Embodied reasoning in architectural critique

What I read

In this text, the authors explore the process of architectural critique by closely examining how instructors speak (by leveraging analogous situations and architectural information) and how knowledge is layered on to a student's design, acting as a form of reasoning to contextualize often subjective comments.

The authors begin by describing the way other researchers have viewed reasoning in the context of architecture education, primarily focusing on the cognitive and perceptual aspects of designing. Their study "starts from the point of view that reasoning in architectural critiques is a consequential achievement embedded in the rich textures of social interaction." This implies that a logical (or reasoned) argument is not about proving an outcome; instead, it is a "conversational strategy" that uses metaphor to connect an in-process design to a situation or design that already exists. This has been referred to as abduction—a type of reasoning based on combinations that can be used to explain mundane circumstances in the world. In architecture critique, abduction shows up when a critic spontaneously brings to life metaphor of things about a design, and another design, to make a larger educational point.

Next, the authors discuss the type of comments and conversation that are typical of a critique. A critic does many things; one is to "reanimate some feature of a student's design, casting the work in a different context from what the student has presented by redescribing details in new historical or conceptual terms." This is typically focused on things that need to be improved, and presents "bad news" to the student. When a critic presents this form of news, they "must offer an account for the negative assessment." Abductive reasoning (or reasoning by metaphor, in this case), then is "one of the central accounting mechanisms that critics use for justifying their assessment of student work."

The data from the study is then presented and discussed. The data, from an architectural crit, is selectively extracted from written transcripts, which are then augmented with photographs from the crit and descriptions of actions. Four examples are presented, and then the commonalities and patterns across experiences are described. The basis for the patterns is in the consistent use of metaphor being layered on a student's work, in order to create boundaries for capturing good and bad.

The first pattern that is evident across experiences is the way a metaphor-based sequence occurs. A critic points out a problem, and then "establishes the interpretive framework for seeing this detail critically." The framework is applied to the student's work, and then to a real-world example. Finally, the "student's work is reanimated in relation to the source comparison." The next pattern is described as a lack of typical linguistic phrasing. Instead of using grammar to link the student work with the connective work, the critic is "appealing to a basic form of mundane sense-making, the presumed shared understanding of what we all plainly see before us."

The authors conclude by stating the contributions of their work, which is to "reveal the relatively ad hoc nature of real-world analogical reasoning"—showing that critique logic is not about positivist proof, but instead is about artificially constrained metaphor.

What I learned and what I think

The largest takeaway for me from this work is the way that objective/subjective bounding occurs through discussion and in critique. I've always thought of that temporary framing as something that is private (and is cognitive, but shows up through making artifacts on the way to a decision.) It makes so much sense that this form of "reanimation" (and I love that phrasing) is happening in real-time, through discussion. If this is considered a good critique approach, and I think it is, then it depends on a few things.

The critic has to have a pretty robust set of things to draw from, quickly, to act as the strawman boundaries for argument. The crit itself is limited by a portfolio of knowledge, not just patterns. Actually, patterning isn't "allowed" in this model, because the whole point is specificity. And so the critic has to be able to have the portfolio of work in mind, understand the pattern, and equate the two. I think I am not very good at this, because I can't remember specifics, only patterns.

The critic also has to be persuasive in standing up the boundary and showing the relationships, and that really is the enactment. I think that's why "re-animating" plays so well: the idea has to be given the chance to come to life, and so it has to be a show. As a student, I have to believe the metaphor, not just understand it.

The student work has to be clear enough to prompt the connection-making, and that's really the craft and detail—and work effort—requirement from the student.

This would be so much more effective with visual overlaying, much closer to introspective or real-time metaphoring. That needs fast drawing, or a slow room.

As an aside; I wonder how they got permission to use the photographs of the students in the paper. I will ask.