The fragmentary thoughts that follow were motivated by the realisation
that the architectural criticism that is levelled today without social,
political or professional cost to the critic is only minimally related
to the etymology of the word criticism (
kritiki).[2] The
critical discourse of recent decades does not usually consist of an
expression of opinion about works of architecture and architects in
order to identify their positive and negative features. Equally rare is
the intention to produce "documented evaluation of a work or an artist,
i.e. to assess them on the basis of specific criteria."[2] On the
contrary, criticism or
kritikarisma, which means "the levelling
of criticism with the intention of emphasising the negative aspects of
the work being judged and of underestimating its positive ones"[3] - has
flourished, as has utilitarian[4] commentary, which places the
effectiveness or expediency of the argument above truth or a fair
assessment, recalling the art of the Sophists in antiquity.[4] Thus it
is natural for architectural criticism today to lean in the direction of
irrationality, exaggeration, and commentary that is ignorant of
history, seeking to make an impression with its rhetoric, but also with
its fallacious reasoning, irony, complacency and factionalism.
Deconstruction and utilitarianism provide the prevailing moral and
philosophical foundations for critical discourse today, which sometimes
praises or flatters and at others "pans" people, ideas and works, or
treats them unjustly, reflecting the ambitions of those judging and the
vested interests of the group to which they belong.
www.greekarchitects.gr
