Introducing Architectural Theory

Debating a Discipline

Korydon Smith, Miguel Guitart, Korydon Smith, Miguel Guitart

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415888387
• eBook ISBN: 9781136190292
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

This is the most accessible architectural theory book that exists. Korydon Smith presents each common architectural subject – such as tectonics, use, and site – as though it were a conversation across history between theorists by providing you with the original text, a reflective text, and a philosophical text. He also introduces each chapter by highlighting key ideas and asking you a set of reflective questions so that you can hone your own theory, which is essential to both your success in the studio and your adaptability in the profession. These primary source texts, which are central to your understanding of the discipline, were written by such architects as Le Corbusier, Robert Venturi, and Adrian Forty. The appendices also have guides to aid your reading comprehension; to help you write descriptively, analytically, and disputationally; and to show you citation styles and how to do library-based research. More than any other architectural theory book about the great thinkers, Introducing Architectural Theory teaches you to think as well.

Part 1

DEBATE in ARCHITECTURE

Introduction

TO STUDENTS: WHY ARCHITECTURAL THEORY IS VITAL

THEORY IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION

As a student, architecture reviews and critiques can be both invigorating and stressful. You share the work you have done over the past weeks, months, or year. You present your goals, process, and results. You present various drawings and models, as well as some written text or verbal commentary. Likely, the final review is a requirement given by your professor or program, and, maybe for some of you, you would prefer not to go through with it. Some might truly look forward to this opportunity, to candidly present what you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of your work, and to gain insights from an esteemed group of critics. Maybe some of you are hopeful to receive praise for your hard work and commendations for your successes. Some students simply do not want to miss all the potential drama.

In any case, the excitement and stress of final reviews stems from the unpredictability of it all. As reviews begin, it is a mystery as to what will and won’t be said, what students will receive accolades and what students will be derided, and how the flow of the conversation will evolve. Part of the unpredictability is surely caused by the critics, but what appears to be random and unmanageable might well be within the student’s control.¹ Many students are unaware of how they can direct their own reviews, rather than standing by as passive observers. This book, Introducing Architectural Theory: Debating a Discipline, provides a foundation for gaining authority of your work and your reviews.

When students stand in front of a panel of critics and embark on a discussion of the goals, methods, and outcomes of their work, knowingly or unknowingly, they are launching a theoretical position. This position—and all the aesthetic and pragmatic value judgments it contains—becomes more and more tangible as critics shift uncomfortably in their chairs, lean forward with enthusiasm, or slump with boredom. Named or unnamed, it is then from a similar or distant theoretical stance that the subsequent critique materializes. As such, theory is central to architectural education. Understanding architectural theory is essential.

On the first day of the semester, in the architectural theory course I teach, I always ask students several questions: What is “theory?” How is it useful? What excites you about theory? What scares you about it? Many students are excited about theory and what it connotes—ruminating on the significance of this or that architect or architectural work. To many other students, “theory” is seen as a set of enigmatic texts produced by obscure authors—boring, heady, and impractical. Many students feel alienated by this. Contributing to this feeling, architectural theory is often marginal to the educational experience, often reserved for elective courses, graduate study, or as a supplement to undergraduate history, technology, or design courses. As such, it is difficult to see how theory is useful, much less seeing why studying architectural theory is necessary.

Defined another way, architectural theory is neither formal nor textual, neither cryptic nor pretentious. Theory is the most vital component of the architecture curriculum. Explicit or implicit, architectural theory is the means by which architects and architectural scholars situate themselves in the world. This positioning is not merely based on embracing fashionable discourses, but is part of clarifying one’s architectural line of thinking. It is how the discipline of architecture began and has evolved. Theory is what underpins all aspects of architecture—technological, cultural, economic, and aesthetic. Theory is embedded in the everyday aspects of architecture: daily conversations between students and instructors, editorials in popular architectural media, etc. Built forms, themselves, are a manifestation of theory. In essence, architectural theories provide the foundation from which any student or practitioner asserts a particular stance or value structure of architecture. It is through theories that architects align with or dispute other architects or architectural works. This book is about this ongoing debate, architectural theory.

DEFINING ARCHITECTURAL THEORY

Humans make theories to explain the world around them. “Theory building develops out of our need to make sense out of life.”² Philosophy and religion are two examples of this human desire to explore and explain the meaning of life. As such, “theory” and “philosophy” are often synonymous.³ In fact, many library databases use the term “architecture philosophy” rather than “architecture theory.”⁴ The term “philosophy,” however, may be misleading, as it suggests something ephemeral, hypothetical, or non-concrete. In actuality, architectural theory serves a practical role. Though “practice” is often seen as the complement to “theory,” architectural theory fulfills a rational, pragmatic, and concrete purpose.

Architectural theory began with Marcus Vitruvius’ Ten Books on Architecture, written in the first century B.C.E.⁵ The book was a practical guide to the design and construction of towns, infrastructure, and public buildings, and private residences. The book also included discussions of material properties and usage, proportion and geometry, and site orientation, all of which are issues still relevant to architecture today. Published architectural theory remained absent until the Renaissance, when Alberti published the Art of Building in Ten Books in the late 15th century, which closely modeled Vitruvius’ work.⁶ Since that time, architects, architectural critics, and architectural historians have published thousands of articles and books on a range of architectural topics, all with practical implications.

It is important to understand that, unlike the natural sciences or the social sciences, theories in architecture often emerge from less formalized, more individualistic paradigms.⁷ Many architectural theories are the writings of individual architects. These writings are frequently the subjective opinions of these architects, not necessarily rooted in objective empirical research. As well, architectural theory is not just found in books, but is part of the ongoing conversations that take place in architecture academies and practices around the world.

In the natural sciences, theory refers to an intellectual construct used to understand a set of phenomena. Scientific theories usually focus on the explanation or prediction of causal relationships. They can be explanatory—deductive and verifiable, such as the Pythagorean Theorem in mathematics—or exploratory—inductive and speculative, such as the String Theory in physics. This concept possesses both a common ground and a divergence from social science theories, where the focus is on human behavior rather than natural phenomena. Compared to other disciplines, architectural theory is less easily circumscribed.⁸ Architectural theory is vast and diverse, and encompasses at least three main areas:

1. theories of architectural technology: principles of structure, ventilation, drainage, lighting, etc.

2. theories of architectural history: social phenomena and patterns, linguistic analyses, analyses of physical artifacts, etc.

3. theories of architectural design: organizational strategies, design methods, spatial concepts, aesthetic judgments, etc.

Likewise, some architectural theories are scientific (e.g., Daniel Bernoulli’s principles of fluid dynamics); some are sociological (e.g., Edward Hall’s concept of proxemics); and some are ideological (e.g., John Ruskin’s Seven Lamps of Architecture).

In all cases, the merits of a theory are based on its reliability, validity, repeatability, and application. “To be useful, theories must exhibit certain qualities: comprehensiveness, clarity and explicitness, consistency, parsimony, and heurism.”⁹ Theories evolve over time in order to better achieve these criteria. Theories also change for two other reasons: (1) empirical substance, and (2) cultural resonance. Empirical substance is the extent to which a theory is accepted by experts in a given discipline; cultural resonance is the extent to which a theory is accepted by society. For example, heliocentrism, the theory that the planets revolve around the sun, was asserted multiple times throughout history, beginning with scholars in Ancient Greece. The concept was scientifically proven by Copernicus and his contemporaries in the 16th century, but it did not gain social acceptance until well after Copernicus’ death in 1543, as the theory conflicted with the dominant religious beliefs of the time.

Bringing this all together, architectural theory is part science, part history, part ideology, part sociology, and part aesthetic judgment. Therefore, I have developed the following definition of architectural theory:

the evolution of the objective principles and subjective values that guide individual and collective decisions about, and assessments of one’s own and others’, architectural works.

The definition consists of three dichotomous pairs. The first pair stems from the notion that architectural theory encompasses a wide range of empirical, cultural, and ideological premises. “Objective principles” refers to scientific theories, such as, structural, lighting, or acoustic phenomena and concepts; “subjective values,” on the other hand, are belief systems and ideologies, such as, aesthetic predilections and political agendas. The second pair illustrates that architectural design decisions may be “individual” or “collective.” “Individuals” include architects, clients, critics, etc.; “collectives” include architectural academies, groups of architects sharing similar beliefs, or groups in society who possess a common cause. The last dichotomous pair points to the tension between self and other, “one’s own” and “others’” architectural works. This is especially important for students developing their own identities as architects, seeking to situate themselves in the larger discipline of architecture. Students have often voiced to me the tension they see between asserting their own burgeoning theories of architecture and the more matured, often conflicting, views of their instructors. The final piece of the definition is the introductory phrase “the evolution of.” Architectural theories are part of a continuum, an ongoing debate, which guides the structure of this book.

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK

The book begins with a discussion of the role of debate in architecture: “Debating a Discipline: Architecture, Argument, and the Concept of the Dialectic.” This section illustrates how architecture is an ongoing debate about a number of topics: aesthetics, structure, functionality, tectonics, context, politics, economics, culture, etc. Architectural and non-architectural examples illuminate how debate is related to the concept of the “dialectic.” Unlike most debates, which contain two opposing sides, dialectical debates involve three parts: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (described in the next chapter as original, reflective, and philosophical). The thesis is the originating theory or idea, the antithesis is an opposition to the thesis, and the synthesis is an attempt to reconcile or transform the previous two. The dialectical structure forms the organization for the remainder of the book (chapters 1–12).

Chapters 1 through 12 are divided into three categories—tectonics, use, and site—the most central topics in architectural design. Each category possesses four chapters. Each chapter begins with a pair of contrasting images, a diptych of two architectural works, along with a set of prompting questions. These images and questions are intended to prompt dialogue and debate within and among students. Each chapter is then followed by a brief introduction to the topic and the three dialectical readings that follow. For example, Chapter One, “Simplicity and Complexity,” opens with an image of Stonehenge and an image of the Modern Art Museum of Ft. Worth, Texas. The chapter introduction then explores the terms “simplicity” and “complexity” as they apply to architecture. The dialectical set of readings for that chapter begins with Marcel Breuer’s discussion of the importance of formal, spatial, and material simplicity; proceeds with Robert Venturi’s assertions about the importance of complexity in architecture; and concludes with Vittorio Gregotti’s ruminations on the difficulty of achieving simplicity. Like the other chapters, that chapter concludes with a set of questions and a list of further readings.

At the end of the book, you will find several resources. These appendices are intended to provide added advice about (1) reading comprehension and analysis, (2) different genres of writing, (3) different citation styles, and (4) conducting library-based research. You are urged to consult these appendices before, during, and after you have completed the chapters in this book.

THE FUTURE OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY

It is an exciting time to study architecture. While the primary subjects of architecture two millennia ago—tectonics, use, and site—remain central to the discipline, new materials and technologies are emerging every day and environmental, social, and economic challenges are growing. This makes it a vital time to study architectural theory. Undoubtedly, as architects of the future, you and your peers will question yo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Table of Contents
• Preface: To Educators: The Impetus for this Book
• Acknowledgments
• List of Sources
• Part 1: Debate in Architecture
• Part 2: Dialectical Readings in Architecture
• Appendices (For Students)
• Index