I think that fas’ remark raises the question of publics (with an ‘s’) and I like very much the analogy, even imperfect, to scientific research and the varied set of ways in which it is reported: highly specialized research publications that are only comprehensible to colleagues engaged in the same work; juried journals that speak to the professional scientific community at large; popular science publications that target a general, non-specialized readership who have a certain level of overall scientific knowledge (Scientific American, precisely); and the Tuesday Section of the Times, intended for a curious lay-readership in the largest sense of the word. Each of these venues asks for a different kind of writing and, in a similar if not identical way, architectural criticism finds an analogous array of outlets and audiences. But the general idea of explicating context, for whichever audience, seems to me essential to anchor judgments in something more than simple opinion. It’s true, buildings have their own lives and users judge any way they like; but if they look for some foundation for their judgments, or a general framework in which to place them, criticism at whatever level it’s pitched plays its role.

And then there’s the fact that the architecture critic (usually) visits the building in question, and serves as a surrogate for an experience that the reader may not necessarily have. Hence the importance of a descriptive language that can conjure on the page the qualities of a project that are submitted to analysis. Here’s perhaps where the scientific research analogy breaks down; a critic we trust is one whose capacity to evoke the experiential seems intuitively attuned to our own sense of spaces and places.

On the passion/hyperbole question, I think the first responsibility of a critic is to write well and that precludes hyperbole in all but a very few cases. Reliance on hyperbole is usually proportional to the weakness of an argument; it can be useful, occasionally, as a rhetorical device, but it’s never a substitute for analysis. The most persuasive criticism is almost always shorn of adjectives.

I’m not sure that I agree with the emphasis on “elucidating for the public”. I see criticism functioning more as the scientific research paper (realize that is not a perfect parallel, as scientists publish their own work) rather than a piece of popular journalism. I would say it is both to some degree, but much closer to a scientific american article than a nytimes piece, or should be. The fact is, in a building project (as opposed to scientific research) people will have a reaction and form their own opinion based on effect/utility created, so i see less need for explaining it to them… It exists, it is big; users judge for themselves. Thoughts?

Second, i love the appeal for criticism that is unapologetic, that owns the “passions, convictions, enthusiasms, and biases” of the context of a project. But, would this lend itself to hyperbole? Hyperbole is certainly the tendency in most other forms of media. I’m not sure, but would like to know some others’ thoughts on it…