what this book book says to me is that yes...post-structuralism can be sought within architecture but not so much on the author's side as on the seeker's side. post-structuralism, if one can assume a zeitgeist sensibility, inverts priviledges: creative reading through, what barthes terms, the writerly over creative writing for the readerly. what much post-structuralisms promise is that, by their virtue, we all can be good critics ... rather than necessarily good architects.

and from another viewpoint, one can say that post-structuralist theoretically-minded architects did form a favour. they forcibly detached it from a certain loaded historicist pedigree (modernism) by overloading it with both a moment of intense historical reflexivity (which, to many, is its achilles' heel) and a moment of extraneous zeitgeist referentiality (be it contemporary literary theory, eisensteinian physics, non euclidean mathematics...)

without eisenman, the likes of UNStudio, FOA and Lynn might not have been possible. therefore, pitting 'theory' architecture agaist 'post-theory' architecture. the kuhnian ideas of "paradigm shifts" and the "incommensurability" of "rival paradigms" seems to hold more substance here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn

furthermore, we had also seen the resurgence of meaning within post-post-structuralist architecture in passing references, albeit in a virtual reel of appearance over substance (i recall the discussion of zaera polo's take on iconography on this forum as well as such architecture's proclivity to symbolize capitalist sensibilities and, more recently, expectations that laissez-faire architecture, in its symbolism of rampant capitalism, will suffer a re-theorizing. parents don't really die since children themselves become parents.

that is :

therefore, pitting 'theory' architecture agaist 'post-theory' architecture is not such an objective or historically valid way of looking at succession of architectural discourses.

Talking contemporary architecture theory is meaningless because they have been talking on false premises.
That is why most of theory oriented architects cannot even respend to philosophers' questions.

Everything they are saying is basically a "lie" that exists only in their "head".

If we like to build an architecture theory for the contemporary society, we have to inspect from the very beginning of the promises on which the existing contemporary architecture theory has been based.

Of course, I admit some of contemporary architects have been designed and built some good buildings, but it is not because of their theory but because they are just talented people.

Their theory which is a "bullshit", on the contrary, devalues their talent.

i took colquhoun to mean that, while working on a neo-classical building, you could hold the order in your head because it was sufficiently hierarchical simple; while digitally-generated forms were too complex to be held intuitively in mind, but could easily be held externally in the structures of computer processing. I would question:

a) whether neo-classical or any previous order (gothic?) is actually that simple
b) whether order has ever actually been held in 'mind' as opposed to matter; and in the other direction,
c) whether digitally-generated forms are so incomprehensible

On the matter of digitally-generated forms being somehow 'easier' than thinking it out in your head: Before you can even begin to get a computer to generate something, you have to be able to parameterise the problem, structure the input, organise the generative steps (by scripting them or plugging them together in Grasshopper, or writing them down on a piece of paper or whatever), establish the means to capture output, and then evaluate output with reference to its application.

it's weird that this conversation has polarised around computers vs theory. that makes no sense to me at all.

it sounds like that's what Theory is up against - thought generated with and through computers.

Have any of you read anything by Greg Chaitin or John Wheeler? or Scott Atran? I loved Kuhn, but I think the really dangerous question is the opposite of the one above; whether order is present in the universe to begin with! Every day I become more and more fearful we may be clawing at a pretty terrifying abyss in the last several years.


Anyhoo. I dont think its surprising a great deal of the discussion has centered around the use of computers in design. I fully agree with Vagueness that this isnt just about computers, but they do make very salient the question 'who is doing the thinking here?' I think the real value of placing process, any process, at the center of design is that it makes it possible to explore new territory. And good on you! My question is, how do we then evaluate what were finding out there? How do we guide that process in a way that produces work that has real, lasting value. How do we make that process and the work it generates efficient? And I dont mean value and efficiency in a strictly capitalistic way, although Im sure that is, in the real world, important. I mean generating work that moves the people who experience it in a lasting way. So far, I dont see any evidence that the 'intuitive' process is in any way 'fixed'. So far, it seems the mediating force, the filter by which all these new possibilities are screened and refined is basically the candy-like instant visual gratification of the designer fidgeting away in the experiential dark of his or her office. I just dont see any feedback with the genuine experiential realities of the world these things plan to inhabit. I agree, a theory drummed out of nothing or stacked on heaps of unverified historical axioms is essentially worthless to the lives of real people, but how is 'design rigor' similarly drummed any better?


To me, its not enough to make just make new things. Youve got to understand them. And I sympathize, its a hard problem. If we are to believe Chaitin or Atran, it means conjuring some kind of meaning from what is at its core a fundamentally irrational world. I dont know how we are going to accomplish that. But it seems clear to me that until we can we arent going to be producing anything that really matters in the real world.

i see it more simply, if you want to believe that it matters, then you might create a nightmare you won't wake up from so easily. virtuality as a nightmare. the problem is not that not enough people care in the world but that too many do!

Really?? You thin too many people care?? Thats kind of a shocking statement.

people care enough to cause wars and genocides.

^"k"

dude. edit post! Wheres our edit post?!

or... not enough? You think hunger would go away if we were just more apathetic?

if i didn't care about you, truly, then you'd neither be my friend nor my enemy. so, the question is not about embracing a presence, a value...this only creates fear of losing this presence and this value along a horde of other ills. rather, disclose the fundemental absence of value and the neutral facelessness behind all beings, animate or otherwise. gracefullness of the same in difference.

gracefulness :)

no, but at least we will learn that its ok to hunger and to die without having to feel so much hatred towards others and ourselves. and in any case, in a world that doesn't care that much for the different aspects of things, there would be no competition over food but we all eat just enough to replenish, just to be still barely there.

Thinking you can create your nightmare is your nightmare.

oe, good observations and questions.

Well thats extraordinarily buddhist of you. ;) Im a bit of a romantic myself. Theres little I can do, I yearn.


But to bring it back, the question "is there meaning to be found?", is genuine. But if the choice is to march determinedly out into the wilderness and search or to sit and starve as a Jain, my choice is decidedly the former.

How hypothetical is that!

Maybe, our superstars is a "buddha" who rides a Ferrari.

If you don't have any value in your life, why are you arguing here for YOUR "architecture"?

If you are arguing Your architecture, you are not even a buddist.
You are just a hypothetical lier.

thinking doesn't happen in your head, it just feels like it does. thinking happens in circuits, some of which are internal to the body, and others of which pass through external systems: other people, tools (including computers), contexts.

the suggestion that computers compete with thinking is ridiculous.

oe: i haven't read any of those people. what are they about?

your decision, oe, is to be existentially angstful.

it is also obvious you don't understand buddhism.

haha well, I dont know that anyone really "understands" buddhism. I think wed be somewhere else if we did. ;) I was just talking about your lack-of-desire cure-all.

I dont mind existential angst so much.


the suggestion that computers compete with thinking is ridiculous.

This is completely fair ;)


Greg Chaitin is one of my favorite people. My access to him is really just reading "Meta Math" Dont be fooled by its goofy title, its amazing! About complexity theory and quantifying "randomness". I cant claim to fully understand all the nitty-gritty but the implications are really, really frightening.

Wheeler is a hugely important physicist in the 20th century. Hes actually the guy who came up with the word "black hole", but his most important work was in quantum physics and digital physics. He did some hugely pioneering work on quantum gravity, but my favorite shit is the wackier ideas about an information-based universe and what that really means. For instance, the way Hubble rewinds an expanding universe to get the big bang, Wheeler rewinds the Heisenberg uncertainty principal to get a Big Fog. Even the fundamental laws of physics, at a certain undefined place in the distant past, become blurry, and eventually unknowable, and therefore from our relative place of observation they become physically undefined. There are a lot of people who disagree with him, but now with people starting to see the real implications of cosmic inflation hes getting alot more attention.

Scott Atran is pretty different. Hes actually a sociologist and anthropologist who studies terrorism and culture conflict, but his book "The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature" is my favorite book ever right now. I still havent gotten my head around it, but its fucking mindblowing, these intense studies on just how different cultures form completely different constructs for what constitutes "rationality" based on the realities of the environments they develop in. But it really cracks open the door on a lot of the culturally ingrained "truths" we take for granted, dont even think about, and just how important it is to preserve all these alternate cognitive frameworks. Fucking awesome.

It's frustrating but exciting that there are always and always some books to read.

Thanks for introducing some materials to read.

you'd probably like gregory bateson (and may have already read him) - the essay 'form, substance, and difference' in steps towards an ecology of mind is good.

Maybe, arguments in this thread are going parallel, so I don't think more argument is necessary.

Here,s my recommendation for reading.
I strongly recommend to read deleuze's "Anti-Oedipus" for those who try to understand post-sturctualism.

I know, it sounds silly because the book title is found virtually "everywhere", so everybody thinks most of architecture people saying post-structuralism have already read the book.

However, suyprisingly enough, most of people saying deleuze in fact didn't read the entire book but saw just some quotations from the book in some other articles. However, just reading some quotations, you would never understand what the book is trying to say.
Actually, to understand the book, besides the book, some other base readings had to be done before reading the book.

I think, "Anti-Oedipus" is deleuze's masterpiece even more than "A Thousand Plateaus". So, give a try even if it's really hard to understand.

Vagueness, maybe it would be helpful if you explained exactly what you mean by "intuitive". I must admit Im skeptical. How is that different from "I like that one because it makes me feel fuzzy inside"? Ive worked with architects that do essentially that. They make 10 things. Pick one. Make 10 things. Pick one. Make 10 things. Pick one. Over and over until they get bored or the client runs out of money or patience. Im not at all convinced that-a-good-architect-makes. And I'll even give you that its a good way to find new things. My question is though, how we 'fix' that? On what criteria, intellectual or otherwise, does one guide that process? How does the real world influence that? Besides through the designers own warm-fuzzies about things?

I just dont think theres much cause to circumscribe anything, not historical influence, not intellectual investigation, not throwing paint at a wall, and to make a prejudgment that 'we dont do that.' I mean all these things are potent forces in the world, and unless we can find a way to see the whole picture and stitch together experiences that feel genuinely encompassing, I dont see how we find our way out of this kind of clawing non-place weve found ourselves in.

Consciousness insisting they are the unconscious.

Arguing they are not arguing.

Arguing MY fantasy is a group fantasy.

Saying there is already a parent but don't realize they ARE the parent. That is to say, don't realize "name" and "being" cannot be given at the same time.

Those are all the mistakes they are making like most of "smart" people do.

Oh I have! but when I look back, Im plagued by this gnawing feeling of "why?" What makes this better than random nonsense? Or worse, constrained, uninvolved, random nonsense. How do I evaluate this effort? Let alone convince anyone else its anything more than just me dithering away in front of a computer? Its still just an N of 1. The world is not a wireframe. Theres real, tangible, sensory experience there. There are people there with memories and fears and desires. That is the stuff of life. And I dont see any evidence this kind of work is even aware of that, let alone interacts with it in anything like a profound way.

Before the arguments get so serious that someone's heart gets hurt, how about finishing this thread as each person's suggesting a book.

Thanks, agfa8x.

I already bought the book.

I dont think were in any danger of hurt feelings. Its just a debate.


oe, did I answer your question about what I mean by intuitive or not?

You did! This:

Personally, I'm not looking to guide the process, but to learn from it and/or find inspiration in it.


Is good. Damned good actually! Im just wondering, then what? What is the medium teaching us? Is the process drawing from the right kind of data? How do we know if what we are learning is actually making it through to the experience of the building? And if the process is almost completely disassociated from the experience of space, is it actually doing us any good?


Im really not trying to bowl you over with a mountain of rhetorical questions. These are just the real problems I and I think a lot of other people have been wrestling over for the last several years.

Architectural Theory is the same as trying to argue whose God is more real

the relationship between architecture and theory, syntactically reversible. where is the line (with you) between "architectural theory" and "theoretical architecture"?

hypothesizing: anti-theory theorizes theory as a hyperthesis.


hypothetical approach: stealthy, contingent, situational, interactive

vs

theoretical approach: overt, absolute, formulaic, inert

no