Critical to Post Critical

Tafuri poses an interesting question in “L'Architecture dans le Boudoir” in stating “what way does criticism enter into the process of production?” It is an interesting question to me because as designers we are always designing for others to interpret our work and experience our world. In this profession, we’re forced to work under the microscope of others' criticism and interpretation. It is our responsibility to design for another’s needs. It’s an art in and of itself. There are layers upon layers of environmental, structural, social, economic, etc. issues that are interwoven within the field that compile the foundation for criticism. That’s why it’s hard for me to agree with the Eisenman world of an architecture that is disconnected from humanistic approaches and focuses solely on architecture as aesthetics. An architecture that fails in function is one that faces criticism from its occupants.

So, how did architecture evolve from the critical to the post critical? Tafuri warned of a critical realm of architecture and described it as remaining stuck in the minefield of the “evil present.” I believe this “evil present” was broken when architects became more aware of the implications of their work and began to design in a human centric world. I think the BIG project of the Copenhagen power plant is a great example of something so outlandish that it breaks the cycle of the critical realm. Bjarke describes the project based upon his understanding of power plants, and how his son’s upbringing around his newly finished project will create a generation of new interpretation. His son will interpret power plants as something so integrated in humanistic experience, that you can actually go there to ski, while generations of the past see power plants as typically something not celebrated. Maybe the post critical is really just a new definition to an evil past.