a456 has a very interesting post about the lack of theory and prevalence of study in contemporary architecture (Click here for the article). This speaks to me because I feel that critical theory has left the world of architectural design and moved into its own sphere of academic theory.
How often in school did we start a project by analyzing the site, environment, and urban anthropological records as compared to developing a theory of place and setting idealized goals and a grammar of forms? The first was much more common than the latter. In fact we were always taught to analyze and then use the analysis to develop forms. The only time theory made its way into our curriculum was in a lecture setting where we “learned” about contemporary architectural thought through reading lectures and treatises, not design.
This translates to the practice of architecture as well. Projects are designed to fulfill a function, and not argue a thesis. While flights of academic fancy are not feasible in a client driven situation, I am hard pressed to think of many non-avant garde/magazine architecture firms that strategize an idea of a building instead of a program schema.
I think that architecture theory is still alive, but it is retroactive. Instead of being a part of the design process it is post rationalization for subconscious decisions that do not fit with a designer’s analysis. In addition, it is alive and well amongst architectural criticism and specifically blogging. This, to me, is because theory can be read and discovered in any building (even those designed without a conscious intent), but analysis usually requires access to the architects notes or some sort of key to “read” it out of the building.
I have to challenge your notions that no one is theorising the city anymore. There are several theorists who are doing so – but mostly not architects. David Harvey, Manuel Castells and Mike Davis and others have written at length on this. There are also quite a few people acting upon their theorising – notably Tom Dutton at the University of Miami School of Architecture in Oxford, Ohio. Tom’s work in Over the Rhine (Cincinnati) is exemplary in this respect. The thing is they are not talking about the aesthetics of the city – but rather about the impcat of late capitalism, of gentrification, power and ethnic cleansing.
Kia ora from New Zealand,
I just found you through my Google Alerts for Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy. I have read your material and enjoyed what I found. I think that you may enjoy my own website – which you are free to use as a resource. I am a retired academic with more than 40 years teaching Architecture at Universities on three continents (the UK, U. C. Berkeley and U. of Auckland, New Zealand). I have a PhD in Architecture – specialising in the interface between design education and critical theory/critical pedagogy – but my writings cover a whole range of fields. I have a distinguished teaching Award from the University of Auckland (where I taught for 20 years), and for the last five years served as Director of Academic Programme Development at Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi, (one of three Maori Universities) in New Zealand where I also taught Critical Education Theory and Cultural Studies. This gave me a unique perspective on issues of Colonisation, Education and Cultural Pluralism and Critical Pedagogy. I retired a year ago and have set up the website as an educational resource. I am writing because I thought you might find my own website useful. It covers issues such as:
Critical Theory
Critical Theorists
Critical Practice (Praxis)
Critical Pedagogy
Critical Education Theory
Colonisation
Postcolonialism
Postmodernism
Indigenous Studies
Critical Psychology
Cultural Studies
Critical Aesthetics
Hegemony,
Academic Programme Development
Sustainable Design
Critical Design etc. etc.
The website at: http://www.TonyWardEdu.com contains more than 60 (absolutely free) downloadable and fully illustrated PDFs on all of these topics and more offered to students from the primer level, up to PhD. It also has a set of extensive bibliographies and related web links in all of these areas. Of particular interest to this topic is a downloadable paper “Valencia Gardens” which you may enjoy.
I would be very grateful if you would have a look at the website and perhaps bring it to the attention of your friends and colleagues for them to use as a resource.
There is no catch!
It’s just that I would like to share my knowledge with a new generation of scholars and put something back for all the support I have had in my career. All that I ask in return, is that you and they let me know what you think about the website and cite me for any material that may be downloaded and/or used.
I would also appreciate a reciprocal link to my site from your own so that others may come to know about it and use it.
Many thanks
Dr. Tony Ward Dip.Arch. (Birm)
Academic Programme, Tertiary Education and Sustainable Design Consultant
(Ph) (07) 307 2245
(m) 027 22 66 563
(e) tonyward.transform@xtra.co.nz
Thank you for commenting on my post. I apologize for taking so long in replying.
You pose some interesting points, and I look forward to reading through your website (which I have added to my links).
Honestly though, I think we are on the same page. It is not that I feel that there is no theorizing of the city and built environment, instead I feel that the secular architectural community is not building based on theory at this time. Theory and discourse have become the providences of journalists, academics and exhibition architects. This stifles the creative evolution of our world culture because, while reaching a significant audience, the aforementioned professions are limited by language, place and education. It is hard for the common man to appreciate a lecture at oxford on semiotics without a high command of the English language and a base education in critical theory; whereas it is easy for them to appreciate the mathematical grandeur of the Alhambra without understanding the geometric patterns therein.