Nicole Hayes

Arch 350 D
October 26, 2012
Prompt: Is it possible to write an objective history? If not, whats the next best thing? In what
ways does the architectural canon influence our understanding of history and today, and how can
we challenge it?

It is impossible to write an objective history due to the limits of human reason; that this is
impossible should not dissuade historians from attempting, as an attempted objective history will
be more useful than one that does not even try. Pylas article, Historicizing Pedagogy: A
Critique of Kostofs A History of Architecture, tends to agree with this, criticising Kostof for not
making a strong attempt. The difficulty is, as Pyla points out, absolute and limitless pluralism
creates a symmetrical world, oblivious to crucial differences among buildings. (Pyla, 70)
History is a huge subject, covering thousands of years, and even if the historian is just listing
facts, it is impossible to cover it all in one work. It is the job of the historian to choose which
events are important within the scope of their work, to leave some things out, and to cover others
more fully. This is the first problem with writing an objective history: which aspects make it into
the final work are the choice of the historian, making it difficult to remove biases when selecting.
The example used by Pyla is of Western versus other styles of architecture. Most writers of
architecture textbooks focus on so-called Western architecture, to the point of insulting and
degrading the value of any other style. Kostofs textbook was an attempt to solve this problem by
placing more focus on non-Western cultures. Pyla argues that first, by making that distinction,
Kostof is merely perpetuating stereotypes; second, he continues focusing far more on Western
architecture than any other culture; and third, that he fails to appropriately examine those parts of

other cultures that he bothers to mention. All three critiques are connected and all can be related
to the problem of objectivity. To be objective is to be fair, non-partisan, and disconnected from
the problem: that of choosing what to focus on. In order to be objective when writing an
architecture textbook, one must remove ones self from ones own culture; this becomes more
difficult when one does not simultaneously examine what it means to be a member of your
culture, which Pyla argues that Kostof fails to do. In addition, many of the non-Western
buildings have not been as well studied as the Western ones, limiting Kostofs ability to discuss
them; Pylas critique is that he does not even mention this as a problem. However, what Pyla
fails to take into account is that Kostofs work is still an improvement over the alternatives.
Unlike his predecessors, Kostof is at least attempting to provide a balanced and fair account; it
certainly is an improvement over other works which disregard non-Western architecture at best,
and grievously insult it at worst. This is the closest humanity can come to an objective account of
human architecture: to try to remove sources of bias and to try to maintain a neutral tone. Even
the best attempts at objectivity are going to contain some lingering bias, but simply because we
cannot perfect something does not mean we should avoid trying altogether.