|
|
The territory
of the theory of architecture should be defined on the basis of the problems
that this discipline is supposed to solve. But disciplines for architectural
problem-solving from building construction to regional planning already do
exist, and it is difficult to see what kind of specific tasks architectural
theory has to tackle.
The theory of architecture as the sum of treatises and manifestoes written
by architects exists since Vitruvius. But architectural theory as a
discipline emerged from the alliance of architectural history and
politically engaged criticism around 1968. Tafuri’s thesis regarding the
impossibility of a critical architecture contributed to the
institutionalization of a critical theory of architecture. The exhibition
Deconstructivist Architecture in 1988 at the MoMA showed already signs
of exhaustion – critical theory gave place to the theoretical packaging of
new design propositions. The readiness of “projective“ theory to deliver
branding services for design practice was seen by many as a dangerous
development; they urged architectural theoreticians to return to their roots
in architectural history studies.
In a school of architecture where there are as many architectural
“philosophies“ as design studios, the situation is even more difficult. A
design philosophy tends to present itself as the true theory, leaving not
much space for critical understanding. If, however, this “philosophy“ only
serves the justification of a design practice, the term “theory“ is used
undeservedly.
All this does not mean that theory has to withdraw into ineffectiveness. The
practice of theory, however, has to remain rooted in language, and should
affect the use of language. A course in architectural theory has to question
the very terms of architectural discourse.
At the ETH
Zurich,
the Architectural Theory section, which is part of the Institute gta,
focuses on the analysis of the terms of our discipline which are so close to
the center of our thinking about architecture, that we usually do not even
question their meaning. In order to understand an architectural problem,
however, we have to learn about the history of its central terms. What is
architecture? What is space? What is function? What is tectonics? These are
questions of a different kind than the question regarding the tensions in a
cantilevered support. We can only expect that this archaeological work and
critical reflection helps to understand the problem of space, function or
tectonics, rather than to “solve“ these problems.
This might sound like a withdrawal of architecture theory into the realm of
language. We are dealing with language indeed but it would be wrong to
understand this focus of theory as a withdrawal. Architectural theory
attempts to influence our (verbally organized) understanding of our
environment. The very requirement that theory should not be directly
involved with design practice allows to exert its influence on its
development.
|