A Survey of Architectural Theory - Essay Example

Architectural Theory An architect does not arrive at his, or her finished product solely by a sequence of rationalizations, like a scientist, nor does he or she reach them by uninhibited intuitions, like a musician or a painter. He or she thinks of forms instinctively, and then attempts to rationalize them; a dialectical process controlled by theory. This theory can only be studied in philosophical and ethical terms. The core of theory as a philosophy is the recognition that there are conjoint worlds, the central debate of philosophy being over the dialogue between them (White 7). One is the external world, while the other is the hypothetical or internal world of our thoughts, imaginings, and interpretations, the world of psychology. The internal world houses our conceptions of the external, molded by notions handed down or across generations persuading or convincing; it is the realm of our rehearsals, associations, ideals, expectations, and hopes for it. This paper attempts to analyze a single architectural theory. Within the discipline of architecture, theory is a disclosure that describes the practice and production of architecture and identifies challenges to it. Theory overlaps with but differs from architectural history, which is descriptive of past work, and from criticism, a narrow activity of judgment and interpretation of specific existing works relative to the critic’s or architect’s stated standards (Johnson 9). Theory is different from these activities because it poses substitute remedies grounded on observations of the existing condition of the discipline, or presents new thought paradigms for approaching the issues (Ots and Alfano 17). It is tentative, anticipatory, and catalytic character makes theoretical activity different from history and criticism. Theory operates on different levels of abstraction, evaluating the architectural profession, its intentions, and its cultural relevance at large. Theory deals with architecture’s aspirations as well as its accomplishments (Johnson 11). Theory can be characterized by several attitudes towards the preservation of its subject matter: for the most part of it is prescriptive, proscriptive, affirmative, or critical. All of these differ from a natural, descriptive position. Prescriptive theory offers new or revived solutions for specific problems (Bertens 22). This theory functions by establishing new norms for practice. It, thus, promotes positive standards and sometimes even a design method. This type can be critical or affirmative of the status quo. The tone in either instance is often polemical. Almost similar to the prescriptive theory is the proscriptive theory. However, it differs in the sense that the standards state what is to be avoided in the design. Good architecture or urbanism in proscriptive terms is defined by the absence of negative attitudes. Functional zoning is an example of proscriptive theory (Ballantyne 15). Broader than descriptive and prescriptive writing, critical theory evaluates the built world and its relationships to the society it serves. This kind of polemical writing often has an expressed political or ethical orientation and intends to stimulate change. Among many possible orientations, critical theory can be ideologically based in Marxism or feminism (Hays 36). A typical example of critical theory is an architect and theorist Kenneth Frampton’s critical regionalism, which proposes resistance to the homogenization of the visual environment through the particularities of mediated, local building traditions. Critical theory is speculative, questioning, and sometimes utopian (White 24). Throughout history, one can identify recurring architectural themes that demand resolution, both conceptually and physically. Physical questions are resolved tectonically, while conceptual or intellectual questions are problematized in the manner of philosophy (Ots and Alfano 31). Perennial theoretical questions include the origins and limits of architecture, the relationship of architecture to history, and issues of cultural expression and meaning. New theories arise to counter for the unexamined or unexplained aspects of the discipline. A survey of architectural theory from the last ninety years finds a wide array of issues vying for consideration. The lack of domination of one issue or single perspective is characteristic of the pluralist period imprecisely referred to as postmodern. Evident in all coexistent and contradictory tendencies is the desire to expand upon the limitations of modern theory, including formalism, and ideas of functionalism. In general, post modern architectural theory addresses a crisis of meaning in the discipline. Since the mid-1960s, architectural theory has become interdisciplinary; it depends upon a vast array of critical paradigms (Kruft 13). There exist many architectural theories, but for the purpose of this paper, the theory that is going to be discussed is postmodern architectural theory. Postmodernism in architecture can be viewed from three different perspectives: as a historical period with a specific relationship to modernism; as an assortment of significant paradigms or theoretical frameworks for the consideration of cultural issues and objects; and as a group of themes (Nesbitt 45). The first perspective that is going to be examined is postmodernism as a historical period. It is easier to define the beginning of the postmodern period than its end, which we have probably not reached. The mid-1960s were characterized by challenges to the Modern Movement Ideology and to a debased and trivialized modern architecture accelerated and proliferated to become known as postmodern critique (Bertens 14). The demolition of the Pruittlgoe complex in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1972 is widely hailed as marking the failure of modern architecture’s vision for housing society. The dramatic, intentional bombing of this work of modern architecture was a clear wake-up call to the profession (Parker 78). Stripped of its social program, modern architecture was reduced in the 1950s to a style for reiteration in the commercial sector. Certain disillusionment with social reform had taken hold in the profession. Among the events transpiring to this profession crisis are exhibitions, publications, and the rise of theory institutions. The institutionalization of architectural theory is evident in the founding of two independent think tanks in New York and Venice, both of which undertook prodigious publication. Another response to the professional crisis in modern architecture was the blossoming of theoretical literature as new independent and academic journals were established (Hays 27). The earnestness with which subjects were tackled by student editors in the architectural journals of the modern architecture indicates the depth of the perception of crisis. However, postmodern architects turned to the written word to sort out complex issues, as often as they turned to the theoretical project (Johnson 42). Extensive publishing in this period is indicative of the recent and accessibility of desktop publishing in noncommercial markets. Nevertheless, it is also a reflection of a lack of work at the drawing board to occupy architects, especially during the slowdown in building activity precipitated by the 1973 oil embargo and energy crisis, as well as the subsequent recessions in the construction industry in the early and late 1980s and 1990s (Sykes 112). During slow periods in the profession, writing theory and designing theoretical projects often sustain architect’s interest. In addition to the growth of architectural theory publications, think tanks, and exhibitions, postmodernism in general is characterized by the increase of hypothetical paradigms, or ideological frameworks, which make up the thematic discourses (Bertens 58). Derived from other disciplines, the main paradigms that profile architectural theory are phenomenology, aesthetics, linguistic theory; which entails semiotics, structuralism, post structuralism, and deconstruction; Marxism; and feminism. One aspect of the interdisciplinary of architecture and other fields is the dependence of architectural theory on the philosophical way of inquisition known as phenomenology. Visual, tangible, olfactory, and auditory sensations are the primeval part of the reception of architecture, a medium notable by its three dimensional presence (Nesbitt 50). In the postmodern epoch, the bodily and insensible association to architecture has again turned into an item of study for some theorists through phenomenology. Provoked by the accessibility of translations of works by Martin Heidegger and Gaston Bacheland from the 1950s, phenomenological contemplation of architecture has started to dislodge formalism and put down the foundation for the rising artistic of the current sublime (Malgrave 95). Similar to phenomenology, aesthetics is a philosophical example that is concerned with the creation and treatment of a work of art (Hays 58).. Due to its role as the distinctive expression of modernity, the sublime is composed of the main rising aesthetic group in the postmodern era. The abrupt renaissance of interest in the sublime is partly explainable in terms of the modern prominence on the knowledge of architecture via phenomenology (Ballantyne 41). The phenomenological pattern foregrounds a basic subject in aesthetics: the consequence a work of architecture has on the observer (Kruft 72). The budding definitions of the sublime shape the modern aesthetic discussion and correspond to postmodern thought. Present-day theorists examining the sublime are reinterpreting a custom dated back to the first century A.D. and is explained during the Enlightenment. A re-examination of the sublime can deployed to re-situate the architectural discussion and to move further than formalism (Johnson 92). Whether depicted as a modern trend prone to social critique, or as a feature of mental encounter, the present-day sublime is slowly budding. It includes the endorsement of disciplinary deconstruction and the indeterminacy of construct (Hays 142). It entails Vidler’s phenomenological enunciation. These theoretical perspectives present means of removing the facade of ultramodern suppressed our ability to see architecture as a nonstop discourse between the transcendent and the beautiful (Evers 79). The emphasis laid on the spatial encounter of the individual subject is a challenge to the formalist and non-experiential treatment of architecture (Ballantyne 92). A move, in concerns in postmodern cultural appreciation, has also been affected by the reformation of thought in linguistic patterns. Semiotics, structuralism, and especially post-structuralism, have remodeled numerous fields such as literature, philosophy, anthropology and sociology (Sykes 63). These paradigms had a significant impact in the 1960s. They were equal to a revival of meaning and symbolism in architecture (Klotz 85). Architects premeditated how meaning is carried in language and applied that information through linguistic equivalence to architecture. They questioned to what degree architecture is conservative. Challenging contemporary functionalism as the determining form, it was disputed from a linguistic perspective that architectural objects have no intrinsic meaning, but can build it via cultural convention (Bertens 82). Structural relationships bind the signs and their components together; syntactic relations between signs and the objects they denote. Applications of semiotic theory to other disciplines proliferated in the 1960s, with especially active practitioners in South and North America, Italy and France. Umberto Eco, critic, novelist and semiotician has written on architecture as a semiotic system of signification (Ballantyne 102). He claims that architectural signs communicate possible functions through a system of conventions or codes. Literal use or pragmatic function is architecture’s primary meaning. Sings, therefore, denote primary functions, and connote secondary functions. Eco demonstrates that a single architectural object can be a bearer of meaning and, therefore, pertinent semiotic unit (Nesbitt 52). Structuralism is a study technique that normally holds that the character of things can be taken to lie, not in things themselves, but in the relations which we build and then perceive, between them. The world comprises of language, which is a construction of significant associations between arbitrary signs. As such, structuralists state that, in linguistic systems, there are only distinctions without positive terms (Ots and Alfano 76). Structuralism emphasizes on codes, conventions, and processes accountable for a work’s lucidity, that is, how it creates socially available meaning. As a method, it does not focus on thematic content, but with the conditions of meaning. The appeal of structuralism for rationalizing architecture is comes from the supposition that structuralists consider linguistics as paradigm and try to develop methodical inventories of rudiments and their possibilities of combination (White 84). Prior to structuralism, the process of interpreting endeavored to unearth the meaning which was similar to the aim of the author or speaker. Such meaning was termed as definitive. Structuralism does not try to give a right meaning to work further than its structure, or to assess the work in relation to the norm. In post structuralism, it is argued that that meaning is undefined, intangible, and unrestricted. The post structuralism model raises two major issues important to postmodern architecture: the position of the subject and its language, and the position of history and its depiction. Both are constructs produced by the society’s depiction of them (Bertens 152). In fact, the aim of the poststructuralist critique is to show that all of reality is made up of its representations, instead of being reflected in them. Post structuralism, therefore, endorses propagation of histories, told from other perspectives than that of the power elite. Many significant practitioners and architectural scholars suppose poststructuralist stances. Postmodern architectural theory has, hence, undertaken a reconsideration of modern architecture’s disciplinary genesis, and its affiliation to history (Hays 40). One of the most important poststructuralist depictions is deconstruction. A theoretical and linguistic practice, deconstruction considers the basis of the idea in logo-centrism, and at the fundamentals of disciplines like architecture. Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher whose work is most often linked with deconstruction, examines the concept of metaphorical operations to create the hypothetical ground or base of argument, indicating that each notion has been constructed (Kruft 112). Derrida argues that deconstruction examines the conceptual pairs which are presently acknowledged as obvious and natural, as if they had not been institutionalized at some specific moment. Deconstruction operates from the boundaries to depict and disassemble the positions and susceptible conceptions that makeup a text. It then continues to try a broader disarticulation of the system, by establishing what the history of the discipline may have hidden or barred, using subjugation to make up its distinctiveness. The aim of deconstruction is to dislodge idealistic categories and trials at mastery such as the privileging of one expression over the other in dual oppositions (Nesbitt 53). The hierarchical binaries not considered isolated or tangential problems, but as methodical and suppressive. Derrida considers architecture as aimed at controlling the communication and transportation sectors of society including the economy. Deconstruction is one of the postmodern critiques aimed at bringing to an end modern architecture’s plan of dominance (Evers 96). The Marxist exemplar is a prominent one useful to the study of architecture in the postmodern period, particularly for probing the city and its institutions. The postmodern urban critique is endorsed by the universal re-examination of political questions by Marxist intellectual and theorists. Marxist perspectives of architectural history and theory raise concerns of the connection between class struggle and architecture. Historian Manfredo Tafuri terms the crisis of current architecture as rather a predicament of the ideological role of architecture (Hays 96). A class architecture is not in a position arouse a general insurgency because it relies on this general revolution. Tafuri holds that this architecture cannot even offer a picture of architecture for a freed society without amendments to its fundamentals language, technique, and organization (Klotz 73). Activism in the 1960s called awareness to the disenfranchisement within supposedly autonomous societies of groups defined by sexual category, race, or sexual orientation. Critical approaches endorsing equity, inclusion, and a termination to prejudice are lengthening the debate of architecture and other arts from ceremonial grounds to cultural, historical, and ethical basis (Ots and Alfano 103). Feminism cropped up as a political debate to oppose male dominance in the postmodern period. This political movement succeeded in achieving social fairness, from employment and educational opportunities to legal and financial liberty. The feminist analysis of architecture is aimed at endorsing theory and practice resolutely in the sociopolitical realism Some general themes which one can cluster issues of postmodern cultural theory are history, meaning, social responsibility, and the body. That the questions of history and historicism have been raised in the postmodern architectural theory indicates that that modernism has lost its firm, univalent grasp on the art and architecture scene leaving open the possibility of a multiplicity of theoretical perspectives and forms of expression (Johnson 97). It also highlights the self-conscious, analytical, and image-oriented nature of the post-modern period, in which artist and architects concerned themselves with a history of ‘influence’. Postmodern positions call for the reconsideration if no embrace of disciplinary history, which had been rejected by modern theory. Appropriation is an aggressive way of dealing with the past. Another way is the attitude of self-consciousness of the resent as a distinct historical moment, which leads to periodization, the segregation of works and events unto separate chronological or stylistic categories (Klotz 105). Periodization is typical of a historicist view of history, defined as seeking express the spirit of the age, understood being unique to the present time and requiring the development of a unique style. One of the significant events in recent architectural theory history is the reappraisal of work not conforming to or contained within the mainstream schools of Modern Movement. The notion that modern architecture is not singular, but is composed of many distinct tendencies, characterizes the work of the Italian theorist, Manfredo Tafuri (Evers 92). The other theme in the postmodern architectural theory has a meaning. Central to the postmodern discussion of meaning is the definition of the essence of architecture, about which there is little consensus. One frequently encounters three elements posited as that which cannot be removed from architecture: type, function, and tectonics (Sykes 121). Type is often linked to the other two terms; to function through types based on use, and to tectonics through types based on structural systems. Typology can also be seen as a catalog of general solutions to problems of architectural arrangement, idealized to the most diagrammatic level. The communication of meaning is also part of type because of the redundancy of form, whether the repetition of root forms or invariant elements. Consciously or unconsciously perceived, type creates continuity with history, which gives intelligibility to buildings and cities within a culture (Nesbitt 56). For some postmodernists, the choice between imitation and invention as the origin of the form is evaded by accepting the existence of an a priori inventory of types available for transformation into models. Since types are too generic and style less to imitate, invention plays a large role in the design process. Type is, therefore, the interior source of a form, to a principle which contains the possibility of infinite formal variation (Ots and Alfano 94). The postmodern urban critical has been mirrored by the consideration of larger political and ethical questions by architectural theorists. At the heart, of the debates is what kind of role architecture as a discipline is to play in society. There are four major roles that come to mind. First, architecture can be indifferent to social concerns and their expression and representation. Second, architecture can be an affirmative actor supporting the existing conditions and the status quo. Third, architecture can gently guide society in a new direction, and fourth, architecture can radically criticize and rake society (Sykes 99). The choice of the model depends on the answer one adapts to the question of whether architecture is primarily an art ort a service profession. The issue of architecture’s role in society is often framed in terms of the possibility and morality of an autonomous position. As pervasive theme in the writings of thins period, autonomy is seen as variously as being neutral, critical, or reactionary (Ballantyne 109). Autonomy in architecture is usually associated with the creation of form by an internal, self-referential discourse. This usage of autonomy is roughly synonymous with formalism, defined as an overriding concern with issues of from, to the exclusion of social-cultural, historical, or even material and constructing issues. Such an autonomous position may be taken by the maker of a work, or by a viewer or interpreter. The resulting architectural object is often abstract, nonrepresentational. To identify an autonomous position, postmodern architectural theory struggles to define which elements are internal or unique to the discourse such ass form, function, materiality, or type (Hays 90). The AIA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (1993) is interesting with regard to the issue of consensus. It lays out a set of nonbinding recommendations for conduct for its members, all of whom have agreed to abide by the code (Johnson 117). The document’s scope includes such broad goals as; cornering the social and environmental impacts of architectural activities; respect and conserve the natural and cultural heritage; strive to improve the environment and quality of life; uphold human rights; and be involved in civic affairs. The fact that all these important points are nonbinding indicates that they are also the most difficult to define, enforce, and on which to develop consensus in the architectural community (Kruft 145). Another branch of ethics in postmodern architectural theory call’s for engagement in the politics milieu. This takes many forms, including calls for the resurrection of a social welfare role for architecture. An emerging political addenda is represented by the green architecture movement, which proposes the need fo environmental ethics of building (Sykes 99). Such recent theory aims to develop a less antagonistic relationship with nature by resisting sprawl through the high-density development, and through the use of renewable, non-polluting and recycled materials. The sustainability movement is supported by the phenomenological idea that a relationship with nature is essential to full human self-realization on earth (Evers 119). William McDonough, architect and environmentalist, argues that the ethical implications of architectural work include acknowledging the rights of future generations and other species to a healthy environment. He takes the AIA ethical guidelines very seriously and feels that the profession’s status will improve if it takes a broader view of the services it provides. Like many of the other ethical positions, environmentalism embodies a critique of both modern architecture and the material conditions of modernity (Malgrave 171). For McDonough, the continuation of current habits of architectural practice, in light of the known toxicity of building materials and processes, is negligent. His radical position calls for new definitions of prosperity, productivity, and quality of life. It begins with coming to peace with the human being’s place in the natural world. The understanding that nature is not immutable requires an attitude of integration with and a commitment to renewing and restoring the earth and its living systems (Sykes 156). Despite its confusing aspects, there are many reasons to study postmodern architectural theory. The writings of 1965 to 1995 embrace a wealth of architectural themes, which are farmed by fascinating theoretical paradigms (Klotz 138). They help to illuminate the heterogeneous production during this period and to explain its relationship to modern architecture. Postmodern theory is critical, optimistic and intellectual; it challenges and celebrates the capacity of the mind, and it offers models of critical and ethical thinking. In this regard, theory can pedagogically demonstrate comparative analysis of writer’s positions and the logic of their arguments. The ethical component also establishes a model for responsible behavior as an architect, emphasizing the link between the designer’s activities and society (Nesbitt 63). The result of all the fluidity in the architectural profession during the postmodern era is a discourse at once provocative, anticipatory, speculative, and open-ended. The results of this theory are unpredictable and varied. The postmodern critique of modern critique of modern architecture has been carried on by those powerfully entrenched in institutions, and by voices of the marginalized groups (Nesbitt 64). Three themes of critical theory appear to be emergent in the mid 1990s: feminism, and the problem of the body in architecture, the aesthetic of the contemporary sublime, and the environmental ethics. From positions outside the mainstream of discourse and within, operating with the fragmentary essay as their tool, postmodern theorists approach the recurrent emergent themes of architecture. Works Cited Ballantyne, Andrew. Architecture Theory: A Reader in Philosophy and Culture. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005. Print. Bertens, Hans. International Postmodernism: Theory and Literary Practice. London: John Benjamins Publishing House, 1997. Print. Evers, Bernd. Architectural Theory: From the Rennaissance to the Present. Berlin: Taschen, 2003. Print. Hays, Michael. Architecture Theory Since 1968. New York: MIT Press, 2000. Print. Johnson, Paul-Alan. The theory of Architecture: Concepts, Themes, and Practices. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994. Print. Klotz, Henrich. The History of Postmodern Architecture. New York: MIT Press, 1988. Print. Kruft, Hano-Walter. A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994. Print. Malgrave, Harry Francis. Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673-1968. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print. Nesbitt, Kate. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Print. Ots, Enn and Michael Alfano. Decoding Theoryspeak: An Illustrated Guide to Architectural Theory. London: Taylor & Francis, 2010. Print. Parker, Simon. Urban Theory and the Urban Experience: Encountering the City. London: Routledge, 2004. Print. Sykes, Krista. Constructing a New Agenda: Architectural Theory 1993-2009. New York: Princeton Archtectural Press, 2010. Print. White, Stephen. Political Theory and Postmodernism. Massachusetts: CUP Archive, 1991. Print. Read More