ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN THEORY
THEORY ‐ WEEK 1
Hanno Walter Kruft: What is architectural theory?
It would be possible to produce a more or less objective definition of the concept of architectural
theory, but it would run the risk of turning out to be unhistorical, since it would assume a constancy
of meaning that the term might not have; the criteria for such a definition require historical
legitimation, but this can only be provided for one period at a time.
Historical analyses of architecture are rarely unambiguous in respect to theories, that lie behind
them. Architectural theory remains an aspect of a historical process of which the observer himself is
part. Each theoretical system has to be judged according to its own objectives and we have to ask,
first: what is its aim? And second: for whom is it intended?
The majority of programs that purport to be theories of architecture seek to combine aesthetic,
social and practical considerations in an integrated whole.
“Architectural theory comprises any written system of architecture, whether comprehensive or
partial, that is based on aesthetic theories. This definition still holds, even if the aesthetic content is
reduced to the functional.”
Theories of architecture always belong to a historical context which is in part causative. New systems
emerge from debates on older systems; there is no such thing as an entirely new system, and if a
system claims to be such, it is either stupid or dangerous.
Thus architectural theory and the history thereof are synonymous, to the extent that the present
position always represents a phase in a historical process.
What is the relationship between architectural theory and the built architecture of its time? On the
one hand, in a passive sense it represents what Marxists would call the ‘superstructure’ of
architecture, and could be discarded without making any difference to the buildings that already
exist. On the other hand, it is the practical manifesto of the tenets of architectural theory.
Kaufmann: “Artistic theory is itself no more than an expression of the spirit of the age, and it
significance does not reside in the fact that it points the way for its own age, but in its serving
subsequent generations as a monument to past ideas.”
Today it is hardly possible to deny that the whole of architecture from the Renaissance to Neo‐
classicism would have looked completely different had it not been for the influence of Vitruvius.
There is a certain ambiguity in the influence of theory on built architecture. It can lay down norms
which make it almost impossible to produce really bad architecture; at the same time, making
aesthetic conventions normative can stifle, or at least hamper, creativity.
Most architectural theories are intended for the age in which they are written, but their influence
may also be felt at a far later date.
An aesthetic idea is not important in itself. What is important is when, under what circumstances
and in what context it was conceived.
Theory is not equal to history. But it has to be seen in that specific period of time.
,CRITICISM ‐ WEEK 1
Pattabi Raman and Richard Coyne: the production of architectural criticism
For Raman and Coyne, this division results in categories like conservative criticism, critical theory
and radical criticism.
Conservative Criticism
The usual sense of the word ‘criticism’ is of ‘fault‐finding’. The purpose of criticism here is to
conserve truth or to uncover what is true, beautiful or essential in the work. From our point of view,
both objectivist and subjectivist criticism is present as conservative.
Critical Theory
Anti‐conservative. A form of criticism that positioned itself against the tenets of objectivism,
positivism and concepts of valor and heroism. The subscribers to critical theory attempt to rescue
libertarian aspects of Marx’s thought. Freud, Nietzsche and Marx have been marshalled in support of
critical theory. Nowadays, critical theory is not so much a particular school of thought as a discursive
field, that engages with a wide range of intellectual debates and positions, but commonly invokes a
language of suspicion and emancipation.
Radical Criticism
Radical criticism argues for a world in which history loses its rigidity in the interflow of forces. It
argues that contradictions are positive, and sees equilibrium as a dynamic condition in a world that
changes indeterminately (and never reaches the stillness of perfection).
Radical criticism does not take authority for granted. It does not necessarily see its end in an
evaluation of the work or of its putative author.
Radical criticism problematizes the relationship between the work and its criticism. The criticism
presents itself as an intervention that forms a relationship with the work. They can operate in a
tandem, or it can exceed the work in its significance. Some works are produced to provoke
(uitlokken) particular kind of criticism. It also allows that the work under criticism is in process, that
it may change in response to the criticism.
Theory of meaning What are facts and what are created facts.
Theory of significance or iconography makes use of symbols (something beyond themselves)
Critical Theory and Structuralism
The Structuralism of Saussure, and the tradition of language theory that followed from it, is at
variance with concepts of language as conserving meaning. Structuralism has been highly influential
in critical theory. Saussure showed that the link between the signifier and signified is ‘arbitrary’.
Deconstruction argues that the original meaning of a work is unobtainable and therefore
interpretation is about stretching the limits of language.
Conclusion
The divide between the critic and the architect is sustained by the conservative position. For the
conservative, practitioners produce architecture, without which the critic has nothing to say. The
architectural work is indisputably the referent, to which the reference, the work of criticism, is
secondary. On the other hand the concerns of the critic represent appeals to theory, of which the
architect is unwittingly the practioner.
In so far as it embraces structuralist theories of language, critical theory problematizes the
theory/practice divide. Radical theory further introduces concepts of flux and play, the
indeterminacy of the play of signification, ideas that resonate with concepts of surrealist work, that
operates through provocation, roles of both the work and its criticism. Pragmatic hermeneutics
presents architecture and criticism as discursive practices, each as modes of the other. It
,demonstrates that interpretation and application amount to the same thing. Under this regime it
makes sense to assert that a built work can function as an architectural criticism. Conversely, to
engage in architectural criticism is to engage in architecture, not to stand apart from it.
J.J.P. Oud: dr. H.P. Berlage and his work (1919)
This piece of criticism is an example of the conservative approach, as the author clearly explains the
intentions by the creator, and uses them as a framework to look at the designs.
“After the war architecture will have to develop in the direction of Sachlichkeit, that is to say, the
economic conditions will be the deciding factor, and, in modern architecture, the purely structural
should take precedence over the decorative aspect”.
The outward appearance of an architectural work should not be seen loose from the situation. It is in
coherence with the design of the entire work. It should in first instance serve practical needs.
Materials also impose certain demands and designs in the new architecture should undergo
essential changes. From this point of view, it is important that in the years ahead, architecture can’t
be a decorative art. After war, the task should be to create the greatest comfort in the smallest
space in an aesthetic design of the purest kind. Proportions and rhythm > decoration.
Wagner, Behrens, Sullivan, Frank Lloyd Wright and Berlage all spoke out for a modern, realistic
concept in architecture and followed this principle. In this framework, there is still a great freedom
of design allowed (compare Berlage to Wagner i.e.).
Berlage’s first designs show a style of architecture in the spirit of Renaissance. The motifs in the
design of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (1885) have mainly been derived from the national
Renaissance. The arrangement of building sections round two axes that are perpendicular points to
regularity and monumental art, but it could be typified as picturesque rather than monumental as
well. When we compare two later works: ‘Algemeene Maatschappij van Levensverzekering en
Lijfrente’ building and Focke & Meltzer building; we see that there are a lot of the same element:
Large window shops, separated by columns, on the ground floor; the connecting piece; the balcony;
both equally tall floors, with the office space and smaller groups of windows on the top floor.
In his works he shaped the feelings of his age and created the outward language of forms of an
entire era. The latter shows the difference with Cuypers. Cuypers had used his principles in
connection with historical forms, but this failed to move the majority and so his influence on the
people was limited.
Berlage associated himself with medieval art. His details grow organically from the essence of the
building, like branches from a tree trunk: they have not been copied or assembled, but are living
organs of the work of art. For him, the details must meet the highest standards and when he felt
they fall outside of his scope, he did not design or elaborate them himself. In such events he invited
the best artists of his time to help him. For instance at the ‘Algemeene Maatschappij van
Levensverzekering en Lijfrente’ building, van Zijl helps him with sculpting work and Derkinderen with
wall paintings.
In his later works, the front façade becomes increasingly more closed and the sperate parts of the
building take a definite shape. The generous mass effect is typical for the artist’s works from this
period of time. Within the composition of these masses, the rooms have developed in such a way
that their aesthetic proportions correspond with their practical proportions.
, THEORY ‐ WEEK 2
Nelson Goodman: How Buildings Mean
Arthur Schopenhauer ranked the several arts in a hierarchy, with literary and dramatic arts at the
top, music in a separate even higher heaven and architecture sinking to the ground. This seems to be
some measure of spirituality, with architecture ranking lowest by vice of being grossly material.
Nowadays such rankings are taken less seriously and the arts are more comparable. Architecture has
a close affinity with music: they are seldom descriptive or representational. They do not describe or
portray. On the other hand, architecture is not comparable in scale. A building, park or city is not
only bigger in space, but also in time. Architecture is normally fixed in place, while paintings can be
moved to another place and music can be played on different locations. Finally, architecture has a
more practical function: it is for protecting or facilitating certain activities. Which dominates the
aesthetic function often. A building is a work of art only insofar as it signifies, means, refers,
symbolizes in some way.
Buy what does a building mean? We can group 4 varieties of references:
‐ Denotation includes naming, predication, narration, description, exposition and also
portrayal and all pictorial representation. Buildings are not texts or pictures which describe
or depict. Yet representation does occur in salient ways, like Byzantine churches with
mosaic‐covered interiors and Romanesque facades that consist almost entirely of sculpture.
Some buildings depict themselves very obvious like a building formed as an ice‐cream cone
or hotdog. Other buildings are less obvious, like the Opera House in Sydney, which is almost
as literal a depiction of sailboats.
‐ Exemplification is one of the major ways that architectural works mean. According to W.H.
Jordy, “The Dutch Architect Gerrit Rietveld fragmented architecture into primal linear
elements (columns, beams and framing elements for openings) and planes (wall increments)
in order to make visible the ‘build’ of the building”. In other buildings made of columns,
beams, frames and walls, the structure is not thus exemplified at all, serving only practical
and perhaps also other symbolic functions. But exemplification of structure may accompany
other ways of meaning. For instance: reference to structure is not the primary symbolic
function of a church, but may play a notable supporting role.
‐ Expression looks like Exemplification, but is not literal, but metaphorical. Although, in much
writings, expression is used for cases of both sorts. For instance, we often read of a
building’s ‘expressing’ its function, but since a factory has the function of manufacturing, its
exemplification of that function is of a property literally possessed. Only if the factory were
to exemplify the function of, say, marketing, would it in be expressing a function. A work
may of course both literally exemplify some properties and express others. On the facade of
San Miniato al Mone outside Florence, Rudolph Arnheim writes that it "expresses its
character as a self‐contained object dependent on the earth; but it also symbolizes the
human mind's struggle for maintaining its own centered integrity against the interference by
outer powers". In this work the façade exemplifies the first (literal) property and expresses
the second (metaphorical) one.
‐ We speak about Mediated Reference, when it needs some links before the reference means
something (different). For instance, if a church represents sailboats, sailboats exemplify
freedom from earth, and freedom from earth in turn exemplifies spirituality, then the church
refers to spirituality via a three‐link chain.
Often, getting to the idea behind anything goes by interpretation. A work means whatever it may be
said to mean ‐ or it does not mean at all. Whatever may be said counts as a right interpretation of
any work.
