I just finished my first year of M. Arch education. While everything is new and exciting... I have been really struggling to understand why almost every single text on architecture theory I've been given or come across seems like it was written for a PHD student with a masters in English.
Can anybody enlighten me as to why architectural thinkers can't keep their language simple?
It could also be the case that I'm just too stupid to understand their writings, and everyone else can...??
How is it that Alvar Aalto seems to explain everything in such simple and easy to understand terms, but modern day writers feel the need to make me go look up every other word.
I'd appreciate some insight
- V
gwharton
Jun 12, 12 7:02 pm
Theory is crucially important to the practice of architecture. It's so important that it should always be clear, concise, and intelligible.
boy in a well
Jun 12, 12 7:19 pm
yeah, Viollet-le-Duc couldn't put two stones together.
fuckin theoreticians!
toasteroven
Jun 12, 12 10:31 pm
wasnt a citation game.
i thought it was logical and interesting
and succinct.
you can treat it like bingo if you want.
hey - I thought it was funny and relevant too - but mildly obscure literary references make you sound like an idle bourgeois academic. If I wanted to discuss Borges, I'd go to whatever forum the Swarthmore grads hang out at.
vytautas
Jun 12, 12 10:49 pm
wait, was that onion article an attack on phenomenology?
royc
Jun 13, 12 11:45 pm
Honestly, I think it all comes down to what audience each writer is aiming for. The Deleuzes and Guattaris of the world are going to write a very different text than the Peter Zumthors or Sym van der Ryns of the world, since they're targeting totally different audiences -- other academics/theoreticians for D&G (hence all the specific terms, references, citations, etc), and practicing architects or laypeople for Zumthor and Sym (hence the comprehensibility).
I used to be totally in the "architecture theory is full of obfuscatory bullshit" camp, until I had to write a thesis. My (absolutely excellent) thesis advisor, who also happened to be the chief editor of the University of Minnesota Press, made sure to beat the "KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE" point into our heads at every point along the way. It totally changes the way you present your work, especially the way you word things, and how much detail/references you include.
In the process of writing an academic paper for other academics, while presenting my work to practicing architects and students each week (who had little background knowledge), and giving a final presentation to members of the community (who had essentially no background knowledge and little interest), I started to realize just how important playing to your audience is, and how huge of an impact it has on how the final wording and text are structured. Now it makes perfect sense why so much theory seems incomprehensible to beginners: it's simply not written for them.
royc
Jun 13, 12 11:47 pm
Also, I should add: give it time, and it will make sense. Once you elbow your way into the network of academic in-references by reading a few oft-referenced texts, the next text you read gets way easier to understand.
In terms of just beginning, the skim-once-then-deep-read-a-second-time technique is FANTASTIC. I cannot stress that enough. Never try to fully understand something the first time. It'll save you a headache.
boy in a well
Jun 14, 12 2:43 am
You can't work hard and be well-read?
You have to be bougie to have read borges?
I happen to love that fact that if i want to talk about borges i can talk to my architect friends, amongst all the other nuts and bolts we talk about.
i r giv up
Jun 14, 12 9:34 am
you mean if you want to have a go at misinterpreting borges?
toasteroven
Jun 14, 12 10:55 am
I happen to love that fact that if i want to talk about borges i can talk to my architect friends, amongst all the other nuts and bolts we talk about.
right - because you're bougie and they're bougie. ;-) I am guessing you are of a very different generation. my peers want to talk about whatever jersey shore d-bag was arrested recently.
boy in a well
Jun 14, 12 5:16 pm
I think its a use of Borges for this thread without any interpretation or misinterpretation.
I think its a pretty damn good use in fact. Spot on actually.
But why don't don't you school me some?
Tell me to go read some books maybe?
Tell me how I missed.
?
boy in a well
Jun 17, 12 5:07 pm
is "pinochle in her back yard" an esoteric euphemism? A misinterpretation? A bingo game of references?
I need a primer . . .
vytautas
Jun 24, 12 10:17 pm
thx for the clarification, i never take their content serious, so when it was written with some accuracy, it just made me stop and think for a minute.
Draughtsman58
Dec 16, 22 9:28 pm
I never met an architectural theorist that could draw or conceptualized effectively on paper. Don’t bother looking up all those ‘didactic’, ‘tectonic’, iterative polysyllabic words used to make the theorist sound intelligent. And don’t bother asking them to repeat what the said even one hour ago, not to mention, realizing a logical stream of theoretical verbiage over a semester-it’s ALL gibber-jabber.
E
b3tadine[sutures]
Dec 16, 22 10:16 pm
Wrong
Kinsbergen
Dec 16, 22 10:43 pm
Architectural theory is not hard to read, you just need to raise your academic standards.
I just finished my first year of M. Arch education. While everything is new and exciting... I have been really struggling to understand why almost every single text on architecture theory I've been given or come across seems like it was written for a PHD student with a masters in English.
Can anybody enlighten me as to why architectural thinkers can't keep their language simple?
It could also be the case that I'm just too stupid to understand their writings, and everyone else can...??
How is it that Alvar Aalto seems to explain everything in such simple and easy to understand terms, but modern day writers feel the need to make me go look up every other word.
I'd appreciate some insight
- V
Theory is crucially important to the practice of architecture. It's so important that it should always be clear, concise, and intelligible.
yeah, Viollet-le-Duc couldn't put two stones together.
fuckin theoreticians!
wasnt a citation game.
i thought it was logical and interesting
and succinct.
you can treat it like bingo if you want.
hey - I thought it was funny and relevant too - but mildly obscure literary references make you sound like an idle bourgeois academic. If I wanted to discuss Borges, I'd go to whatever forum the Swarthmore grads hang out at.
wait, was that onion article an attack on phenomenology?
Honestly, I think it all comes down to what audience each writer is aiming for. The Deleuzes and Guattaris of the world are going to write a very different text than the Peter Zumthors or Sym van der Ryns of the world, since they're targeting totally different audiences -- other academics/theoreticians for D&G (hence all the specific terms, references, citations, etc), and practicing architects or laypeople for Zumthor and Sym (hence the comprehensibility).
I used to be totally in the "architecture theory is full of obfuscatory bullshit" camp, until I had to write a thesis. My (absolutely excellent) thesis advisor, who also happened to be the chief editor of the University of Minnesota Press, made sure to beat the "KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE" point into our heads at every point along the way. It totally changes the way you present your work, especially the way you word things, and how much detail/references you include.
In the process of writing an academic paper for other academics, while presenting my work to practicing architects and students each week (who had little background knowledge), and giving a final presentation to members of the community (who had essentially no background knowledge and little interest), I started to realize just how important playing to your audience is, and how huge of an impact it has on how the final wording and text are structured. Now it makes perfect sense why so much theory seems incomprehensible to beginners: it's simply not written for them.
Also, I should add: give it time, and it will make sense. Once you elbow your way into the network of academic in-references by reading a few oft-referenced texts, the next text you read gets way easier to understand.
In terms of just beginning, the skim-once-then-deep-read-a-second-time technique is FANTASTIC. I cannot stress that enough. Never try to fully understand something the first time. It'll save you a headache.
You can't work hard and be well-read?
You have to be bougie to have read borges?
I happen to love that fact that if i want to talk about borges i can talk to my architect friends, amongst all the other nuts and bolts we talk about.
you mean if you want to have a go at misinterpreting borges?
I happen to love that fact that if i want to talk about borges i can talk to my architect friends, amongst all the other nuts and bolts we talk about.
right - because you're bougie and they're bougie. ;-) I am guessing you are of a very different generation. my peers want to talk about whatever jersey shore d-bag was arrested recently.
I think its a use of Borges for this thread without any interpretation or misinterpretation.
I think its a pretty damn good use in fact. Spot on actually.
But why don't don't you school me some?
Tell me to go read some books maybe?
Tell me how I missed.
?
is "pinochle in her back yard" an esoteric euphemism? A misinterpretation? A bingo game of references?
I need a primer . . .
thx for the clarification, i never take their content serious, so when it was written with some accuracy, it just made me stop and think for a minute.
I never met an architectural theorist that could draw or conceptualized effectively on paper. Don’t bother looking up all those ‘didactic’, ‘tectonic’, iterative polysyllabic words used to make the theorist sound intelligent. And don’t bother asking them to repeat what the said even one hour ago, not to mention, realizing a logical stream of theoretical verbiage over a semester-it’s ALL gibber-jabber.
E
Wrong
Architectural theory is not hard to read, you just need to raise your academic standards.