At the beginning of the 1970s, Diana Agrest and Mário Gandelsonas called our attention to the fact that the previous 20 years of architectural theory had been generically shaped with a mind to perpetuate the structures of Western society.
Of course that would be the case.
I would suppose that that tendency could, on the one hand, be traced back much further in time and also be more widespread and comprehensive, and, on the others, taking into consideration periods closer to the present, that it was much more precise and detailed.
It in fact seems clear that this tendency has increased and become the norm ever since the second half of the last century.
Even if this decidedly westernised and tendentiously imperialistic spirit has not been actively championed, theoretical discussion of our present seems nonetheless more intent than ever on validating the hegemony of those western countries whose lifestyles, mentalities and values are only representative of some societies, and hardly speak for the majority.
[…]
My approach here on forth, in the belief that it avoids generalisation, is that the theory of architecture corresponds to an independent, autonomous, non-normative analysis, which endeavours to understand architecture as a human activity of independent expression across its various manifestations and tendencies, as well as attempting to determine its constitutive elements and to evaluate their consequences.
[…]
Paul Valéry poetically defined poetry as “a prolonged hesitation between sound and sense”.
A perfect definition, I think.
In this study, I do not intend to go into detail on the myriad of implications I believe inferred by Valery”s definition, which moreover to me seem evident.1
Suffice to say, it perfectly summarises my understanding of architecture, while I have never succeeded in finding another phrase which so succinctly and completely, so poetically and subtly expresses the enormous complexity of the constantly changing universe in which architecture plays a part, which at the same time might explain the various tendencies of investigative study and simultaneously allude to the elaboration of a programme of theoretical investigation.
By substituting “sound” with “form”, and “sense” with “function”, I found I could likewise say that “architecture is the prolonged hesitation between form and function”.
[…]
Which is suggestive, although it could complicate a theoretical approach.
And yet it serves to make clear that the theoretical approach cannot presume to be structured like a philosophical or a scientific discourse.
Kenneth Frampton, in his preface to Peter Meiss’ book, as far back as 19892 believed that each successive attempt to establish a precise scientific foundation for the theory and practice of architecture had failed to do so without succumbing to contradictions and tautologies.
As such, they were doomed to failure.
I imagine that the territories of philosophy and science are for most of us almost necessarily alien to us, and that those architects who with a minimum of confidence manage to navigate within them are perhaps better equipped to understand the limits beyond which one should not venture.
It is my opinion that the real reason for the popularity of these juxtapositions within the profession may have originated from architects” desire to resolve the complex they have in terms of their social status.
There were attempts to “sociologise”, “psychologise” and “anthropologise” the entire debate, and the attempt – perhaps the most serious and consistent one, but also the most risky one from a theoretical-critical point of view, most riskily – to approximate architectural analysis to linguistic analysis.
With its inherent audacity, this approximation which was fruitful when it came to examining the architectural discourse in its fundamental unity, albeit applying various analytical perspectives, was perhaps taken too literally by certain sectors.
While all this body of knowledge unquestionably contributes in one way or another to the efforts towards a theorisation of architecture, one cannot rely on any one of them to credibly maintain any aspiration to the status of science.
Nor do they need this.
Validating an argument in the field of theory by way of a digression into the field of science is immediately condemned to failure.
What’s more, the same occurs with the field of philosophy, almost always used as an “intellectual front to give credibility to formal decisions”, as Neil Leach ironically noted.3
As is certainly the case with the Heiddegers, Sartres and Bachelards, the Derridás and Foucaults, all the Deleuses and so on.
Of course any thinker is entirely free to consider architecture from any point of view they wish.
But while this may be regarded as legitimate thought on the subject of Architecture, it is not, in itself, theory of architecture.
[…]
For this reason, being neither philosophy nor science, and moving neither in a universe of defined “concepts”, as in the case of the former, nor of the urgencies of exactness, as does the second, I wish to argue that theory is no more than architectural thought expressed in a discourse, also of an architectural nature, articulating on “notions” of problematic meaning and above all demanding in its organisation not only the utmost coherency, but also the utmost rigorousness.
“Notion”, in the sense of having a methodological requirement of flexibility.
“Rigorousness”, in the sense of an ethical requirement for seriousness, free of manipulation.
[…]
If we accept, for a moment, the classification of the types of theory proposed by Kate Nesbit – the prescriptive, the proscriptive, the affirmative and the critical – I would say that theory is developed neither prescriptively, nor proscriptively, nor affirmatively.
It is not prescriptive, because it is not its responsibility to provide recipes for success.
It is not proscriptive, because neither should it “police” nor preclude any path which any person, in this case the architect, wishes to follow.
It is not assertive, because on the contrary it tends to be essayistic.
Out of the different classifications that Nesbit offers, to my mind only one seems to have anything to do with theoretical elaboration: “critical” theory.4
So when Roger Scruton peremptorily states that architectural theory “consists in the attempt to formulate the maxims, rules and precepts which govern, or ought to govern, the practice of the builder”5, one cannot help but smile at the smugly definitive tone, which is used to determine what theory is and what it should be.
Obviously, as in any matter of public domain, this approach and its proposals are bold and forthright, but we have to be able to evaluate their effectiveness in the structuring of architectural thought at any given moment and discussion of them must at all times be open.
I believe that Scruton”s assertion did not come at a moment that was particularly fortunate.
Having an ample margin of autonomy, theory defines a space of its own; it has specific work methods, creates its own strategic objectives, has its own particular norms and its own standards of rigour.
However, theory is not – nor can it ever be – a form of technical autism. While it may totally preserve its own autonomy, the theoretical formulation has to be in permanent contact not only with other levels of architectural knowledge, but also with other fields of learning.
It is also natural that, while recognising that there are various levels and areas of theory to take into consideration, one might try to find, amongst them, some common traits in their formulation.
I have always worked with this expectation in mind.
Analysing in greater depth, I would add that theory has explicit connections with other fields of thought due to the fact that their fields of expertise overlap in parts; but in no cases creating ties of dependency, in any sense of that word.
For myself, I think that the theory I am interested in developing is closely linked to the formulation of architectural language itself, endeavouring to identify in it its constituent elements and understand their mutual articulation.
[…]
I would agree that, as Hays argues, the relationship between theory and practice has become “a fundamental issue in architecture currently”.6
But doubts in my mind still remain, above all as to whether this discussion generally has taken on any particular criterion.
It is therefore important in the specific case of the relationship between theory and its practices, to understand once and for all that theory does not define the paths of concrete practises, nor do these same concrete practises define the limits and methods of theory.
The relations between one and the other are better understood within the framework of an inter-influential dialectics between two activities advancing parallel to each other, maintaining contact in a register of “fecund independence”7 as Le Goff put it.
Hence, I do not think it makes sense to argue that theory leads practice – a case that is frequently made – or vice versa.
Which is why I must agree with Bernard Tschumi when he says with such stiff dignity that the design project is not developed for the purpose of illustrating theories.8
Clearly not.
Only someone who still believes theories to be normative would think such a thing.
But it is still important to make it clear, for the very reason that it is not normative, that theory is not developed for the purpose of supporting specific practices.
This is something that seems to be not so obvious to many so-called “practical” architects.
Or not so convenient.
It is clear that the topic of the relationship between theory and practice is not simple.
And endeavouring to understand it at the critical level, and as a flexible dialectic relationship, is something which of course requires greater and better analysis.
Contributing in however small a way to that study is perhaps the main objective of our work, which, at the very outset, decided to make use of the information gathered in the “Union Survey” [a reference to the survey on “Popular Architecture in Portugal”], without this being intended as a perpetuation of any society or grouping.
The point here is not to produce a substantive critique of the survey even if, at one point or another, aspects may be highlighted that are more surprising or more illuminating, be it for the survey itself or our own study.
Just to give one example, I will cite a somewhat surprising comment – in full awareness of the
affirmed initial convictions of the “survey” – that some of the characteristics analysed at a local level could be considered as indicating a specific way of habiting and that “in a general sense” these local characteristics could be considered “typical of Portuguese architecture”.9
What was that?
This is an unexpected comment that has to be underlined and interpreted in the context of a critical attempt at global interpretation.
That is what we have set out to do. |
[T.N.]: some quotations in this article were translated solely for the purpose of this publication.
*This text is part of the theoretical basis for the investigation project headed by Pedro Vieira de Almeida, until 2011: A “Arquitectura Popular em Portugal. Uma Leitura Crítica” (FCT: PTDC/AUR-AQI/099063; COMPETE: FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-008832) it is to be published in two volumes by Colecção Edições Caseiras do CEAA.
1 I have already done this on various occasions. Pedro Vieira de Almeida. A Poética de Le Corbusier – A Poesia de Valéry – Uma Pedagogia Impossível. in ENCONTRO LER LE CORBUSIER. Actas. Alexandra Trevisan, Josefina Gonzalez Cubero e Pedro Vieira de Almeida, eds. Porto : Escola Superior Artística do Porto, Centro de Estudos Arnaldo Araújo; Câmara Municipal do Porto, Pelouro da Cultura, (in the press).
2 Pierre von Meiss. De la Forme au Lieu. Lausanne : Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 1986.
3 Neil Leach, The Anaesthetics of Architecture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999, pág. 7.
4 Kate Nesbitt, ed. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory: 1965-1995. New York : Princeton Architectural Press, 1996, p. 16. Ed. orig. 1977.
5 Roger Scruton cited in Paul Allen Johnson, ed. The Theory of Architecture: Concepts Themes and Practices. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994, p. 30.
6 Roger Scruton cited in op. cit., p. 8
7 Cf. Jacques Le Goff. Reflexões sobre a História. Lisboa : Edições 70, 1982, p. 48.
8 Bernard Tschumi. The pleasure of Architecture. in Kate Nesbitt, ed. Op. cit., p. 19.
9 Arquitectura Popular em Portugal. Lisboa : Centro Editor Livreiro da Ordem dos Arquitectos, 2004, p. 232. Ed. orig. 1961.