Research Narrative

“Theory without practice is empty; practice without theory is blind. The ongoing challenge is to bring theory and  practice together in such a way that we can theorize our practices and practice our theories.”
— Mark C. Taylor, “The Moment of Complexity”

Architecture, like many other disciplines, is attempting to rectify the current necessity of large paradigm shifts while not transitioning completely from an over reliance on centuries-old traditions that rigidly define disciplinary purview and identity. As globalization buffets architecture and redefines modern life, the discipline’s answer has been to force innovation into conventional representational frames —reproducible en mass— that attempt engage generically the unique demands of diverse cultural identities and conditions found around the globe. The futility of an over reliance on past conventions uncritically within the present ambiguous stage of globalization is readily apparent. To be more effective and influential in their practice, architects today must be sensitive and empathetic to alterity or difference, as manifested in particular sites, entire cultures, or diverse political agendas. Innovation within the present context of globalization will not emerge from the latest fashionable aesthetic trend or technology, but only from speculative conjecture undertaken at a myriad of scales, between the boundaries of tradition, and with the sanctity of unique cultural identity respected. My research is focused on how the discipline of architecture might better adapt and navigate the current challenges in health, climate change, and cultural emerging within the present context of rapid globalization and change.

Though my main disciplinary focus is architecture and urbanism, I also have a degree in philosophy. My research  investigates globalization, the nature of its complexities, the challenges it brings, and the opportunities for innovation it creates within the practices associated with architecture and design. More specifically, it explores how architectural, urban, and design agendas benefit from a philosophically grounded view embracing both the changes and challenges brought  about the integrative trends of rapid globalization. Our current circumstance is similar to past events like the Industrial revolution that radically transformed western society wholesale and rapidly advanced our technological sophistication. Our time is one where every discipline and facet of life is being radically affected simultaneously by globalization. Understanding the complexity and fluidity of this circumstance and how our conventional practices and views must transform to adapt to this age of wholesale global integration —economic, cultural, and technological— is an imperative skillset for success today.

Given that architecture is a centrally influential vehicle of a culture’s identity materially, globalization’s influence on this endeavor has increased substantially over the last several decades. The discipline’s strength lies in its relationship to  tradition and how it influences the material manifestation of cultural convention in ways directly linking the present to the past. Like other forms of art, architecture simultaneously resides in the present, past, and future mindset of the collective  imagination by imaging cultural values and conventions that maintain a vibrant social consciousness that can serve as a platform for innovation and change. However, its strength is also its central weakness owing that these same traditions serving as touchstones for change and invention can also ensnare architecture’s power to create healthy insurgencies within socially entrenched and technologically outmoded conventions.

A new type of practice is demanded that is an open ended critical form of thought instead of a practice that relies solely on fixed, largely preconceived sets of operations and identities passed down unquestioned through generations. Philosophy attempts to gain a detached and objective intellectual position creating a better “vantage point” that moves the research frame beyond surface readings. It is this view —“from a distance”—  that makes deeper connections by unveiling hidden aspects making the speculative methods of philosophers particularly relevant in the study of globalization. A deeper, more impartial understanding of the invisible forces of globalization affords new insights and better comprehension of the global connections now being forged that are transforming traditional cultural identities and professional distinctions. Comprehension of these changes can inform the necessary reassessment of design goals, strategies, and practices creating more integrative solutions and innovative strategies. These can positively affect the unique context and immediate circumstances of each project, no matter its geography or cultural outlook.

Several key questions emerge in this exploration of the connections between architecture and philosophy in our contemporary age of rapid globalization:

  • If design disciplines such as architecture are to remain viable and influential, how can their dialogues remain largely self- referential? What ways can the “design thinking” paradigm structuring architectural design be changed to be a more open reflexive system of critical thought relating to broader more complex cultural agendas?
  • How can a system of “critical practice” manifest broadly throughout the design professions that taps issues informing design thinking in ways that positively reinforce its capacity to operate effectively in the  current  intensely  integrative,  fluid,  and  complex global climate?
  • Can the traditions of design be translated into disciplines that previously viewed these skills as not particularly relevant in ways that effectively adapt them to the “chaos” of If so, what are the foundations for these translations?

Architectural education and practice counter the implicit demand of these questions because their conventions are directly descendent from the ethical and epistemological systems implemented by the European guilds. These structures unified individuals to capture market shares, enforce normative sets of practices, and instill a common identity within each trade. The studio method of instruction in architectural education is a modern form of this system because knowledge delivery emerges as a set of normative practices that convey information and guide the development of skills through repetition and mimicry.

Architecture then, its traditions and practices, is at a crossroads. Newly developed technologies of production not only facilitate  but demand the radical re-organization of these conventions. Either these transform to meet these new challenges, or risk further relegation to a highly specialized self-referential world. To remain relevant and influential, the  practitioners of architecture, its capacity to communicate, and its representation outside the discipline must continually adapt as new types of challenges emerge. Past disciplinary forays attempting the application of universal architectural  principles while ignoring specific contingencies of social, technological, aesthetic contexts have clearly failed and must be set aside in favor of more flexible and analytical views involving design.

The same context demanding these changes also contains the key to architecture’s successful transition and disciplinary perpetuation. This promise does not reside in past spatial, formal, or stylistic languages. Nor does it lie in the next polemical banner demanding a scripted ‘movement’. Architecture’s best hope lies in the re valuation and adaptation of some of its most traditional theories and practices. It lies in the careful consideration of individuals ethically concerned with discovering the appropriate means of addressing the most pertinent issues of the day, not the perpetuation of conventions for the sake of  tradition. The power of innovation is within those not afraid to adapt and move outside their discipline to seek expertise in other realms and ideologies. The questions serve as markers of where this interrogation needs to commence.

ARCHITECTURE & PHILOSOPHY

Historical methodologies have been the basis of much architectural theory as looking  to  past events  for indication  of future trends seems the norm. Generally, architectural history and theory takes a detailed, rather specific view of various projects, styles, and viewpoints and while informative, philosophical investigation relates more to the needs of designers because it attempts to grasp the complexity of large systems and draw connections that are useful in navigating them. Though knowledge of history is imperative in any endeavor, in today’s broader global context of integrating cultures and economies, philosophical questioning should take a lead role.

A previous “borrowing” from other disciplines like history without a clear understanding of the authentic nature of traditional architecture/urban boundaries has lead to an “identity crisis” for many architectural/urban theorists. It has also propagated an atmosphere lacking in intellectual rigor and has marginalized the discipline through a reliance on  disciplinary specific languages difficult to comprehend and often polemical in nature. This supports the “malaise” encumbering architects who see the profession as misunderstood by a society somehow beneath their ideals. For architects to remain effective, relevant, and influential, the fundamental premises and methods of their discipline must be reassessed to develop clear theoretical agendas better able to address the broad complexity constituting a contemporary “project”. Such efforts should not only be for the sake of recording the past, but also the creation of agendas outlining realizable future possibilities and more effectively communicating these to society as a whole.

The greatest potential that the philosophical endeavor provides in moving past this confusion and negativity is to reassert the  need for measured analysis and solid research in crafting the theoretical agendas guiding the discipline. This would allow architects and urban designers to comprehend changes, trends, and cultural transformations beyond  their  surface  effects towards an understanding of their root causes. Philosophy must inform the most appropriate directions to take in connecting the theoretical power of speculative thought and the concrete activity of architecture so that more nuanced and empathic design strategies are produced.

This view proposes to explore “representation of architectural agency and process in an era of complexity and change.” This move away from the product as the sole focus of the architectural endeavor (buildings) to a (re) centering on its process of creation (practices) that critically re-conceptualizes the process/boundaries of architecture utilizes two important concepts: Architecture Writ Large and Critical Practice. These two concepts underlie and organize the wide range of activities and explorations that constitute my research agenda.

ARCHITECTURE WRIT LARGE & CRITICAL PRACTICE

The demand to increase the purview, representation, and meaning of architecture beyond disciplinary boundaries falls under the heading of an “Architecture Writ Large”. Philosophically, questions arising in this focus on how the practice of architecture and its inherent meaning within the larger social context is defined. What is the agency of the contemporary architect and the practice of architecture fundamentally? What forms can its intellectual processes take and how can their application to other realms transform the meaning of its traditions? “Writ Large” defines architecture as the integration of “systems” towards the materialization of predetermined goals. It takes the phrase “architects construct” seriously, however, the materials utilized in this “construction” process are left open to be determined by the needs of a specific context.

For example, the genius of Jaime Lerner, the Brazilian architect that served several terms as mayor of Curitiba was to  understand that architecture’s predilection towards large infrastructural projects may not be the answer to the problems facing this South American city. However, its ability to consider circumstances systematically and propose connective strategies was incredibly powerful. He was successful in his quest to better his city by avoiding the common political mistake of seeking to build “a few economic mega projects” and instead implemented “hundreds of multipurpose, cheap, fast, simple, homegrown, people-centered initiatives harnessing market mechanisms, common sense, and local skills.” 1

In the “developing world” circumstance Lerner was facing, more buildings or infrastructure was too costly and ineffective. He decided that innovative grass roots strategies must be “designed” and they had to be politically motivating as well as push the boundaries of an “appropriate design medium”. By adopting a critical, yet open attitude, this architect/politician avoided relying on a misappropriated image of the architect’s role. He transgressed the traditional boundaries of architecture by focusing on the power of design thinking — designing and then communicating strategies that mobilized  individuals, political machines, and social structures to creatively solve the problems at hand. His materials were more than steel or concrete, but consisted largely of an approach to “transportation and land use, hydrology and poverty, flows of nutrients and of wastes, health and education, jobs and incomes, culture and politics, as intertwined parts of a single  integrated design problem”.2 Lerner didn’t come to the circumstance with a predetermined set of solutions, but was open to how his skillset could benefit the circumstance. He left the definition of “project” open and allowed the needs of the situation to define his operations.

This architect’s strength was his ability to analyze a set of complex circumstances abstractly, discover pertinent connections, and then develop coherent strategies that affected concrete change on a broad scale. A prophetically creative thinker comprehends the unique character of a situation and avoids misapplying foreign visions carrying damaging preconceptions or prejudices. By always questioning what architecture can be, one is inherently open to the possibility of what it can become. This is the strength of an architecture envisioned as “Writ Large” and was the foundation to Lerner’s success.

“Critical practice” cultivates a disinterested stance towards an immediate problem at hand. It clearly undertakes this within the traditions that outline the realm of architectural practice, but with a remove that takes it beyond superficial readings to exploit the full potential of a situation. This type of practice endeavors to understand the complexities and nuances existing just under the surface and constantly change over time. It utilizes techniques appropriate to that particular situation, not just because tradition demands them. It is a critical methodology that manifests as a positively creative force guiding trajectories of potential innovation encountered in flux of the concrete activity comprising practice.

It conceives of practice not as an inert intellectual construct comprised of normative rules, but as a series of strategic improvisations unfolding over time and with a surgical precision. Critical Practice creates new operational paradigms that are conditional, because they are specific to their immediate context. It confronts architecture’s (and globalization’s) tendency to impose universal abstractions demanding a specific condition succumb to an imported abstract set of principles. “Site” considerations then are geographical, material, temporal, cultural, aesthetic, and ideological combined. This type of practice “maintains a deep respect for history, and for architecture’s past”, yet its actions are “confident in the logical structure of the discipline as a starting point, but never satisfied to simply repeat, or execute a system of rules defined elsewhere.” 3

Stan Allen illustrates Frank Lloyd Wright’s capacity for critical practice in a description involving the construction of the  circulation ramp for the Guggenheim museum. Wright began initial explorations with its distinctive “fold” as a structural  principle to achieve an integrated and seamless spatial effect. This aligned with his conception of the continuity necessary in the embodiment of an organic architecture. However, this compelling concept proved impractical due to several building trade  and regulative issues within New York City at the time. For instance, the requirement of a complex wooden formwork to support the concrete during construction would have proved too difficult and costly.4

To overcome these impediments, he allowed substitutions like conventional steel rods in place of steel mesh and reusable formwork. Consequently, the ramp had to be poured in sections with a series of radial piers located at thirty-degree intervals included for support.5 These changes countered his original vision of a seamless structure, but did allow for a radically new type of perceptually “smooth” space to be constructed. At each obstacle encountered, Wright interrogated his ideas, allowing the discovery of new opportunities towards the manifestation of his spatial vision. Because he was not committed to “structure as symbolic or expressive construct, he gained a pragmatic, improvisational flexibility”5 that served as a pragmatic “means to realize the building (other) than with the intrinsic properties of concrete … that, in practice, the desired continuity is in no way compromised by his apparent structural expedient.” 6

As critical practitioner, Wright aligned his agenda to the specific conditions encountered and continually sought new  possibilities for the development of his vision. From sketch to finished construct, he put operational preconceptions aside and was open to new possibilities of expression. The uncertainty of practice served not as a challenge, but as an opportunity to widen the catalog of potential techniques revealing his theories about architecture. 7

In summary, my research agenda proposes the use of philosophical methods of speculation to uncover newly emergent  qualitative issues involved in architecture/urbanism. This allows a more broadly informed viewpoint to form imperative for architects to navigate today’s globally integrated world of practice. This work falls into roughly two areas:

  • Interdisciplinary  explorations  utilizing  the  practice  of  philosophical  speculation  to  investigate  fundamental  questions  of definition and meaning surrounding architecture, urbanism, and design. (Architecture Writ Large)
  • Explorations that take specific philosophical concepts or problems and apply them as a  “theoretical  lens”  to  certain  conditions within architecture, landscape architecture, and urbanism. This  influences  the  development  of  more  informed  design strategies from a broader perspective, but applicable to everyday practical occurrences. (Critical Practice)

SUMMARY OF GOALS FOR RESEARCH AGENDA

  • To research and explore how the investigative methods of philosophy can bring theoretical rigor and new insights towards the complex and transformative issues encountered within architecture and urbanism.
  • The development of a multidisciplinary and integrated research agenda exploring the redefinition of the architect’s agency and potential role in light of recent global transformations.
  • To research potential issues and design processes that strive to overcome the disjunction, animosity, and  self-referential nature of the conventions of architecture falling along disciplinary lines  in  architecture  and  architectural  education.  This  agenda strives to cross these “fissures” by researching interdisciplinary processes from philosophy and critical theory that are inclusive in attitude and open in outlook.
  • To research the development of strategies and processes of design emphasizing the temporal and qualitative nature of design over the production of specific “products” or material artifacts.
  • Research potential theoretical bridges between disciplines that stress the importance of cross-disciplinarity in addressing  design issues encountered in today’s global environment.

In the past, the most pertinent questions to practice within disciplines such as architecture were concerned with the specifics of particular styles, their technology, and accepted construction methods. Now, architects must be more imaginative and flexible  with agendas involving a wider range of topics merging social and economic interests to more aesthetic and tectonic concerns within the current climate of rapid cultural change. I believe that an effective avenue for this design “rethink” can be found in the rigorous methods of philosophy and the topics regularly investigated within this discipline.

1 Hawkins, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. 1999, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. (New York: Little, Brown, and Company), P. 288.

2 Hawkens, et al, P. 293.

3 Allen, S. 2000, Practice: Architecture, Technique, and Representation. (Australia: G+B Arts International) P. XVI-XVII.

4 Allen, Stan. “Practice vs. Project’ in Praxis: Journal of Writing and Building. Issue Zero, Volume One, P. 112-113.

5 Allen, P. 113.

6 Ibid., P. 116-117.

7 Ibid., P. 119-120.