Ok, so, aren't u tired of the classic theorists???, i mean, i personally that much of Corbu's and Lynch's tehories dont really apply to my "urban reality" anymore.. i suppose, someone has just proposed or has been observer of these new ways of urban behaviour, and or new authors and thinkers of architectural theory (i think we even past over Tschumi's thoughts already), so, can anyone name me any good and/or interesting new theorist (architect not philosopher) that i can check out??? (u can include Koolhaas, just drop me some names)
My new theory is that I just have been drinking a lot of vodka trying to forget that I'm an architect. Didn't work and now I'm gonna end up having a hangover at work tomorrow. Damn you....damn you.
kwinter isn't new...but he is very relevant. also, andrew benjamin is a philosopher who writes extensively on architecure. both are very different, but very relevant to contemporary architectural discussion.
Do we as young architects crave new theory almost as a fad? And if there ARE in fact new theories evolving, do they really apply to our world or do they just satisfy the intellectual hunger of a few? Is there such a thing as fictional theory? or is at all factual?
i read the architectures of time about 2 years ago and, while found it to be difficult at moments, also thought it was a stellar read. I did however, skip the kafka kaka.
in response to tectonic, I think that new theory is always important and not as a fad. It is about evolution really. If the theory written before our present time were merely subjected to being 'part of a fad', then nothing would ever be written........If it is strong and applicable, then it becomes timeless. if it is merely superficial and, therefore a fad, it will be read once and put back on its rightful shelf. to propose theory as something static would, to my mind, propose that architecture also ebcomes a static thing which is tremendously pessimistic. sorry if I mis-interpreted what you posted.
How about, Manual Delanda and Jane Jacobs? For me the most interesting book by Delanda is 'A Thousand Years of Non Linear History'. I always find it funny that nobody seems to draw a connection between Delanda and Jane Jacobs. (at least that I have heard!) I don't have the time to write a comparative book report here, but if you get a chance to read books by both authors, keep my theory in mind. For a really good one about Architecture and the systems that produce it, read 'The Nature of Economies' or the more ominous, recent book, 'Dark Age Ahead'. Only those unfamiliar with the volume of writing she has produced in the last 40 years think she is an advocate of New Urbanism done poorly.
seemed to me tectonics was warning on the dangers of theory as a fad, not necessarily dismissing the necessity of theoretical discussion. but he/she can fend for him/herself.
i agree on completely on the need for a constant, varied, engaging theoretical discourse, but the nature of the question that starts this post alarmed me a little... it did seemed too much like the author wanted to know which theorist is hip right now...
i hope i misread the intentions of the original poster. it is only that there is too much of that going around right now, and it's gotten tiring.
i would love to hear more about manuel delanda and 1,000 years. i don't have access to that book, but keep hearing about it. would be interesting to know how it relates to jane jacobs, a great read [although not 'hip' for many].
I was not trying to get "the hip" ones, i was just trying to hear about ppl doing/thinking/having interesting "new" views, toward any kind of architectural/urbanistic theory, i sometimes as always student and assistant teacher at college found myself with a strange feeling that some of the "classic" theorist r not longer applied anymore, and/or, would be easier (cause sometimes as someone said, their theories become timeless, but i think this is sometimes as having ur own interpretation of a holly book or something) if students, or even myself can relate what u are reading/studying to actual conditions, things that u can see/experience everyday now (cause im not living anymore in a "modern" city, u know what i mean?), that was the whole intention of the "original post" and it was not to be hip, or to ask who's hot, who's not...
ok some books that have recently caught my attention (i have no clue if this is "hip" for the states or not, who cares about what's hip in the states anyways???):
-PET ARCHITECTURE GUIDE BOOK by Atelier Bow-wow (Japan)
-AFTER THE CITY by Lars Lerup
-THE ILLEGAL ARCHITECT by Jonathan Hill
-MOBILITY: A ROOM WITH A VIEW (the international architecture biennale of Rotterdam 2003)
I guess its pretty much up to the reader whether or not an idea is engaging. I would always be wary of anyone who tries to discount a piece of writing because 'it no longer applies', because the fact is, that theoretical writing does not exist to anticipate or narrate trends in architectural production. Much of the theory we read doesn't even take architecture as its subject (such as with the aforementioned Manuel Delanda). Frankly, I find most text on architecture that is descriptive in intent, and which is accompanied by many great images, as boring and unprovocative.
NEW THEORY
Ok, so, aren't u tired of the classic theorists???, i mean, i personally that much of Corbu's and Lynch's tehories dont really apply to my "urban reality" anymore.. i suppose, someone has just proposed or has been observer of these new ways of urban behaviour, and or new authors and thinkers of architectural theory (i think we even past over Tschumi's thoughts already), so, can anyone name me any good and/or interesting new theorist (architect not philosopher) that i can check out??? (u can include Koolhaas, just drop me some names)
you sound like a talent scout for ali g.
lol
well i told him about madonna (but that was an easy call)
My new theory is that I just have been drinking a lot of vodka trying to forget that I'm an architect. Didn't work and now I'm gonna end up having a hangover at work tomorrow. Damn you....damn you.
Zizek
kwinter isn't new...but he is very relevant. also, andrew benjamin is a philosopher who writes extensively on architecure. both are very different, but very relevant to contemporary architectural discussion.
does stan allen count for this one?
Do we as young architects crave new theory almost as a fad? And if there ARE in fact new theories evolving, do they really apply to our world or do they just satisfy the intellectual hunger of a few? Is there such a thing as fictional theory? or is at all factual?
after completing "architecture of time" by Kwinter....I was sort of left scratching my head....four chapters of kafka?
i read the architectures of time about 2 years ago and, while found it to be difficult at moments, also thought it was a stellar read. I did however, skip the kafka kaka.
in response to tectonic, I think that new theory is always important and not as a fad. It is about evolution really. If the theory written before our present time were merely subjected to being 'part of a fad', then nothing would ever be written........If it is strong and applicable, then it becomes timeless. if it is merely superficial and, therefore a fad, it will be read once and put back on its rightful shelf. to propose theory as something static would, to my mind, propose that architecture also ebcomes a static thing which is tremendously pessimistic. sorry if I mis-interpreted what you posted.
How about, Manual Delanda and Jane Jacobs? For me the most interesting book by Delanda is 'A Thousand Years of Non Linear History'. I always find it funny that nobody seems to draw a connection between Delanda and Jane Jacobs. (at least that I have heard!) I don't have the time to write a comparative book report here, but if you get a chance to read books by both authors, keep my theory in mind. For a really good one about Architecture and the systems that produce it, read 'The Nature of Economies' or the more ominous, recent book, 'Dark Age Ahead'. Only those unfamiliar with the volume of writing she has produced in the last 40 years think she is an advocate of New Urbanism done poorly.
hmmmm... to backtrack
seemed to me tectonics was warning on the dangers of theory as a fad, not necessarily dismissing the necessity of theoretical discussion. but he/she can fend for him/herself.
i agree on completely on the need for a constant, varied, engaging theoretical discourse, but the nature of the question that starts this post alarmed me a little... it did seemed too much like the author wanted to know which theorist is hip right now...
i hope i misread the intentions of the original poster. it is only that there is too much of that going around right now, and it's gotten tiring.
i would love to hear more about manuel delanda and 1,000 years. i don't have access to that book, but keep hearing about it. would be interesting to know how it relates to jane jacobs, a great read [although not 'hip' for many].
I was not trying to get "the hip" ones, i was just trying to hear about ppl doing/thinking/having interesting "new" views, toward any kind of architectural/urbanistic theory, i sometimes as always student and assistant teacher at college found myself with a strange feeling that some of the "classic" theorist r not longer applied anymore, and/or, would be easier (cause sometimes as someone said, their theories become timeless, but i think this is sometimes as having ur own interpretation of a holly book or something) if students, or even myself can relate what u are reading/studying to actual conditions, things that u can see/experience everyday now (cause im not living anymore in a "modern" city, u know what i mean?), that was the whole intention of the "original post" and it was not to be hip, or to ask who's hot, who's not...
ok some books that have recently caught my attention (i have no clue if this is "hip" for the states or not, who cares about what's hip in the states anyways???):
-PET ARCHITECTURE GUIDE BOOK by Atelier Bow-wow (Japan)
-AFTER THE CITY by Lars Lerup
-THE ILLEGAL ARCHITECT by Jonathan Hill
-MOBILITY: A ROOM WITH A VIEW (the international architecture biennale of Rotterdam 2003)
I guess its pretty much up to the reader whether or not an idea is engaging. I would always be wary of anyone who tries to discount a piece of writing because 'it no longer applies', because the fact is, that theoretical writing does not exist to anticipate or narrate trends in architectural production. Much of the theory we read doesn't even take architecture as its subject (such as with the aforementioned Manuel Delanda). Frankly, I find most text on architecture that is descriptive in intent, and which is accompanied by many great images, as boring and unprovocative.
aeaa,
when did you become so smart???
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.