Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form

Hayes interpretation of critical architecture explains opposing theories of architecture and culture.  This article discusses critical architecture that is different resistant to the norm, but reducing the dominant culture.

Formalist position vs. historical positivist methodology

Historical - defined, precise, assumed, natural science approach

Formalist - interpretive, analytical, takes risks, spontaneous, internalized, pure and original idea

Formal architecture shows that culture influences how you choose to build a form. The observer studies the environment and creates an object on those values, which creates an object with form harmonious of culture. This means architecture is seen as already completed and used with its original meaning. As time passed the form of architecture will be displaced. There are no historical foundations, nor does it rely on any historical importance to society, so it gains a sense of purity.  Form is created based on formal operation and outside of "reality."  

Cultural architecture is something that is already created, the architect just guides the ideas already evolved from its original meaning through historical methods.  It's not hard to interpret culturally based architecture since history has already formed it's meaning through artifacts. 

Mies van der Rohe is an example of critical architecture that uses cultural values through an abstract system.  He worked on the relationship between a city and the building. He went away from the classical approach and worked with a formal theme, relating it to the city and space.  His work seemed repetitive, which represented neither a cultural bond nor a formal authority.  Mies was aware of historical architecture and his social surroundings, which shows that his type of architecture was an in-between of the two, and shows him as a critical architect of a worldly view.