Critical, indeed.

If I had to classify my architectural education as it applies to current design, I would say that it has been one of a primarily projective nature. A studio project designed without thorough mapping and site analysis is unheard of in Lee Hall. We’re taught that architecture has a responsibility to everyone and everything, but doesn’t it first have an obligation to understand itself?

Critical architecture takes a strong interest in its field and its possibilities. A focus on the language of architecture as a singular notion ensures a careful and thorough investigation not muddled with distractions. Yes, social and environmental contexts exist amid built things, and their mere existence places them somewhere in the definition of architecture; however, this placement is secondary. At its core, architecture is the positioning of lines and planes in physical space - quite literally the most critical pieces. These simplest parts are used in a myriad of combinations and interpretations to create, frame and obstruct the world in which we exist. If the architect is a storyteller, his or her tale has no staying power without the proper words to convey it.

Despite its selfish aims, even critical architecture plays a role in the idea of the projective. Taking the form of a habitable space, this critical study of design processes and elements implicitly takes into consideration user experience. It also creates contrast with its context, which it seeks to ignore. This examination of “autonomous” architecture in a post-built state provides a more complete picture of what architecture is, or maybe what it should be. User and context simply cannot be avoided, but these aspects come into play after a structure is erected or under the assumption that it will be. Without the form, without the elements, there is nothing else to consider.