criticism, Lethaby often challenged the mass production of buildings, arguing that this led to a loss of artistic
quality and individuality. He was concerned with the dehumanization of architecture under industrialization and called
for a return to traditional craftsmanship, where buildings would express the skill of their makers and resonate with
cultural meanings.
• Adolf Loos (1870 –1933)

• was an Austrian architect, influential European theorist, and a polemicist of modern architecture. He was
inspired by modernism and a widely-known critic of the Art Nouveau movement.

• In 1908 Loos wrote an essay (Ornament is a crime) “the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of
ornament from objects of daily use . Ornament is no longer organically related to our culture, it is also no
longer the expression of our culture. The ornament that is produced today bears no relation to us. It has no
potential for development.
The role of a critic in architectural criticism is multifaceted and involves a combination of evaluation, interpretation, and counseling.
Critics serve as connection between architects, the public, and the broader cultural context, offering insights that shape how
architecture is understood and appreciated. Here’s explanation the role of critic in architectural criticism:

1. Evaluation and Judgment:

Assessing Quality: One of the main functions of a critic is to evaluate the quality of architectural works. This involves judging a building’s
design, functionality, aesthetics, and the way it reacts with its environment.
Critics assess whether an architectural project achieves its goals and contributes positively to the built environment.
Contextualizing Design: Critics place individual buildings or projects within a larger architectural context. They may assess how a design
fits within contemporary trends, architectural history, or a specific cultural or social context.
2. Interpreting Meaning:
Interpret Symbolism and Messages: Critics often analyze the symbolic or cultural meanings embedded in architectural design. They
might explore what a building signifies about society, politics, or technology, and how it reflects or challenges norms and values.
Communicating Ideas: Architectural critics help to articulate the ideas behind a building’s design, making architectural concepts
accessible to both professionals and the general public.
3. Shaping Public Opinion:
Influencing Perception: Critics have a significant impact on how the public perceives architecture. Their reviews and commentary can
spot the light on certain buildings or styles, or conversely, cast a critical light on projects they believe are flawed or problematic.
Guiding Taste: Through their estimation and opinions, critics can influence architectural trends and public taste. They help define what is
considered good or bad architecture in a given era, and direct public opinion and affecting future design directions.

4. Holding Architects Accountable

Critics often challenge architects to think more deeply about their work and its implications. By offering thoughtful critiques, they push
architects to reflect on issues such as sustainability, functionality, social responsibility, and cultural relevance.

5. Advocacy
Supporting Good project: Critics often react as advocates for architectural excellence, promoting works that they believe push
boundaries or address societal needs in innovative ways. Elevating architects and buildings that deserve recognition.
Handling Social and Environmental Concerns: Critics also play an important role in advocating for buildings and urban designs that
address urgent issues, such as environmental sustainability, social equity, or public health. They often argue for responsible design that
benefits communities and the planet.
6. Historical and Cultural Explanation
Placing Architecture in Historical Context: Critics often interpret architecture in the context of its time. This allows them to critique
architecture not just in isolation but as part of a broader cultural and historical narrative.
Explaining Trends and Movements: Critics observe and comment on larger architectural trends, identifying shifts in style, materials, or
ideology. Their analysis helps document the evolution of architectural thought and practice, providing a record for future generations.
Comparisons of architectural criticism with other forms of Criticism

− Rendell, (2007) posited that criticism’s explicit purpose is “to provide a commentary (a social and historical context, a
judgment, an explanation, a discriminating point of view) on a cultural work which could range from art, literature,
film to architecture” (Rendell, 2007).

− In the world of criticism, architectural criticism has been described as a “poor cousin” (Janniere & Scrivano, 2020;
19) to other relatively well known forms of criticism such as literature, and art in particular. In terms of its success
and acceptance, its practice has remained historically less established and recognized in its relations with the public
sphere when compared with other forms of criticism.

− Collins (1971) considered architectural criticism (judgment) as a form of professional criticism more closely related
to objective legal and medical judgments than the more subjective criticism of art. Another difference as noted by
Collins (1971), is that while the context (site) is important for architectural criticism, this may not always be true for
art.
− In Attoe’s (1978) opinion, architectural criticism differed from art and literary criticism because it has a forward

looking predisposition that is capable of influencing the future rather than merely measuring or recording the past. In

this capacity, it can be used as a foundation for better informed decisions in the future (Attoe, 1978). Consequently,

architectural criticism’s span is therefore greater than almost any other type of criticism, because a current critique

can be projected into, and have efficiency in the future.

− In terms of differences between the other forms of criticism, architectural criticism may therefore have a more

significant relationship to our everyday lives and the built environment (Harrison, 2022).