Initially, the Great Cultural Revolution in the 1960’s China prepared me for critical thinking.However,I acquired a better understanding of criticality while studing and working in the United States or generally the West;thus , for me, what constituted criticality had perhaps a lot to do with the West I was experiencing or how it was defined at a given moment:
Criticality I
The first West that I encountered upon arrival in the United States was European Modern Art, from Marcel Duchamp’s visual art work to Flann O’Brian’s novels to Chantal Ackerman’s films.Within such context,criticality is about conceptual propositions or the ways in which an individual may construct the question “why” and the answer “how” specifically for an issue. It is critical in the avant-garde tradition since it does challenge the status quo as well as convertions.
Concept brings about a distrust of authorship and developed in many instances an interest in process.In my case as an architect,that in turn leads to an extensive research component in my design practice and therefore a singular,complex,mixed activity of design-research.
Since the contemporary version of conceptual thinking was originated from art,it has lent architecture naturally to interdisciplinarity. By the same token,notions in Asian art,such as the nonperspectival pictorial spaces in Chinese landscape scrolls,may also shed light on the design of built environment with the help of a conceptual frame of mind,the cultural boundary is crossed. Open and inquisitive,conceptual thinking is Postmodernism beyond formalism.It encourages expenments with ideas other than with forms.
Criticality 2
The second West for me has been the American academia,where a left-wing political position is the norm and social concerns are of paramount importance in almost any scholarly pursuit,including of course architecture.To be critical is ,for the American intelligentsia,to establish one’s social-political agenda.In other words,criticality carries on Marxist legacy: it is a critique of capitalism.
Specifically in architecture,an agenda driven practice would prioritize urban and environment issues,such as public space and/or sustainability.Although,from time to time,I was exposed to or was even caught in between a debate between design and social responsibilities,I came to believe that an architect contributes to the society through design.
However difficult,there are ways to take initiatives in developing and pushing the social content of an architectural/urban project: one possibility is for the architect to be involved in the stage of programming,which is increasingly happening at least in young market economies like China.Criticality of this nature has also made me rethink the socialist past of China.In the 1960’s,I grew up imbued in the Marxist ideology that became so dogmatic and extreme that it defeated its own purposes in the end. Yet,today,a total dismissal of that history and an unconditioned embrace of market economy seem to be just as dangerous,The challenge is to balance public and private interests,It is something that can only be achieved by the society as a whole and in the collective effort of achieving that architects should participate actively.
Curiously,this criticality takes on a Modernist standpoint. It may appear to be at odds with a Postmodernist one or Criticality I but I believe a true Postmodernism is inclusive.
Criticality 3 or Materiality
The architectural milieu in the West has had its own definition for criticality,that of an autonomous architecture and that of making.I do not think this particular criticality contradicts the previous two,since either conceptual thinking or social agenda have to be manifested in physicality to have an impact on the way people live. Space,form,material,tectonics are the building blocks of ideas and attitudes. That is to say the three criticalities have to work together to produce a thoughtful architecture.Or,if Criticalities 1 and 2 take me away from the specificity of making buildings and cities, the third one,as it is supposed to do ,brings me surely and firmly back to architecture.

Popularity: 2% [?]