The last four-plus decades have seen formidable developments in the discipline of architectural history and theory. This prolific production was disseminated publicly primarily through text-based mediums such as Oppositions, Log and Assemblage—among countless others. But now, the emergence of new media and platforms have dramatically changed the form and pace with which architectural ideas are transmitted. The slow pace of traditional text-centric publishing appears to be losing ground to the rapid production and transmission of images. Can text catch up with the image?

Just a few decades ago, theorists such as Diana Agrest, Stanford Anderson, Alan Colquhoun, Francesco Dal Co, Peter Eisenman, William Ellis, Kurt W. Forster, Kenneth Frampton, Mario Gandelsonas, Michael Hays, Giorgio Grassi, Fred Koetter, Rem Koolhaas, Léon Krier, Mary McLeod, Rafael Moneo, Joan Ockman, Martin Pawley, Aldo Rossi, Colin Rowe, Denise Scott Brown, Jorge Silvetti, Manfredo Tafuri, Bernard Tschumi and Anthony Vidler all participated in the production of what was then a new disciplinary mode of communication, one that attempted to cross breed architecture with art and literary theory as well as connect with the general public.

The origins of architecture’s disciplinary and representational bisections can simultaneously be traced to the introduction of psychology and critical theory into architecture’s reach. This culture of mass consumption, along with the adaptation of a medium of mass consumption into the tools of architectural theory, allowed the critic, historian or scholar to extensively curate, control, and limit the exposure of the architectural images of the time. 

Through this, architecture’s means of representational tendencies split into the text and the image. This separation between text—defined as content rather than physical form—and image—defined as a representation of external form—then leaves architecture with either text with nothing to shape or images with nothing to say. These modes of architectural communication have fostered a space of inquiry and also disconnect between the scholarly text and design image.The role of Archinect’s new series Cross-Talk is to bring forward the positive aspects of the polemic

Today, we have paused and exploded into a plethora of unrelated directions. Simultaneously, the scholars of architectural discourse have found no foundation on which to attach their new words, endlessly attempting to pull from the graveyard of forged memories and manifestos, attempting to scratch for a ray of light to peer upon their texts. 

This contentious relationship between text and image in architecture is as definitive as that of the scholar and academic. One who sees the world and imposes their will, and another who sees such will and imposes their world.

In today’s stream of social media, news, fake news and real news, and as the lines of truth blur further and further, what medium does the text have to push forward, if any? How then can the text, a medium that attempts to unravel and execute scholarly insight through time and thought, ever challenge the power of the image when the image has feverishly taken the driver’s seat in the road to contemporary relevancy and means of legitimization?

The battle of the image is being waged from the red hearts of Instagram, to the endless portfolios of issuu, and to the Facebook posts of hours passed—leveling the playing field of Pritzker Prize-winning architects with the first year undergraduate digital virtuoso. What then is the textual response for such a reterritorialization of the written word? Is the text forced to attempt to challenge such standards?

Can we discover a way to turn hourly, weekly, and monthly statements and potent declarations into a just-as-often conversation? Should we? What do we lose by questioning, conversing with the same tools and methods that the other side implores to advance theirs? Here, we will attempt—if only to say we have—to bring criticality to the now.

There's a potential energy out there—but not a clear or focused one. Forty years ago, the discipline had a clear focus and a clear voice against it. Stances and positions couldn't have been clearer. These polarities, extremes and oppositions were great for discussion, production and for the discipline at large—you were in a constant stream of finding and defending. We don't have that same potency today: no stance has the momentum to generate that kind of opposition. In fact, to the contrary, we allow for such stances to stand unopposed; we are afraid of what might be said; we would rather pat ourselves on the back than turn around and face the hand face first. 

The role of Archinect’s new series Cross-Talk is to bring forward the positive aspects of the polemic and allow for the resulting conflict to bring to life an otherwise still and comfortable climate of creativity—if there can be one. Cross-Talk attempts—if to only say that it did—to allow text the freedom that the image has accepted and embraced. Cross-Talk attempts to force the no, to contradict itself, to anger, to please and then anger again, if only to force a stance, to pull out the position of the self, of the discipline and of the hour as a means to begin and maintain conversations moving forward. 

For the first installment of Cross-Talk, four writers will delve into the topic of “agonism”—or the political theory popularized in recent years by Chantal Mouffe that stresses the positive aspects of conflict. Eschewing consensus-driven politics, agonism embraces struggle as an integral component in the formation of discourse. Here, democracy is understood as a process of respectful conflict, in which the other is accepted as foundationally different rather than forced to conform. How can this theory be adapted to architecture? Should it be?

Each session of Cross-Talk will be oriented around one topic. 

Each topic will be addressed by four texts.

Each text will be produced by a different author. 

Each writer will have their own stance. 

Each stance will be meant to agitate others.

Each agitation will produce a possible crack in reason. 

Each crack will reveal a possible new position.