Learning from Critical Architecture

I think “critical architecture” is a hard concept to grasp for those of us who are receiving an architectural education in this current era.  It is easy to forget that architecture has not always been taught and practiced the way that it is now, and that the values behind it have not always been the same.  For this current generation of architects and architecture students who have witnessed economic and environmental crisis, the priorities of architecture are more about survival.  Doing the most with the least.  Making the smallest environmental impact.  Functionality as an utmost priority.  

Whether it is my own disposition or a product of educational influence, I tend to agree that responsible, functional, and economical buildings are the ones we should be designing.  However, I find it fascinating to look back on a school of architects who had a completely different mentality.  The ethos of critical architecture seems to be more about “Architecture” itself.  These guys seemed to believe that there was some special power to architecture, something that should be respected and left untainted by practical constraints.

Through a modern lens, the work of Eisenman and other critical architects look irresponsible, expensive, and unjust to the client.  What we can learn from them, though, is to believe a little more in the power of Architecture to do more than provide practical solutions to practical problems.