i am interested in architecture criticism, but i do not know how to grasp it.
can anyone give me some suggestions on the consequences to do the approach?
These provide a good primer to the major threads of architecture thought in the 20th century, and also speak in the language of architecture theory. From there, you can move backward and forward in time, and through other disciplines to find something that interests you.
A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present
by Hanno-Walter Kruft (that's german so say "walter" like "valter")
I actually like this one a lot since it's so comprehensive. It's a fairly reasonable read too. Not all mumbly jumbly academic speak. It's more of a good theory background. Not really criticism but you need to know the theory/history first.
you can check out the deadly dull theory side of things or check out the more interesting belle-lettres approach. I think there is a direct line from Oscar Wilde to Jane Jacobs- and remember - whoever writes best wins. For "critical history" read "Heavenly Mansions" by John Summerson. Lovely...
You can critique the whole enchilada (more theory I guess) or whine about one particularly ugly building. Mike Davis whines about everything and that is why he is my hero.
Can we agree that theory is dead dead dead in this capitalist playland? Or is there still a point in neo-Baudrillard hyper-poses?
Way to understand architecture criticism
i am interested in architecture criticism, but i do not know how to grasp it.
can anyone give me some suggestions on the consequences to do the approach?
thank you
go to an architecture school? read some books? I'd start with the latter...
theres a GG editors book exclusively on that subject, it small and fun to read, chek it out
WU, your first post suggests that you're not quite yet fully awake ;]. No disrespect, I could'nt resist that.
I suggest that you purchase the following books:
Modern Architecture: a critical history
Programs and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture
These provide a good primer to the major threads of architecture thought in the 20th century, and also speak in the language of architecture theory. From there, you can move backward and forward in time, and through other disciplines to find something that interests you.
Thanks, everyone!
what is the difference between criticism and critical history?
are they the same thing? the two critical are equal?
A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present
by Hanno-Walter Kruft (that's german so say "walter" like "valter")
I actually like this one a lot since it's so comprehensive. It's a fairly reasonable read too. Not all mumbly jumbly academic speak. It's more of a good theory background. Not really criticism but you need to know the theory/history first.
don't knock it. mumbly jumbly academic speak is fun, too...
you can check out the deadly dull theory side of things or check out the more interesting belle-lettres approach. I think there is a direct line from Oscar Wilde to Jane Jacobs- and remember - whoever writes best wins. For "critical history" read "Heavenly Mansions" by John Summerson. Lovely...
You can critique the whole enchilada (more theory I guess) or whine about one particularly ugly building. Mike Davis whines about everything and that is why he is my hero.
Can we agree that theory is dead dead dead in this capitalist playland? Or is there still a point in neo-Baudrillard hyper-poses?
after reading many threads here of class experiences, presenting projects, maybe you need only be good at cursing and cussing.
www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=18140_0_42_0_C
ugh. i know i've seen other similar threads.
i'd listen to diabase, that guy rocks some serious k-nowledge....
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.