What theory? Is there really any theory left?

yep plenty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhbO2wOnJLg&feature=related

blackhoe, that's a movie trailer. Try again.


Architectural theory is for buttmunchers. I'd have more respect, but I'm not seeing any positive results in actual world.

Hands on practical creators, hats off to them.

if you are in NYC check out the Public School

http://nyc.thepublicschool.org/

they sometimes have theory related discussions.

tell them i sent u!

There's a place to talk about theory...in books.
I bet my theory is better than your theory...no, no, I bet your theory is inferior to my theory. Touche.

Or you can get a "real" job. Or give us a theory on why people spend money on theory when they should be learning to prepare them for what they went to school for. We all went to school to be theorists, that's my theory...and I bet it's better than your theory.

The economy sucks, that's not theory, that's reality, but back to theory....

Derailed already. Sorry fade.
I think archinect is a fine place to discuss theory. If your questions are provocative - in the way that this one was - you'll get snark. But if you just launch into something and people engage with the topic, I don't think there's a better place or a smarter, more interesting group of people than right here.

Steven, you always come across sounding like 90 year old black belt Confucius man.

Why is that? :)

I think it is because he had children who happen to be girls.

Back on topic, though.

The word theory is ambiguous at best. I obviously know you mean architectural theory.

But, what kind of theory?

The didactic nature of architecture theory is difficult to discuss outside of a more formal situation. Even in less formal situations, what information are we suppose to learn from the discussion of theory?

Learning from theories obviously means that in some regard, whether the construction is tangible or virtual, is tested. That's essentially how information is created.

We can talk about the socio-cultural aspects of current architectural practice-- that requires a larger knowledge of the humanities, art, sociology, literature and economics. Much of which architectural theorist seem to completely dismiss, ignore or fragment in their various essays and books. This is completely evident in architecture's fixation of favelas, slums, 'inner-cities' and other symbols of poverty. That's akin to putting a fur coat on a whore.

In addition, thanks to individuals like Mark Wigley, the move away from the traditional aspects of education, discussion and formality have pushed informalism as the new dominant formality. In a sense, they've become the exact kind of people they moved away from only with a different style.

Same fur coat, different hooker.

Oh Wigley, Mr. deconstructor of reality and supporter of clowns repeating the mistakes of the 60s...where's that roll of toilet paper...

I saw this sweet pair of Theory pants at Barneys a few weeks ago..

One prolem with discussing theory is that people tend to have such disparate backgrounds in literature. A theme is helpful. For instance, I thought the parametricism thread was very good. There have been a few others as well.

So what would you like to discuss?

Alternatively, perhaps the best way to do this is as am archinect reading group. People could agree to read the same essay or chapter and discuss. The organization, focus and reference to a common text fresh in everyone's mind would most likelyomprove the quality of discussion.

WTF is up with this criticism of studying favelas? No one is romanticizing these places - academics are mostly just interested in what sorts of things seem to work better in slums than in planned neighborhoods. and people have been studying/writing about this stuff for decades. jane jacobs spent an entire famous book waxing poetic about neighborhoods that had until maybe a decade or two before she wrote it were considered slums.

After how many architectural interventions does a favela become a planned neighborhood?

What is exactly a planned neighborhood on a world definition? If it is a neighborhood that adheres to a planning and zoning code... then like 99% of all development, including some favelas and slums, are planned. But there's a pretty large population segment globally who are not really poor but do not have anything else at the same time.

I just haven't seen any effort to bring architecture to, say, a trailer park in Thermopolis, Wyoming.

trailer parks are not as dynamic. there isn't the same kind of social fabric and energy as the places that have a much higher critical mass of people. there's very little (if any) informal ad-hoc industry that springs up and supports the neighborhood - the amount of unofficial and illegitimate modification to the space is very minimal. trailer parks typically only have a few dozen people - not thousands. there's probably something interesting there to study, though...

modern planning/zoning code is a very recent invention - we're realizing that something that was once great about these more informal places is now lost through modern "planned" development - which is why people are looking at these pre/unenforced-code places to see if there is anything we can learn.

you know the old saying: in order to gain something you have to lose something? often as society advances (technologically and legally) we lose things that we didn't intend on losing - and most contentious debates are centered around whether or not what we gain is better than what we lost (or are replacing) and how to get back the things we didn't want to lose in the first place. and academia is often focused on figuring out what (and the how and why) exactly it is we're gaining, replacing, or losing. Although i think most people only want academia to focus on the how to gain things because that other stuff makes us uncomfortable and angry.

ok - to the OP - if you want to talk "theory" just start posting interesting questions to the forums.

holy crap Mirin thanks,
mr. ward your insights are always appreciated on my end
-will read the other comments laters

the trailer i put up was for an italian movie called 'gamorrah'
set location is in Scampia,Naples. in a building that seems inspired by Sant'Elia

a friend of mine that went to notre dame kept telling me 'see look how horrible modern architecture can be, look at the way these ppl live, its all because of the theory they put into those buildings.'

The place to talk about theory is that space between you and the bathroom mirror.

the sink?

Why do most people here seem to think that theory 'is dead', or that it is no longer relevant? Someone give me some theory!

I think no one really knows anymore what theory is or what it attempts to do. Is it still taught in schools?? Is it really just abstract thinking that has no relevance to anything? I wouldn't go so far as to assert something of that nature.

If there is no desire to talk about it, then that is fine. I wonder why there are so many assertions that it is worthless if those people don't actually have a criticism?

terry eagleton has written a very readable book called After Theory. worth checking out.

want to discuss this?

http://www.bratton.info/projects/texts/what-do-we-mean-by-program/

@The Co-op Guy...

A fact without criticism is a theory. A theory without criticism is an idea. An idea without criticism is an impulse. Criticism can come from the self, too.

The issue with architectural theory at this moment is that it is seemingly hollow, pedantic and baseless for the most part. The theories that have been regurgitated over the last 30 years have yet to materialize into facts, truths and laws.

It's one thing to stick to the "I do it because I want to do it" or "I do it because I think it is cool" arguments. Off the top of my head, I think perhaps maybe Gehry and Bjarke Ingels are the only two architects who "does it because it is cool."

But, otherwise, that attitude is perceived by the architectural community as outlandish and childish because it's not some super imposed, cerebral machine-like process of design.

I wrote a brief piece about Gomorrah.

For those of you skeptical about the role of theory, just Google "#lgnlgn" and see what comes up. For example, try this.

I think as soon as someone mentions of 'talking theory,' it pretty much is a DOA.

@ X/0
I disagree with the statement "A fact without criticism is a theory" Also, there seems to be a discrepancy with your next statement, "a theory without criticism is an idea" if a fact without criticism is theory, then that theory has no criticism, however, your next statement asserts that in fact it cannot be theory, but is actually an idea. Your clean cyclical trifecta seems to be a contradictory theory about theory.

Also,
Frank Lloyd Wright had theories driving his designs, Gaudi had theories driving his, Le Corbusier, Viollet-le-Duc, Henri Lebrouste, Mies, Gropius, Netsch.. were these theories outlandish and childish, although they materialized into facts as you say? Maybe the last 30 years were devoid of any practicable theory because after the modernist movement, it was onto avant-garde theories that were more difficult to materialize. But does this mean that theory is dead or useless? I beg to differ.

One question: Should architectural design be super imposed, cerebral, and machine-like? It sounds as if you are making this assertion... or is that what you assert that previous theories were?

thanks, SMSS. i've actually come across your blog before. impressive how prolific you are.

hope to respond soon.