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.