Summary

How to remain modern and return to sources and how to revive and old dormant civilization while taking part in universal civilization, is the paradox that Frampton explores in this essay. Frampton explores this issue in six parts. In part one: Culture and civilization, Frampton argues that because of modernization, the skyscraper and the freeway have become ubiquitous, representing the new central creed of utility as meaning – which he argues is meaningless. In section two: The rise and fall of the Avant-Garde, Frampton argues that the Avant Garde, which he seems to equate with science, technology, and modernization, can no longer be considered a liberative movement since this idea of progress has almost destroyed our society with nuclear war for example. This is like a cat’s cradle critique or placing production and science as the ultimate end. Under this push for progress, Frampton notes that the only way art can survive is if it proves it usefulness (Neo Kantian Aesthetics). Frampton also critiques the use of art, historic reference, and ornamentation as a performative response to the mainstream culture as a commodity marketed by mainstream media. In Part 3: Critical Regionalism and World culture, Frampton argues that opposed to an Avant Garde approach to architecture, an Arriere-Garde approach is better; since the term Arriere-Garde is associated with populism and not fully accurate Frampton uses Critical Regionalism as the better approach. Frampton defines Critical Regionalism as “mediating the impact of universal civilization with the peculiarities of a particular place.” Frampton distinguishes Critical regionalism from reviving past vernacular by arguing that there must be a level of double mediation; this includes the limiting the impulse to use symbols and style as a form of reactive appropriation, while on the other hand limiting the impulse to use technology to its full extent (a pro Avant Garde approach). In part four, Resistance of the place form, Frampton critiques the abstractness of architectural theory and argues that Heidegger’s concept of the place form and boundedness is necessary part of Critical Regionalism as a form of resistance. In part 5: Culture vs. Nature, Frampton argues that for Critical Regionalism there needs to be a dialogue around how to interact with nature and historical precedents. In Part 6: The Visual vs. Tactile, Frampton argues Critical Regionalism must consider other tactile sense other than visuals, which is traditionally weighed more heavily.

My central Critique is on “Towards a Critical Regionalism” by Frampton. I think his idea of mediating cultural history and precedents of each individual place with the use of technology is a valuable framework; I also think that his extremely pro dialogue stance is great since understanding the nuances of a place and technology from multiple and varied perspectives can help make the design decisions more well-rounded. My central critique though is that even using this idea of double meditation, it is possible to arrive at many different design outcomes under Critical Regionalism based on the interpretations of the designer. Frampton may argue that this implicit bias is mediated through this critical self-mediation and self-awareness, but the design “solutions” to a particular place or the balance of place context with technology can look very different based on the weight placed on each consideration. For example, in his example of the use of terracing instead of creating a flat plane for building, he seems to argue for a use of historical precedent, but if there was another more recent technology developed in the area based in the same place but required forming a flat place on the sloped landscape, both would be valid under the method of critical regionalism yet the tectonics would be drastically different. Whether this is problematic to Frampton is unclear, but I would suspect that the process of thinking about the context of place along with what extent to use technology is the central point of Critical Regionalism. In other words, Critical Regionalism is a guide for intent and process. Even the example of the secular church has an unclear connection to Critical Regionalism – The lack of ornamentation, traditional religious symbols and the limiting of technology is s grouping of design choices that, to me, seem like they aren’t resulting from a critical dialogue of region. Secularization is a general world trend and the move away from historic religious symbology can be interpreted as both a renewed honest representation of religion in a secular age but also not referencing or respecting the historical roots of religion and religious symbols. To me this ambiguity around interpretation is the most problematic part of Critical Regionalism.

Take Aways

• Critical Regionalism is a method of designing that balances the history of place and the use of technology.
• It differentiates itself from using cultural symbols for appropriation or using technology for the sake of progress.