Anyone who matters that is...

“The problem with the prevailing discourse of architectural criticism is [the] inability to recognize there is in the deepest motivations of architecture something that cannot be critical.”  - Rem Koolhaas, 1994

What does it mean to be autonomous?  At best, it is the ability to act independently and freely, while at worst it is the self-aggrandizement of perceived power and the presumptive freedom to operate regardless of external factors.  At best, it can be adventurous and liberating; yet criticality in architecture often tends towards the later.

It is easy to find and diagnose problems.  We tend to be critical of everything.  However, it is much easier to tear something down than it is to build it up; deconstructing is easy.  In an age where everything is dissected, sliced and examined, the microscope of our critical nature easily finds chinks in the armor of any argument, action or person.  When no such imperfection is easily apparent, the intentions, motivations, and even character of the presenter is suspect.

What I find striking is that even though our modern culture is headed towards an age of limitless criticality (if you doubt me, browse through your facebook feed for five minutes), there remains an opposite push in architecture from criticality to projectivism.  While I may not have entirely agreed with Koolhaas’s argument regarding junkspace, I found his comments from 13 years ago to resonate within me.  I pursue architecture not because of the allure of independence and the freedom to create context-less forms, but through a desire to holistically understand and interact with the environment and context within which I am placed.  The world has enough criticality.  In an age where it is easier to build walls than bridges, it is time for architecture to stand in the gap.