{"word_count": 435, "character_count": 3162}
Critique and Complicity:The Art Critical Lineage of Projective ArchitectureAdrian AnagnostNewcomb Art Department, Tulane University, New OrleansOver the past two decades, U.S. architectural theorists have been consumed by a perceived con-flict between so-called “projective” and “critical” architectures. Projective architecture emerged as a reaction to the dominance of “criticality” within U.S. academic architecture circles since the 1980s, exemplified in the writings of K. Michael Hays and Peter Eisenman; by extension, pro-jective architecture rejected the earlier “critical project” of Manfredo Tafuri and Colin Rowe (Baird 2004; Sabini 2010; Martin 2011; Owen 2016). In contrast to an Adornian notion of ar-chitecture as resisting or offering dialectical critiques of its conditions of possibility, projective architecture “projects forward alternative (not necessarily oppositional) arrangements or scenar-ios” (Somol and Whiting 2002).As George Baird has analyzed, Somol and Whiting’s articulation of projective architecture hinged upon a reading of U.S. art critic Dave Hickey, a champion of sensuous plenitude in lieu of critique and aesthetic withdrawal (Hickey 1997). However, what has gone unobserved is the fact that Somol and Whiting also cited key debates within earlier twentieth century art criticism: Clement Greenberg’s 1939 “Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” Michael Fried’s 1967 “Art and Objec-thood,” and Yve-Alain Bois’ early-1980s account of landscape and the picturesque in relation to site-specific sculpture by Richard Serra. Moreover, Peter Eisenman, the bête noire of projec-tive architecture, developed many of his ideas around criticality in the 1970s, when he was in close dialogue with art critic Rosalind Krauss (Baird 2004; Epp 2007).The presentation will show how accounts of criticality in architecture parallel art criticism sur-rounding Minimalism and institutional critique, while projective architecture inhabits a similar conceptual realm as the heterotopias of relational aesthetics (Bourriaud 1998; Bishop 2004) and artistic “complicity” with the market and “mass culture” circa 2000 (Drucker 2006). Finally, contemporary social practice art increasingly resembles architecture: artists draw upon a mix of cultural funding, government support and the art market, creating experiential works that in-volve institutions, people, objects, and the built environment. To address these new art practices - “multifaceted endeavor[s] involved in economic, technological, social and urban practices” - art criticism may of necessity complete the cirle, coming to resemble architecture criticism.&#160;Adrian Anagnost is Assistant Professor of Modern and Contemporary Art at Tulane University. Her research addresses issues of urban space, architectonic form, and theories of the social in modern and contemporary art. Anagnost has published articles and essays in Woman’s Art Journal, Chicago Art Journal, Hemisphere: Visual Cultures of the Americas, and nonsite, and has an essay forthcoming in Art Journal. Anagnost’s current book project is entitled Real Architectures, Invented Sites: Art, Space, and the Social in Modern Brazil.