The Restart of 《Architecture Criticism》

We revisit the architectural theory critique journal “Architecture Review”, which was launched in 2015.
It has been four years since the publication of the Winter 2020 issue (Volume 24) ended.
Meanwhile, the Architecture Criticism Community met with a new publisher, prepared for re-publication, considered sustainability, and revamped the editorial design.
However, the issues that 《Architecture Criticism》 has pursued so far remain unchanged, and there has been no significant change in the content composition.
“To foster a healthy critical culture that can take root in our architectural society, to overcome the problem of one-off criticism/criticism, to properly build the history of our modern architecture by rigorously exploring/exploring/discussing excellent architecture, and to discover resources that can serve as a good stimulus for the creative power of our architecture.” To achieve these founding goals, 《Architectural Criticism》 will maintain its own ‘slow and sticky passion’ to coolly enjoy architecture in its own way, and will create ‘rules of the game’ (as an agile centripetal force) to shape this in a refreshing way, and will try to weave together issues in the architectural world more deeply, broadly, and uniquely.

A common thread emerged from the many conversations. While the position of architectural criticism has always been precarious, our criticism is currently facing a particularly urgent crisis. What's most needed now is to foster genuine and diverse communication. Therefore, a broader, more expansive concept of architectural writing is called for, transcending traditional architectural criticism. However, even more intriguing is the common thread that emerges from all these diagnoses and perspectives. It's a confession that, regardless of age, position, or position, everyone has experienced fear from a small beginning, faced endless challenges and struggles, and continues to take shaky, difficult steps forward.
185p., Kim In-seong, “Talking about Architectural Criticism”

This school building has a slightly different architecture. Instead of a straight line or an H, it's laid out in a square shape with a courtyard. This creates a more democratic spatial hierarchy. Students see each other in this layout. In addition to the square shape, there are pods that jut out into the courtyard. Architecturally, this is the most striking feature, but its use has not yet been clearly defined by the members. The courtyard, along with the mushroom-roofed cafeteria space, holds many possibilities. It is a place where we can expect endless uses with the various activities of Seojin School in the post-pandemic period, and the rounded landscaping elements form a pattern.
44p., Ji Jeong-woo, “A City Called School”

Because the architecture we see here today is a collective and opaque mass, a tangled web of practical work by a group of Korean architects, each with its own distinct shape, it's nearly impossible to draw its entire form clearly and concisely. One way would be to slice the mass horizontally, vertically, and diagonally, revealing its inhomogeneous cross-sections, and then to draw contemporary Korean architecture from these sections.
128p., Hyun Myeong-seok, “Architecture(s) Move_Nameless Architecture”

How well does this book's Korean section reflect the development of modern Korean architecture? Unfortunately, it leaves much to be desired. This judgment is based on the imbalance in Frampton's architect selection and the numerous errors found in the text.
258p., Kim Hyeon-seop, “A Criticism of Kenneth Frampton’s ‘Modern Architecture: A Critical History’ (2020), from a Korean Perspective”

As we know, criticism is a "subjective and provisional" response (by the critic) to a situation. In other words, there can be no final or closed conclusion. Of course, criticism involves a parallel process of seeking empathy—a process of requesting agreement—through efforts to secure greater objectivity. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the starting point of criticism lies in the "subjective judgment" of the critic.
266p., Song Jong-yeol, “Ontology of ‘Between’: Preliminary Work for the Foundation of Architectural Criticism 1”

--- From the text