Why don't you decontrust the philosophies of various architectural movements and theorists? It would not be difficult to reduce them to utter bullshit, especillay when comparing one to another.

There's an issue of AD called Theoretical Meltdown on this.

http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470997796.html

Whiting and Somol are good starts (are you in Chicago, per chance?)  But, you can't talk about architectural theory without mentioning the big dogs, like Koolhaas or Eisenman, in my opinion.  And in my opinion you might want to consider how they were influenced by Mies and/or LeCorbusier before them.  You might want to check out these lectures: http://vimeo.com/27911744

And if you want to to talk about the decay of theory, you should do what Miles is suggesting, and debunk the utter bullshit that comes out of the offices of the Libeskind's and Ghery's of the world, as these two dudes (among others) have found a way to market architecture as a consumerists object/product rather than a contextually relevant and necessary piece of urban infrastructure.

It sounds like there might be a lot of different ways you could take the direction of this thesis, though.  I personally think architecture is devolving into a form of product making, which is a reflection of our ultra capitalist and consumerist leanings, which might explain the increase of architecture being more focused on fabrication and digital technology as well.

Anyway, best of luck to you.

Thanks for your comments matias, that is really helpful.. no i'm based in manchester in UK, just came across Whiting and Somol.. 

Ive been looking at starting with progression of architectual theory over the years so that would be great starting point using Miles and LeCorbusier, to progress on postmodernism Robert Venturi to deconstrucitsm/New spirit derinda/eisemen and then Koolhaus/eisemen to digital technologies blobs, swarm grammers, digital morphogenesis, etc.

There does seem to be many different diections i could take it and that's what i am struglling with... but i like really like your idea of liberskinds and Gherys architecture being consumerists object/prodects, as i was going to include a the bilbao effect in one section so that will work nicesly with that.. 

do you know of any good artices that might go into this further? 

Thanks for your help it's really appreciated...      

also i have read AD theortical Meltdown that what i have been based my idea from, can recommend any other similar books with some notion?

nevermind...

I don't see how this "digital design" (assuming you are referring to scripts and blobs) differs from the hand drawn diagrams and models.

Diagrams and pretty little renderings are simply that, pretty little things to look at.  Until there is a test in reality (even if that is a rendering), it is all the same.  

I guess I look at the "death of theory" as something that has not really occurred.  On its way, perhaps, but certainly not displaced by "rise of cool digital design techniques & technologies".  Those are just newer ways of making pretty, shining things that everyone can go 'ooooo, ahhhhh' over.  

A true "death" would leave those writing about this, like Somol, without a job, yes?

oh, and to counter Matias arguments, without saying whether the architecture is "good" coming from Gehry and Libeskind, I will say that, particularly with Gehry, it is far more honest than the post rationalized bs that has come from more "theory" (I say that very loosely, as bs can be spewed in so many ways) driven designs.

Gehry, at least, makes architecture for space and experience and doesn't pronounce it to be some over intellectualized book that no one can really ever understand.  It is architecture, it is space and it is experience, nothing more, nothing less.

whatever happened to architectural theory?

which one is on wheels?

from a theory of death of architecture to death of architectural theory , is this a tale of vengeance?

Gehry, at least, makes architecture for space and experience and doesn't pronounce it to be some over intellectualized book that no one can really ever understand.  It is architecture, it is space and it is experience, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sure this is a tired argument, but I really cannot stand architects who feel that they've elevated themselves above rational criticism.  To argue that a building is a "space that is to be experienced" is a rather empty statement, in my opinion.  If an architect cannot visually (or verbally) articulate why his or her solution is optimal, then of what value is that architect?

Have you ever heard Libeskind defend his work?  It's beyond irritating, in my opinion.  He doesn't speak in tangible or verifiable terms.  Instead, he repeats old platitudes and weightless descriptions that appeal to emotion.  I can't tell if he's an architect or a french poet with a beret and curly mustache outside of a pastry shop in Biarritz, pontificating about the meaning of life.

I think a failure to critically examine the results of starchitects who shun theory is a dangerous game.  It reduces architecture to a form of mysticism, or an art that can only be understood by the practitioners who need not defend their actions.  It reinforces a tired myth that great architecture is some divine stroke of genius haphazardly jotted down on a napkin (seriously, what the hell is this: http://www.etsy.com/storque/media/bunker/2011/04/1st-draft-gehry-03.jpg)?.  It completely undermines the rigor of architectural evaluation and research.  It gives architects the ability to say, "trust us, we know what we're doing" without having to answer for any mistakes.

I'm sure there are plenty of architects who post rationalize their work.  I'm not defending them.  But if there is somehow honor in the "honesty" in not giving a fuck about the consequences of architectural design, then we've effectively undermined our own importance.  Architectural research and theory is the cornerstone for architectural progress.  There is no value in naivete.  We study precedents so that we know what mistakes to avoid, and what values to push and experiment.  We diagram and render so that we can review, discuss, and refine our solutions so that we can move toward a better solution.  Minimally defining our responsibility of making spaces for experiences is a cop-out, and gives architects like Gehry an excuse to avoid the intellectual rigor required.

Anyone can create a stimulating space that makes someone say "wow".  But it takes a pro to add value.

and there is a difference between theorists of fictional writing and fictional writing itself. the good side of libeskind, like with lebbeus woods, was his architectural fictiography that resonanted poetically with at least a generation or two of architect students and architects. now, you can argue there is no place for fiction in the world, but isn't everything around us a reification of fictions, to reterm reifictions?

it is absurd to undermine the importance of people who were the spirit of their ages exclusively on the basis of a current myopic view of architectural practice.  if someone had the slightest thing to say about the line, irrespective or respective of other things they had to say that may be tangibly related or not to their world changing input, and informed the vocabulary of that line, that is a great benefit to the fuuture of that line. so i suggest, instead of being mean spirited and denigrating your elders..have some respect for the fact that they created the crap that you live in now, real and/or imaginative.

death of architectural theory....and why doesn't that elusive intangible phrase not sound as "bullshitty" as any phrase conjured by libeskind his ilk. our job is to create something beautiful not to keep on killing other people's ideas or pronounce them dead. what are you people, obituarists?

ah, no, sorry, our job is to be soulful-less cogs..so just revolve and shush up

Matias, your points are well-articulated, but isn't it the architects prerogative (if his client permits) to design in any way he wishes? If Gehry, for ex., wishes to focus purely on form and spatial experience, it's fine by me. It's not as if his buildings are bereft of any logic whatsoever—he has a very consistent aesthetic and all of them are planned in rational ways. Do you seriously believe that there is a lack of intellectual rigor in his buildings? They are incredibly complicated to draw and detail, and his firm has really been pioneering alot of the digital drawing that is so prevalent today.

To suggest that architecture is 'mysticism' without theory is ludicrous! Frankly, it is the theory that veers more towards 'mysticism'... seriously... consider Eisenman's "rationalizations" and "process" for his architecture. It's just as much an exercise in 'arbitrariness' as a process guided by intuition.

Also, sorry to be contrary, but it is not untrue that MANY great buildings have been sketched out on a napkin. It may be more of an early-mid 20th century phenomenon, but there you have it.

Anyone can create a stimulating space that makes someone say "wow".  But it takes a pro to add value

I totally disagree! Flip-flop that statement around, and it makes more sense.

To me, architecture is about space and experience.  That can manifest in many ways, but Gehry's buildings happen to truly inspire me (when I am in one).  Personally, I don't care to design the way he does, but I can appreciate his vision, relentless pursuit of those ideals, and his business savvy to make them actually get built.

Contextual architecture can be many things.  It doesn't have to be boring or look like the building across the street to contribute to a site and location.  

It is all subjective.  Personally, I can't stand the over-intellectualized bs that many spew, even when it is quite clear that they are designing mostly off  of intuition and personal tastes.  Gehry doesn't "pretend", he has a vision and he executes that vision, in an amazingly efficient manner (as in the combination of pioneering technologies without bragging about those technologies, engineering accomplishments, material experimentation, etc., etc.).  

I can only think of a few architects that have accomplished such an uncompromised vision of what a building can be.  Like the forms or not, he's accomplished more than almost any architect has in generations and catapulted architecture into a household discussion, once more.

So, imho, he's contributed more to the profession than any other architect has in many, many decades.  Maybe you don't like shiny objects and pretty forms, but I do, and most do.  That's just human nature.  I think that's a good thing, we all need to be inspired.

Death: Peter Eisenmen-House 10

Rise of digital/parametric architecture: Zaha Hadid