ARCHITECTURAL CRITICISM rey eal te er® Tostudy in detail about architectural criticism and to highlight the importance of it. (@)e|—euhion Understanding the need of Architectural Criticism. To enhance the importance of it in Indian context. ® Toknow a critic’s perspective. ® Tointereret certain guidelines for criticism. Methodology: ® Introduction about architectural criticism. Need for criticism ® Methods of Criticism. @ Ofigin And History Role of Architectural critics with case examples. Differentiate a normal critique and an Architectural Critique. ® Understand the prominent factors that influenced the critique. imi—18)e]t me elle (ia core (laa Critical analysis of a building In India with the inference prepared. xIntroduction ® Buildings are objects in the world which have a life beyond their ols], aes ait= alle acme are) Ml ar= eek melon hie aanren—s(@) xe] ( =a alo! intentions of the architect, nor to measure the building against those intentions, but rather to make an original and oe Uren) intereretationof the work. Architecture ae need interlocutor tespeak of and for it, to analyze and describe and evaluate it. These interlocutors are also critics, and both have a crucial role to playin architectural culture. ® Joo often when criticismstarts, excuses begun,so defensiveness getsin the way of good responsive work. ; i ® Criticism often proposes to eee pelo or channel the evolution of architectural trencs, to identi Fo i xe axe Le) elaborate theirimaginary or myt es sagas ® Itdoes net end with one single source, itis basically 2 Criticismis a behawor, ® Architectural criticismisnot only applicable to architects alone, [rei Pens can voice their opinions and feelings about a built fort aspects. This criticism deesn’t ae that aa buildinghas to be demolished. i ® Criticism cannot be taught, but still one can guide or create interest inyoung students on analyzing and formingindividval opinions of their own about builtforms around them.Advantages: Publics 2 Thebest way to create Architectural Awareness among people is by Architectural criticism. ® — |tereates interest ina commonman too. @ Peoplestart discussing about architecture Forsome people criticism is valuable as it facilitates Understanding. They wantio know why the building exist in forms they do, who is responsible far them, and whatif means thata culture or subculture builds in this way. For these people, criticism is a valuable feedback. Pacem leas) € Itsometimes seems that architects relate critics as blood-sucking ghouls wilh no talent of their own, who take out their frustated architectural ambitions on the efforts of those who are actually out there doingit. & 8 critique can teach the orchitect things about their own 7 ings that they haven’trealized, haven’ tnoticed, and perhaps mos’ significantly, haven’tintended. 0 Provides life for good architects. Clients Architects, planners and policy makers need to know how successful eee decisions were, so that the future decisions might be influenced. hisis done through Architectural Criticism. Students Itis very important that students are accustomed to the methods of criticisrn, one it creates and instills more knowledge and eel ignia= ian Per mlii=(ea16)(-) 2 Sia iip(-mogliom Aa icon (© ala ee |efe)e Ce] aaa eee [ple f°] (ela) bi-Toa tered ae ence NaN olven nua colanekeie mers Diminishes the number of meaningless buildings. Ithelps in understanding the urban and architectural spaces around the city and also helps one notice buildings which once had been ignored.Gritics: The Critic has to stand between the Artist and the User and be objective and fair. Critics bring out reason for what people feel. Agood critic can teach the architect things about their own building, things which they haven't realized, haven't noticed, and even, significantly, haven't intended. They open a project to a wider audience. There are people who care about architecture, but they are justifiably too busy running their own lives to mess with it Carer Cel] ner ae eC reree cam gene Weel reo Tanteera Rett a taco (an tsoneste lees earls Oia Bete gece el aad ae eee a ge mR ac ote) om) has demonstrated ‘distinguished crificisrn. cre cen aoe aria eres 1984: Paul Goldberger ree eee) 1998: Robert CampbellADA LOUIS HUXTABLE: Sete caee eee cial lor hei Lau) Cee ene entail Cereal id Bee ere ee tre rte ee nT el ere ane tere eee cence eet eit fees WORKS fod] ee) La ied ‘On the CBs Building, 61 West 2nd Street, by Eero Saarinen: “itis None rane Meuse laedere cece eects ened elt cornmercial package, ashiny wraparound envelope, a acking case, a box of cards, trick with mirrors. If does not eoralicctebeClale mentite ie Magee ate Tar ee eel a ere ne MCC neat Cece aay which technology. function and aesthetics are conceived and Ereokee ier aa FORD FOUNDATION BUILDING On the Ford Foundation Bulicling, 320 East 43rd Street, by Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo: “Ford will never give most New Yorkers anything except this civic Gesture of beauty and excellence, and thatis a Grantofsome importance in a world where spirit and Soul are deaclened by the speculative cheapness of the environment.” — The Times, Nov. 26, 1967. eae rsa bay Cig Before she does anything ee , Huxtable describes what she sees skims the surfaces of all the neighbouring buildings. noting their variel materials and historical siyles, cnd how their presence alfers the Beet eee eae erase el eg Ran The contrast ofsolid and void—building’s envelope, PCR CMON Oe Reels lace Ramee mites folate agra toarel to kend ete ate ole] stint xe fam ee (cies Reel hien eR Cae aa alta aC meet Rcitelscyiisttsce eee ei ete ee Vie ae es CeCe ered Cao Ae asserts tote ae eT arate 70) eT Nd PeUnreteune cece mean acer ee ager age fee ne eres ae Pee cone ee are anc Reese aa aegis ch CeCe ae meee on eer ioe clement} eet ea PalmerHouse- Hilton hotel SAG se eee ee ecient eae? een “the last of the great American cities, a city of gteat elegance and gteat ea er ee Mea ore ge restore racine eer ge ew eeepc ne errMethods: SN INTERPRETIVENormative ® |tdepends on believing in certain norms and accessing the environment in relation to the standards implicit in those beliefs. Doctrine © Itis based on a belief that there is a single approach for accomplishing purposes, a single standard for measuring our achievements. It follows a single doctrine for the entire process. There are doctrines framed by experts for the design progress. “Form Follows Function” is one such doctrine in which the appearance of the building is given lesser importance compared to its function. Systematic * Itisan alternative to doctrine. It is an interwoven assemblage of principles or factors a system. There are many systems framed by experts like Huxtable, Ruskin, Hiller, 0’ sullivan. Typal © Itis better than doctrine as these systems also deals with human needs and experience. © This type of criticism is done by —o) orig the building with another earlier work.Interpretive criticism Interpretive criticism is highly personal. The criticism is not based on any norms or standards or system. Instead the critic moulds the architect's vision to make them see it as he does. This provides a new perspective to the building. Advocateory criticism Advocatory criticism is to support er to recommend an already passed judgment about the building. The critic convinces us with the judgment made. Evocative Criticism This criticism focuses on evoking emotional responses. It does not convey the critic’s understanding about the building rather it attempts to bring feelings to the mind of the reader himself by strong images and memories. Impressionistic criticism In impressionistic criticism, the critic is an artist who uses the building as a base foundation for his work. To the critic, the building is simply a suggestion for a new work of his own. He adds whatever he wishes to and thus the critic becomes a creator himself.Descriptive Criticism ® This form of criticism is to be factual. The idea of this criticism is to know what actually happened and to know what was the actual case of the building, so that one can gaina better understanding of the building. Depictive criticism * Indepictive criticism, the static and dynamic aspects of the buildings are pictured. It outlines the generative process of the building design. The buildings are simply depicted and It does not answer the question of “good or bad”. But acts as a tool for aiding appreciation of the building. Biographical criticism * In Biographical criticism the facts abeut the makers of the building are noted. This criticism states that without understanding the background of the artist the judgment is blind. Contextual criticism * Incontextual criticism the social, political and economical context - in which the building was designed, is studied. Factors like - Restrictions for the client, pressure on the designers, obstacles during the process is studied.Critiques SOLOMON R.GUGGENHEIM. rs] DANIEL LIBESKIND’S EXTENSION OF TORONTO'S ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM ® Similarities tosorme of Libeskind’s Other commissions” “anill-conceived funhouse” “Useless building” — The Washington Pest. “Youneed a map to move around Its Irrational and Bartling Dead spaces” 9 D)S Ola ea Olea (CMa reese cnet) eventually realizedin clunky ceramic tiles” ® interior makes a nonsense of the black-opalsecscape outside: ® the aucitoria don't work —Terrible acoustics ® “itisalso a worse building than anything” MUSEUM “fails the purpose” * bad lighting" “building competes with the art work that is intended to be di I relybee = Ee cece oad en alte etthna aa 7 an ieee y China Central Television Tower Beet sooo gen) ) deere ete eens OTs a CT eee aay Rael toh ee oe ae OC Bte Cg OU Mae Uc cae a traditional tower, but a loop which comprises of two L-shaped Fe Cmca ca Soe ence Lal: j tos Because of its radical shape, it's said that a taxi driver first carme up Solel ale quelntMerel West Meat 34 ORS ene Also people related the building Sane eS 188 gen rsh ola Dee eating yesterday tevealec! that 47 percent ofparticipants eee ee ena) Cee er eee eee hee ae Ree eee eens ee eee ee eet see care ees Reser cc Maer arene eee ee leet omc a lan) pete eects eee ee Pe een gee ee tae Melee ea oe re omens called the design neitherstable nerpractical cere er ote a ech ae Blogs et a Feet La eMC od aoswe s = iS) <= oS =H = S a a = Eh an ae oS eee Hoes a pars rc ican tate pad Aas at FL i Se: Pol Omer nur ep es a ¢ ia yea Rites PVN emt s Brats Seay a eon Fees ase Sa ly ay Raa ed Ha | i toa ae if ee if a ' 7 i 4 4 guardian a i sre if i Ea Lae Ae al a aa i eed af L i ty ;REVIEW iC T B U H BUILDING OF THE YEAR Sean Tal Buildings and ‘Uan Habitat The Asiawinner, CCTY, serves as the state television headquarters and twistsin form in response to complex programmatic, planning, and seismic requirements. It is considered a large cantilevers creating its distinctive shape, Safarik said. During the judging, Jeanne Gang, awards chair and principal of Studio Gang Architects, based in Chicago, called the CCTV “ ‘a China Central Television's looping first-ofa-kind structure resulted from a close collaboration between OMA, three Arup offices and other consultants in Europe, Asia and America. The cooperation was essential in delivering the design (ENR 7/21 {08 p. 39) for the builcing’s external continuous tube system. Judges noted the difficulties of gaining approval for a design outside the prescriptive Chinese building code and alsa the challenge of connecting the two towers in the 13-story overhang suspended 36 stories in the air. H Se SMSO ace a BenaELEMENTS OF CRITICISM aUines Fa1a)e[= (0 |(@/ae- 0 NcleUieletecicctcenectentce ane iccke aa Wall ae alae yeti elatcy evaluated, both the exterior and the interior. Mostly the public criticizes a building sy aice->4(- lela] es] e]e-felce) get USER aeiareaelnl The user as days pass by finds out the difficulties in the building. TECHNICAL Durability Sia S0- 30s en a= Be 6) el gence le a Technology The techniques and technologies used in construction is studied and thereby reriiel sag elstelt iin Meret SiUrea ela el(ster- Mela Mele |eliare) Ate =1ielmecelel} The criticism is about the material usage and its impact on the building. eater ty Criticism based on the building responds fo the nature. Includes climatic analysis of iiat-ael6)l¢) (are) Cle The impact of the building to the enviranmentis analyzed here. eee geet Includes psychological factors. This is to criticize a building from human eye level. Cityscape Biat=¥e16)1(6) [gene (e418 een a) e(e anole) an (ba Comparison The building is compared with various other buildings and then is criticized. Compared with buildings ofsame typology. ltl Thisincludes the study about the architect, his previous works and comparing the building with his best. The newcomers are profited cs the othersuccessful architects are compared with their own buildings. Architect's intention Thisis to know about the architects aim of the project and the eclpec sits aiatenis se ae aa Thisis study about the owner's requirement and fo verify whether if fulfilled Miea ts nee eee came le eran aiaMa ener aMncts cutessrrs nents! Ee etl sliekerelnsELEMENTS OF Corde U Les ae a a Time ey acl ica Beauty | Aiate |runcti| nce | te | me | scape] Comparison ev Coa etre eae nt tty erred 3_| Techn Eien | niet Pd eo ee aac jon | 2 | ot ae) cual stTamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Teter tere einer asl Architect: gmp—von Gerkan, Mereleineleimery celica Retry ec Oneea eke aie eet +Service Building, ca. 4,600 m? Department Complex:é9,300 a erate cerned cera a Poss men paiadectel fete eae ee ieel Multi-storey car parking:500 for Cerra at tytor eae tear “Police Cap” “Petrol Refinery” aa COnla Tank”IstCitcle (Basis)— Civic Forum, Public Plaza BAUS eRe Kel Mee UNA eno pare ST Re SM Mele Sal ielate Mei Mc atone el reece CSCS and a water tank (pool) foim the atmospheric centre of the plaza. Speen eee et eM gt mes seater ay peels ear es RY eed acete elgy ote 4nd Circle (Power) = Assembly Hall ec eel em are ca eee ea eee een motel ie tacit Br eee Reni gel) Pe em cua chcrueme sence net sce Se Cai c Fete siete = Ne Y-Tael celeste reel MOL ato See RCC et Dee Ce cerry ee hae ie ca macs cunme ee eins decisions and decrees. The building’s placement in the 3rd circle, pee are aco eta ee EM tel ag a Tay SU eon Pig corel MSOC greta oN eta ey eronger erate Ree ae eMac Me merge arian et corridors and foyers form the communication forum for the ministerial ES ececre ten aise a 4th Circle (Knowledge) - Chief Minister's Office ae pele meen eau e Ul ate ne defined by the Chief Minister’s sulle. the rooftop garden of this eM cne thse aswr Rig mena ia egCRITICISM OF TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FUNCTION The building succeeds In its design functionally except forthe fact that the users feel confused inside the building because of the repetition of jhe central circularspaces. CEA The meiterials used in the building makes it look different from the surrounding and makes itlook modern. The “glossy look” whichis a key character of the modern buildingis achieved by the use of gold and perforated aluminum cladding. There are inloiN ee gmltn lela ahh Sige laR aad tees The building is dominated by the Black and ach pa al-mere] cela aa en ele] a EXPERIENCE The public forumcan be related to Sia OltRS MMOL LALA ae Spainish staircase. But in spite of this, the building lacks the majestic quality. Itdoes notappear to be a place of power. Rather looks as a official building.Ean Men ano Ponts Eaiikeietenset ce? on all floors The building design tries to incorporate the natural lighting. Inspite of all these advantages the building lacks natural ventilation. Itis designed to be a centralized air conditioned building. Located closer fo the sea the architect could have Utilized the sea breeze into the building natural lighting into the Paneer itaegen tac Dieses Cte Cisco SC RH Catan cca. Een caret Deuter soc aad control radiation CITYSC APE The building is located in a dense area close fo Mount Road, Chepauk stadium, eet eael olanARHITECT es 1/40 a(S Re see ee 18 ae ee] anelee al [eal] (a) erelan S18 ald based in Hamburg, Germany. The company was founded in 1965 by Meinhard von Gerkan and Volkwin Marg, and now has 400 employees in 10 offices. OTHER WORKS Baku crystal hall, Azerbaijan Vietnam national convention centerEra a@l NaN @lN) “fron the beginning we have tried forootthe building climatically and culturally to the place. We have: studied the traditional architecture ofthe region, buta simple arching back to the past s no more possible. hae aen sas). Rusa ell crelare) doesnot at this point of time.” iat e tee al) (16) te) = (8) 16 |e cae acy Sel @lU=N alias Male Laat ares designed the building on Dravidian style. The central dome over the assembly hallis a replica of temple fofe| celia) (e\Velacouurslany CatMlSt-a-le10 MR AMA = Ah OL falelaie| (a) andan extensive use of traditional Tamilkolam arts. Related to chakras ofhuman body aleinial hess ie Rela cel (sg ac)CLIENT'S VISION UTTARAMERUR MODEL OF DEMOCRACY acl) ic= Rice] eon SMO 1Ce 1) tee) The village is known for its historic inscription ekg hae 1a LOLA seles eR aLal elections to the village assembly, qualifications required of candidates contesting in elections, circumstances under which a candidate may be disqualified, mode of election, tenure of the elected candidates and the right of the public to recall the elected members when they failed to discharge their duties folteler- qi celae Conley Though the building does not have environmental impact at eco mmc metl eine seine! trees were demolished during the process. SEL eu Le India’s largest government building to have been awarded the LEED Ue ee sae ee A }esign] Gold Cerlification from the Indiah Green Building Council [IGBC). first Assembly/Senate Bullding in the world{o be designed and constructed Prec aerclren The building would use less water, eee ie ota Melee lacie! Tesources, generate less waste and provide healthierspace to occupants, as Compared to a. conventional building. 100 credits.COMPARSION Preneker uta seein Le et Mole lualaal eee ot Fate aire) ee Pradesh Pane (selene lalTECHNOLOGY The construction process wes at a break neck speed. Inclucled many latest Cerotca een eianeroaiaite (teen Piling was done using the rotary piling method where four piles are done ina d ay against one that is possible through conventional methods. Also ice cube concrete were used forlong span structures. igwie) eee Sieh te ZS Where the TN State legislature met * Council Chamber, Fart St. George (1921-1937) *Senate House, Chepauk campus, Madras Universi FAO ane Mcrae bictoetan ot=i eae Banqueting Halll (Rajaji Hall), Government Estate (January 27, 1938 - October 26, 1939) « Legislative Council, Fort St George {May 24, 1944- March 27, 1952) Pencils cum cecilia eaten hn \ Sovernment Estate (May 3, 1952 - December 27, 1956) * Assembly Halll, FortSt. George (April 29, 1957 - March 30, 1959) «Aranmore Palace, Udhagamandalam (April 20-30, 1959 - Legislative Assembly; Ma oon Se elereisol Veneta) * Fort. St. George (August31,1959 - January 11, 2010) uta This building stanas as a role model foris green building concepts. On the other hand this building would encourage more foreign architects into our country which would suppress the upcoming Indian Architects. Thisis a indirect way of foreigners ruling the country.co el a ey Time eno beauty |Mater|Functi| @ |te | me |Sccipe| Comparison Aim: Cooma etc oe a ty Prony Tesat] Type] Archite | Ghent Techno | P ]Presen | Futur cd on et eee cai A Promot ci COMPELLING & SONNE INTERPLAY OF —>—. ioe ee [ARH Tone Vt reOMeETRIC f a STACK oF THE FENESTRATIONS Ano CRENELLATIONS e LOOKS Like ARE AN OVERT f hi A MoTH NEOCLASSICAL pas % GOT INTO IT. EvouRisH. z THE DESIGN. ACRIEVES SYMEBLOSIS with THE NATURAL SITE, THe SreUCTURE CULMINATES \N A BRAMATIC, ANGULAR WELL Se ———\ DAMNED IF \T DOESN'T FALL SIGHT over! GRANT SNIDER Thank you