Isn't practicality also a theory?

View the theories of the above architects as their modus operandi - unlike you, they have buildings to judge and the theories can be tested. Their theories are likely to be useful in the real world because there is a building to prove it.

diabase

I disagree.

tell me how Eienmann's attempted use of "folding" was nearly as succesful as calatravas execution of the milwaukee museum.
It wasnt, It was a an attempt to to make his work appear more monumental than it truly was.

The truth is, if you actually looked into the idea of "folding" and the "event" originally put forth by Gottfried Liebniz in1710 it so absurd for Esinenmann to say that he his incorporating it into a real world design, that one cannot help but think he is feeding his own ego in an attempt to sound more intelligen

on the other hand Calatrava uses an expertise knowledge of engineering and an acute sense for design.

LOL, practicality a theory. I just love it sometimes when some opponents deny theory, while making a theory themselves in the process.

The sad reality is, some of those theories don't require architects to prove them. That's why you have writers like Jeffrey Kipnis to help support their ideas in the media, based on more theories.

so in that respect I cannot understand your point of view. while practicality is a theory, it is just that practical........... so I think you have taken the topic out of context.

Comparing Eisenman against Calatrava is like looking for gold in a diamond mine. Its just not done.

I would suggest reading an article called "From Structure to Subject: The Formation of an Architectural Language" by Mario Gandelsonas That should answer a lot of basic questions behind Eisneman's work and the "relevence" there of.

mjh33

while i understand your point, your metaphor is less than inspiring and i think you are digressing. And comparing apples to oranges is the entire point of this thread. While I do not expect to achieve any sort of absolute answer, I was simply hoping to spark a conversation.
If this sort of discussion is a problem, you are by no means required to post anything.

I think it would help to define practicality in the context of architecture.

Practicality: A strong consideration for construction, materials, and function.

NON practicality: A strong consideration for a theroetical/philisophical, and artistic point of view, while possibly sacrificing the experience of the user to maintain that vision.(Tschumi)

I would add cost as well to the definition. Overall, I think its pretty good.

The dilemma arises when you've reverted practicality as another theory. Tschumi's definition of non practicality, while valid, is not alone in this subjective discourse. For instance, one of my peers at a firm that I worked for last summer commented that the project lead's designs weren't practical. I'm sure he would agree with your definition as I would, but how it is actually interpreted was another point entirely: he believed the designs weren't practical simply on the basis of not conforming to the industry standard, meaning extruded boxes with no cantilevers or facades at obtuse angles. However, the project leads designs were by far practical: he was actually trying to research pricing and adjust to the original bids accordingly. Get my flow?

That is much clearer and more understandable.

And just so it can be said that is actually MY definition of practicality, and I put (Tschumi) at the end as one that typically does not follow these principles.

Your definition of practicality is a theory. Well done!

dbanana

As far as that definition of practicality goes ......I can see the anxiety in your eyes and others that believe in design, and in no way was that the type of practicality I was attempting to portray. I believe in pushing the limits but with the USER in mind at all times (not just some figural metaphysical being) thats it.

talking/writing/thinking theory is the way some architects get from where they are to somewhere else. it's not necessarily about practicality at all, though it could be.

if the practical/buildable/user-friendly were all we worried about, there would be no architecture.

what people like eisenman do is provoke. some of the theoretical explorations end up informing built work, some not. but it's an exploration - and that's the point.

and it's an ongoing discussion that they provoke, not something limited to their work. eisenman and tschumi have now influenced two, maybe three, generations of design students, triggering THOSE designers to be explorers and thinkers in ways both practical and theoretical.

calatrava - not much in the way of an exploration of ideas, more an explorations of the physically possible and the sculpturally desirable. note that the milwaukee museum, as a museum, is not necessarily better than the wexner. both have their display challenges, despite being recognized much more broadly than the myriad more curator-friendly museums.

there aren't right answers. these architects' paths are ways of figuring out this profession, and then continuing to figure it out again and again. it's possible to make a lot of money perfecting the hospital room and recreating it thousands of times - but that may or may not satisfy the desire that made you pursue architecture. what we can learn from them is that you've just got to keep learning and exploring forever.

oh, and i'd like to hear you start on gehry.

he's certainly NOT theoretical. in some ways his work is sculptural and technical like calatrava's. he's furthered the profession in spearheading the means of making the things he set out to create - a fairly practical pursuit.

so, in that case, unless you argue otherwise, you maybe just dislike his work, but without a particular critique relevant to this discussion.

I think this is a really important note, and that while I agree with the statement if the practical/buildable/user-friendly were all we worried about, there would be no architecture, I tend to lean toward the importance of a designer more as a problem-solver than a taste-maker. Philosophy is very important, but just as High Modernism ended up in many ways as another aesthetic movement, the recent theory-heavy architecture (and I would argue that much of it is still very heavily influenced by Deconstructivist philosophy and the early architects who adherered to that) has in many ways lost sight of what I personally think the most valuable role of the architect is. Early modernism, for all its failings, had some very noble goals: to improve the health and living situation of the vast majority of people through means of radical practicality.

I took a number of theory courses in college, but by far the most formative for me focused on "second" or "relfexive modernity". I remember the professor saying something that really struck me: basically Derida (or Mark Wigley) can deconstruct a text and completely change the meaning and understanding of it. and probably do us some good in the process, but in so doing no one was denied livable housing in the pursuit of deconstructing the notion of a house. Whereas early modernists thought they had the only solution to social problems and tried to implement it radically, postmodernists accepted that there was no single solution, and so they largely avoided their social responsibility. That's a huge simplification, but I think a better, and emerging approach to architecture is accepting that architects do not have absolute solutions but still have an obligation to propose at least interim solutions.

I think theoreticians in architecture, as in all fields, perform a very important role, and that is, as Steven said I believe, to push the boundaries of what is possible, to question scenarios and problems, and to propose radical solutions. I don't think then it's really a question of practicality versus theory, but how each inform the other. Nor do I think that engaging architecturally practically means that one should not approach design with some sort of philosophy or framework. Rather, I think the focus for too long has been disproportionately on the theoreticians, and perhaps more importantly on posing questions rather than finding solutions, even interim ones, to those questions.

i would actually ponder that gehry is more practical than most. the ability to build the things he does must require extreme practicality. In fact, his work seems to be the opposite of theoretical. Unless you consider the theory of making things look beautiful/interesting...

oh yeah...didn't read the whole post. I agree with st ward. (not saint ward)

'real life architecture' - I suspect you mean professional design work.
And it fits. Whats missing from academia is an inclusion of everyday, bread and butter design work 'theory' - its not as simple (re: disdained pastoral) or straightforward as it appears. Big ideas are interesting but really not necessary from all designers at all times and in all places - consider Dubai, consider the starchitect and the prevalence of icons. And big ideas are, obviously, not always good. Eisenman is a prodigious over thinker, Ghery somewhat-but-not totally the opposite - both are of a global-perceptual magnitude that really skews the naive world-view of the design student who thinks that's the kind of condition within one should design everything.

But school itself is not, and I think/feel/believe, should not, be about training 'practical designers'. Practicality is actually something different for each project in its own context both temporally and spatially. It has an economic baseline that has more to do with the relationships between architect as managing/consultant, client as sponsor and user, and industry as producer and implementer. The truth is, anything is practical given the interest and resources - so whats the point of trying to make a point with that in curriculum?

If anything, all this inflated theory talk provides you with more than enough information to begin actively criticizing the work of other designers, and ultimately yourself, in total scope, at any scale and in any context.

Bravo peridotbritches.

peridotbritches, you should go into politics 'cause you've just masterfully imparted practically nothing in the most poetic and seemingly articulate way - amazing really

I would say simply - don't sweat the crossroads - You can have your cake and eat it too.

For me, personally, I enjoy greatly seeing all the crazy flamboyant crap that people are throwing up all around the world. I can never quite get my mind around it (maybe that is the true purpose of that stuff in the first place). I don't offer it nor recommend it - but I enjoy it just the same. It is my belief that some of the flamboyantists out there feel similarly about more humble or less noteworthy works. I think for most people it eventually boils down to something like: "do what compels you - and enjoy the rest."

from the first 'fault' found, the term "architectural theory" is an almost misnomer when used for anything other than an accounted-for account that theorizes how specific architectures came to be. this is why architectural theory is coupled with architectural history in "architectural history & theory" courses. any one theory must propose a reflective structure for an already, or previously, existing entity. theory does not, in itself, propose to take on board either the proposition of a forthcoming architecture (which is a mystical prophetic act of of prognostication/foreknowlege) nor is it's purpose, judging from the choice of term "theory", to enter the mythological originary singularity of architecture's nature (which is a mystical shaministical act of pregnostication). It is not theory's purpose, judging from the term "theory", either, to play a creative role (even if theory's consequential explications are thereafter taken onboard for creative purposes).

what we take for granted as being "architectural theory" can be 'bioptically' dissected to exhibit multiple purposes, some of which might abide by the restrains of "theory" and others which might not not...some of which might rigurously demystify and others which might creatively mythologize. in its expanse, its akin to applying the term "literature" to cover both fictional and factional writing. it would be quite insipid, therefore, to question "architectural theory's" role or purpose as it does not serve one but many...some of which are antithetical to each other.


as for "practicality"...well, a few obvious questions (silently an answer unto themselves):

1- if two buildings serve their functional purposes with minimal dysfunction, one of which looks like its been conceived in what seems like theoretical fervour and flair and the other in observation to consideration of material and articulation...which of the two is more "practical"?

2- extending from item 1, when one advocates "practicality", is one really advocating practicality or the signifying visual semblance of practicality i.e. a cultural code? is michael hopkin's work, which resonates with technological imprints that the british read as hi-tech pragmatism, really any more "practical" than zaha hadid's, in the absolute sense?

3- in the absence of a building-to-building analysis, rather than architect-to-architect, how can one actually formulate such a description as "practicality" or increasing or decreasing degrees thereof as applied to a the greater opera (opuses), the comprehensive portfolio any one architect?

4- is it not naive to think that client would procure the services of any architect (and therefore sustain and maintin the architect's reputation) if that architect was not able to provide mere functional practicality?

5- but really, what is mean by "practicality"?

not that zaha hadid's work is "theory"-based. replace with eisenman for a more, well the prototyical, suspect.

i think you're right when talking about scientific theory, noc, but the way it tends to be used in architectural parlance, theory doesn't seem to be either before or after work with which it's related - sort of on a separate, somewhat parallel path.

there are certainly examples of architects who develop a fairly detailed theoretical construct indicating what they'd LIKE to do - and then use that as a basis to realize those ideas as they get the means/ability/whatever.

again, using eisenman as the most obvious touchstone, through the 80s and 90s he always seemed to be delivering lectures about his current theoretical preoccupations which, a year or so later, would show up as resultant design proposals.

right or wrong, i do think architects tend to use 'theory' in a different way than the normal hypothesis/theory/proof diagram. it's not used so much as a set of observations about what already is or may be true, but an argument for what MIGHT or COULD be in the future.

Thank you , realy I find it a limited theori when an architect can just outline a project and without knowing the limitations or details in the construct, in structure and or projecting tools, just throw a sketch and order the specialists to solve the basic ,even fundamental problems, -- those that realy allow the design or open the oppotunities.
That's where I think architecture gone wrong, when acturely old construct and tradisional way's to eject the framework, replace the grandios promises, with lookalike.
What's the value of difficult sometimes dull theories, when all you see, is just new form build with tradisional means, methods and tools. When something much more promising was the exchouse for the theori, something that also shuld have involved the very core and language plus future of architecture, have made the real change, is covered by academic frases, --- and is then jettisoned with the next spetacular cover up, when we all know the house are made basicly as any other house, just with a new expression that promises something extraordanary. Real architecture theories come from the core of the construct. They involve the intire process and force a real change. Not just in how we build but also what we build with, and then it's not just different but better and cheaper.

Perhaps, DaC but what about what I've theoretically imparted? Lets cover all our bases, you and I - and I won't even request you take me to dinner first.

And it fits . . .

I think the validity of teaching of architectural theory (regardless of what it is) is diminishing

Technology is ramping up expectations to the point where everyone feels entitled to be - without formal education of course - a record producer (itunes / playlist), photo & video journalist (facebook / blogger), movie producer (youtube), photographer (flickr) and editorial columnist (right here baby!). This attitude has killed the music industry, is killing the news industry, and may soon KO motion pics., TV, & print media as well.

It seems 'Joe the plumber' feels increasingly empowered to express theoritical critiques in the professional fields as well - including medicine, law and architecture.

I am wondering if the fact that there is no prevailing new 'movement' in architectural theory reflects more on the technological empowerment of the lay-person than on the inability of educators to coalesse around a common theoretical basis for design.

Couldnt one compare architectural theory to architecture, as morality is to action? Not to give architectural theory as much weight as morality, but what both do is provide a grounding or basis from which to operate.

In terms of the impact of technology on the profession - designers and their methods [whether it be based on the modularity of a specific building product or the rhizome] still need to control it and apply it in some fashion - the alternative is forgetting design in its entirety.

In an ideal world, architecture sole based on pragmatic needs would be fine. The problem it that in the real world, you actually have to inject ideals into projects otherwise you will be at the mercy of a number of external factors - those that have practiced architecture know that there are countless pragmatic and abstract constraints that will dicate or influence all aspects of a building before design even starts.

The fact that Eisenman[and others] can build what he has, in the way he has is astonishing. Like mjh33 I siuggest reading some of Gandelsonas work on Eisenman, as well as "Processes of the Interstitial: Notes on Zaera-Polo's Idea of the Machinic." in El Croquis 83. The intellectual achievements of Eisenman are quite staggering.

I have deep problems with those in the profession who treat architectural theory with disdain or as superfluous - architectural theory, no matter where it comes from, is part of the canon of architectural knowledge.

The original poster lost me at "I wont even start on Gehry." And the preference for Calatrava over Gehry points to an aptitude better suited to engineering where all the answers are known.

My comment of 23.33 applies.

to render this less confusing:

in the plurality of theoretical purposes, one might be able to say that “architectural theory” is the deference of architectural topicity (topos: place, the property of having a place) in associating tandem with a deference of any other cultural topicity (be that of technology, economics, art, literature, science) into any other explicating media (which rules out architecture itself)

also i wish to correct this, re: Calatrava's work:

an architecturally formal depiction of statis in border-edge conditions. architecture generally is static...but in this case, some of calatrava's architecture/sculptures is visually coded with a semblance of statis near breaking point - even if, incidentally, the structure is actually as near the breaking point as is feasibly allowable. a marriage of architectural illusion of statis almost runing kinetic with, in calatrava's iconic sculptural moments, an actual structural statis "almost" turning kinetic.

true, parallel probably was a bad word choice - was thinking more that theory/realization were shoulder-to-shoulder, i suppose, not parallel/separate.

i guess even THAT doesn't take into account the mixing that occurs... ugh, language. more coffee.

ALL architectural practice includes architectural theories.

this is not a question of intentionality, it is a question of enactment.

there is a difference between professing, or espousing a theoretical position and inhabiting one by default, but nonetheless, all architectural practices "in the real world" have undercurrents of theory embedded within them.

this is a "furphy" to compare theory to practicality. in other words, this is a false dialetic. theories can or cannot be practical, and practicality can or cannot have a theoretical basis.

the difference between Eisenmann and Calatrava is not the difference between theory and practicality, but it is the difference between one enactment of architecture based one theory of architecture possibilities and a very different theory of architecture and its possibility.

to my mind, the most distressing aspect of this entire conversation is the enormously reductive cliche of "the real world" versus everything else. that is to say that EVERYTHING is part of the 'real world'; be it dreams, speculations, experiments, theories, practices, and practicalities. what is real about the basis of that exemplar of all international systems, the stock market? we now know that is the most irrational of all possible decision-making institutions, and yet is still remains the basis against which financial, and economic systems are registered.

the "real world" of clients is no more rational, no more logical, no more real than any other aspect of architectural thought and production. to debate the efficacy or consequences of different theoretical or practical systems is worthwhile, but to take and either/or/position is not only a deceit, but a waste of time and in fact a misunderstanding of the "REAL WORLD". the REAL world is constantly being produced and fabricated, so it is never a fixed condition. it is effected and determined by both theoretical and practical contributions (among many others) - otherwise it would not exist.

excellently said, dlb

Nocti -- your analytical style of writing sort of reminds me of Dewey, straightfoward and exhaustive. Not to knock the rest of the posters on this thread, but you're head and shoulders above them on this topic...

If Archinect started up a school, holz.box could be the library -- you might head up the hist/theo department. Me, well I could probably be in charge up sweeping up.

I'm running the bar - that way ya'll have a chance to shut the hell up and have some fun with other human creatures.