similar thread in the talk by bob somol last night in kentucky - but he blamed would-be critics themselves, basically arguing that critics have abdicated their role as true critics, willing to fully understand a project and place it into the context of architecture culture.

he named names but honestly his talk was so packed with reference and quips that i wouldn't do it justice. watch for the video to be posted on uk's website: http://www.uky.edu/Design/

so the content of critique in 2009 is the self-reflection that critique isn't doing/can't do its job?

Looking forward to watching Somol's lecture video.

<i>critics have abdicated their role as true critics, willing to fully understand a project and place it into the context of architecture culture.</i>

Interesting - maybe this has something to do with the cult of the starchitect?

I also wonder how much actual criticism has been marginalized... for example, very few people in our field take the research from environmental psychology seriously - even though it is extensively used in the design of retail and gambling environments in order to manipulate us.

This field has it's problems, but it seems like this is one of the few places were critical analysis of projects is happening - and we're ignoring it. why? because it's too dry? because if we pay too much attention we won't take as many risks?

also - what would this "criticism" look like? I think we've realized that there are problems with broad generalizations that criticism looked like in the past - seeing it as purely subjective and somewhat shallow. the form that analytical criticism takes today is exceedingly narrow... to the point where we really don't know how it fits into broader contexts... perhaps what we're looking for is some kind of middle-ground - that mixes this scientific research with something that more closely resembles art criticism...

Isn't that what Sarah Whiting is saying in this video? That we've become so accepting of just gathering up lots of viewpoints from anyone willing to offer a comment (via blogs, comments on blogs being read on news broadcasts, PechaKucha, etc.) that we giving up on using critical thought to decide whether a particular view is actually valuable or not?

The Robert Somol lecture video can be seen here:
http://www.uky.edu/Design/Fall09speakers/Somol.html

LB - interesting - she also briefly references the studio project in the school blogs I commented on - that housing + system is a extremely difficult as an investigation for a semester, and it can only really be about one or the other in that short timeframe.

IMO - "food production system" by itself is an interesting investigation in an architecture studio - i.e. developing a methodology for the design of a project type that requires the general understanding of a complex system (which is what landscape architects typically do - and if you do industrial, infrastructure, or laboratory work - it's a pretty essential skill)... however throwing housing into the mix is a little crazy ... unless "housing" is a cursory element to the project, the students will have a really tough time getting something meaningful out of that project in just a semester.

but - I think in the context of her criticism, it's a poor example - combining disparate elements to form something new is a well-worn methodology (and can be used a mode of criticism - ie - "the mathematics of the ideal villa") - However I agree that it does have to be a somewhat informed and meaningful combination though.

I think it makes sense to clarify that there are two notions being mixed up here, namely the 'theorist' and the 'critic' - the critic being a sub category of the theorist (in my opinion)

There are many school of thought within theory, the critical being one of them. Another branch of theory is the one that is interested in understanding a phenomenon, obtaining insight instead of judgment. This is the branch of theory Somol perhaps refers to when he "accuses would-critics that are willing to fully understand a project" . When you're a theorist this is fine, when your a critic this can be problematic.

Critique operates from a moral standpoint, and this is where perhaps the problem is: a confusion from which moral high ground the would-be critics should operate?

For more analysis of the problem of critique nowadays: check out Bruno Latour's Why Has Critique Run out of Steam http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/issues/v30/30n2.Latour.html