Disciplinarity 2.0 Architectural topography between criticality and pragmatism


  • Zoltán Bun


In architectural theory, the critical approach appeared in the sixties blending the socio-political assessment of modernity and the aesthetic evaluation of modernism in various proportions. From this combination and partly to increase its effectiveness, critical theory was more or less successfully, also put into practice. However, significant changes in the last two decades, mainly due to the globalization of capitalism, undermined the critical position in almost every field, and in particular the idea of a critical architectural practice. Previously this as a counterpoint, was intended to be the device for the maintenance of disciplinarity against a commercialized mass architecture. Many argue today that instead of criticism that is drawing the lines the `freedom´ of pragmatism is more prominent in the architectural discourse and design. However, this essay rather claims that the struggle between the critical and pragmatist approach no longer makes any sense and argues for a searching of values and meaning in the `betweenness´ that is the topography of the former poles.


criticality, disciplinarity, pragmatism, projective architecture, topography

Published Online


How to Cite

Bun, Z. (2011) “Disciplinarity 2.0 Architectural topography between criticality and pragmatism”, Periodica Polytechnica Architecture, 42(1), pp. 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3311/pp.ar.2011-1.01