ABSTRACT
Associated with words not drawings or buildings, and the writer not the designer,
architectural criticism is widely known and understood. But it is assumed that few
architects are critical. This assumption is itself open to criticism, however. First,
because it relies on a limited understanding of what is architectural. Second, because it
caricatures who and what is critical. To consider both issues, the history of the archi-
tect is a useful point of departure.
