Review of William H. Hayes’ Article, Architectural Criticism

“Architectural Criticism” was an article written by William H. Hayes and published by The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism in 2002. Hayes “taught philosophy and related courses for more than forty years, primarily at Washington State University and CSU Stanislaus” and had a special love for art, especially architecture (Obituary 1). In his article, Hayes responds to an older article, “The Architecture of Humanism”, which was written by Geoffrey Scott on how to critique architecture in the early 1900’s. Hayes first describes that architecture should be “functional, structurally sound, and aesthetically pleasing” (Hayes 325). He then goes on to breakdown how to critic architecture in the state that it is in now. In order to do this, he calls upon Roger Scruton’s article, “The Aesthetics in Architecture”. In the description of Scruton’s article, Hayes lists five features of architecture that determine our attitude towards it: “(1) utility or function, (2) highly localized quality, (3) technique, (4) character as a public object, and (5) continuity with the decorative arts and corresponding multiplicity of aim”(Hayes 325). All are relevant to architectural criticism, and all but 2 and 4 are seen in the historical way of criticizing architecture. This assessment being, the “triad of Commodity, Firmness, and Delight” (Hayes 325).

It is in this triad of Commodity, Firmness, and Delight, that Hayes explores how to balance these in order to find out the proper way of determining a building’s “quality and performance” (Hayes 329). To start, Hayes states that in reference to “Architecture” he means actual buildings, and not the profession or science. He then refers back to Scruton’s article and claims that those five features of architecture each serve as a general claim, but that they fail to encompass the “nature of the art of architecture” (Hayes 326). I feel that Hayes view on architecture is complicated, but I feel that he has a better sense of art side of architecture than Scruton did.

The Firmness aspect of architecture refers to the structural soundness. Hayes points out that it would seem to just be a matter of science, but that it plays an aspect to how we “experience” the building (Hayes 326). For example, Firmness “connotes that buildings shelter us against vagaries of nature” (Hayes 326). Therefore, playing a part in how we view the building’s function, and even understanding it as art. I feel like this aspect is the least important when judging building for art purposes, but one of the most important when talking about the performance that Hayes stresses.

Commodity is fairly similar to Firmness, but is more gauged towards the “particular function or use” (Hayes 326). For example, the function of a house is to provide shelter, warmth, and a place to live in, while the function of a school building is to provide a place where learning can happen. I think this aspect is the hardest of the three to grasp. I think this because we do not tend to directly think of the uses of the buildings we live in. We simply just use them without thought to their particular use.

The aspect of Delight is where Hayes spends most of his time on. Delight has to do with the aesthetic appeal of the build. He states that in the past, Delight was not as big as a deal (Hayes 327). Even now, Hayes states that, “the influence of architecture on us is so pervasive that we notice it no more than, presumably, a fish notices that it is surrounded by water” (Hayes 327). Delight is probably the most important to those judging a building based on looks, and I think both Hayes and I agree that this aspect is less important than most make it out to be.

To wrap up his argument, Hayes suggests three different ideas to take into account when criticizing architecture. First, that in order to “see architecture, you must experience” (Hayes 328), which simply means that you should not critic a building without living with it first. I completely agree with this statement. I don’t think it is truly fair to judge a building by just looking at it. His second suggestion is that when criticizing a building, the quality of it should be known more as the performance of it. Lastly, that you cannot judge the art of a building by just one of the three aspects. It requires a balance of all three, and “the quality of the balance is simply our rating of the building's performance” (Hayes 329). I feel like these ideas are

Hayes states that “Architectural criticism seems to employ an open-ended set of complex and variously incompatible principals” (Hayes 329). Architecture is a mixed art, and it has multiple aims. “Architecture is nonetheless art that it is it is a balance of structural science and aesthetic expression for the satisfaction of the world” (Hayes 327). Hayes final suggestion on how to criticizing architecture is summed up in his last statement; “The best that we can do now is to be radically empirical, that means that only by living with a building can we determine its performance and that any general claims beyond that are no more than and no less than inductions from experience” (Hayes 329). I agree with Hayes. In order to determine a building’s performance, I feel one must experience and live with it firsthand.

In my presentation, I plan on talking about the five aspects of architecture in a more modern context. I plan to compare pictures of famous buildings, as well as our own Raley Chapel, and talk about their aspects and relate them to what Hayes talked about with “experiencing before criticizing”. I would like to convey the idea that we live in art (architecture), and that every day we are surrounded by many fascinated buildings that some might overlook because they are “old”.