The editorial of this issue of OASE opens up a reflection on architecture criticism, following the critical encounters (seminars, debates, lectures, round table discussions), the journal organised to mark its 25th anniversary. The discussions held with a series of stakeholders: architects, writers, academe, publishers, graphic designers, students, etc. have filtered into this issue, which simultaneously evaluates and explores the current state of architecture criticism, ranging from academic reflections on criticism, via the personal views of critics on its current state, to tentative explorations.

Peter Bürger’s article ‘Begriff und Grenzen der Kritik’ provides a meaningful starting point for a discussion on architecture criticism, opening up the object of criticism in its multiple layers in an era in which ‘criticism is infected by a paralysing self-doubt’. Of particular importance is his statement that, even if we agree that the critique of works of art or of architecture operates somewhat autonomously, ‘a certain osmotic process of influence is likely to occur’. The question is not if, but how critics would formulate something of a framework of assessing works of architecture in the broadest sense – interiors, buildings and cities – in a society that is perhaps no longer just agnostic, but to some degree desperate.

Hélène Jannière’s text extends the notion of criticism to the realm of architecture exploring architecture criticism as an object of research. Starting from its double origins in both philosophy and aesthetics, Jannière examines the various conceptions of architecture criticism and reveals how its meanings were accumulated through centuries, referring both to several distinct conceptions of the word and to diverse domains of application. Interesting in her approach is the disclosure of the opposition between an ‘autonomous’ criticism on the one hand, embedded within the discipline of architecture itself, and, on the other a criticism grappling with art criticism and its social functions.

Irénée Scalbert analyses the position of the critic, elaborating the difficult relationship between the critic and the architect, against the background of the critical tradition in Great Britain. In the UK the position of the critic was unique, especially due to the works of critics like Reyner Banham, Colin Rowe in the 1960s and 1970s. Architecture criticism was understood as a form of intellectualism, sometimes opposing the practice of architecture, sometimes drawing a larger framework for practicing architects. The end of modernism, however, did not open the way for another approach in architecture, but for any other approach. This also has influenced criticism. According to Scalbert architecture criticism turned into a form of art criticism, emphasising complexity, uniqueness and craft. This perspective on differences has recently turned into the new object of criticism, as is the urgent and remaining issue of green architecture. But as Scalbert states in his essay: critics can only question these issues – answers have to be found in the practice of architecture.

In her article French architecture critic Françoise Fromonot examines the almost total inexistence of architecture criticism in France and reflects on her reasons to start a new journal. Her article elucidates both the recent history of some of the most important French architecture journals, combative and critical at one point, turned into commercial projects at present (l’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui and AMC), describing how French architecture journals no longer seek to elucidate design choices and put them in perspective, but tend to promote the achievements of high profile practices, having lost cultural significance. The new journal criticat was founded in optimistic despair, independent and autonomous both financially and content wise, in order to create a place to write and answer the following questions. Can architecture criticism open up some of the questions architecture implies for society at large? What kind of architecture criticism could inhabit the space between ‘within’ and ‘beyond’? How can a publication on architecture be devised that won’t be just an architects’ publication?

In the small scene of Finnish architecture circles, architecture criticism is cursory. In Finland, the profession lacks an active culture of discussion. Even if the importance of criticism is acknowledged, architects and other stakeholders in the field are not accustomed to engaging in discussion outside of professional publications. In an active culture of criticism, the role of architecture in society at large should be at stake, as well as its responsibilities on the level of sustainability. If there is to be a future for architecture criticism in Finland, not only on the international and local, but also on the national level, a change has to occur in the themes and topics; the criteria applied to evaluating buildings should be extended to include not only aesthetical, but also – increasingly – ethical objectives and environmental considerations. Further, the author holds a plea of the training of architecture critics.

Exploring critical practices by focusing on a specific architectural object, Maarten Delbeke reflects on the recently finished Museum aan de Stroom (MAS). The building, situated in Antwerp and designed by the Rotterdam-based office Neutelings Riedijk Architects, houses a particular programme (a museum on the history of the city of Antwerp) embedded in a strategy of city marketing. The MAS can be read, as Maarten Delbeke does in his contribution, as a constructed statement of Neutelings Riedijk Architects’ treatise At Work and as a plea for the importance of an architectural métier.

Going beyond a mere visual documentation of the architectural object, the contribution of Walter Warton presents a critical reading via a visual medium. His drawings of the MAS (Museum aan de Stroom) present not so much the museum itself, nor its visual representation by the architects, but attempts to show what remains of the building after a visit. Drawn from memory, his series of sketches composed as a comic strip retraces the impressions left in the memory of the visitor and shows how architecture criticism puts to the fore that which captivates us, that which calls our attention.

Christophe van Gerrewey elaborates a literary critique of the newly built MAS (Museum aan de Stroom) in Antwerp. 

In his essay, Wim Cuvyers presents an alternative reading of the Gillet House in Angleur. He offers a critical perspective on the description of the house as ‘organic’ architecture and underlines the central position of the ‘desire for form’ in this project. The Gillet House, as Cuyvers  put forward, is in spite of its seemingly free form, extremely static. However, despite all of its shortcomings, it is completely accepted by its inhabitants, due to their ‘love’ of the house. As such the Gillet House is doomed to die along with its inhabitants.

In his contribution, Geert Bekaert offers a remarkable reading of the Gillet House in Angleur. Known as an inhabitable sculpture, Bekaert re-examines the house and understands its realisation as a form of blind architecture criticism. It takes explicit aim at the very concept of a house, Bekaert argues and as such it questions the very fact of dwelling. The house does not turn its back on the accepted, recognisable housing typology. It does not ignore or destroy it but simply varies on it, sometimes in a ludicrous manner; respecting, in the guise of sculptural freedom, the strict practices of a traditional house.

Aglaia Konrad’s film about The Gillet House, of which some stills and photographs are shown in this issue, does not present a visual portrait or narrative of this particular project, but rather is an investigation of what she considers to be the essence of sculptural architecture of which this house forms an illustration, although it is not a unique example. Going beyond a mere visual documentation of the architectural object discussed, she presents a critical reading of architecture via a visual medium.