Home Architecture Talk
What are the most useful and exciting contemporary architecture theories?
Many architects and academics tend to cloud their ideas with lingo like "archademics", "verticalization", etc. Gone are the days when architects like Le Corbusier expressed themselves clearly and precisely, unafraid of criticism by letting people understand what they are doing. When architects do explain their works clearly, they disappoint most times, gravitating towards personal explorations that tend to do little to improve the lives of most people. What are the most useful and exciting theories that drive the best architects these days then, if any?
Public Comments
- Well, this is not an area of any expertise for me, but I did do some noodling around on the web. I found it interesting, these two extremes of "architectural theory"...one well over 2000 years old (Pollio) and another of a current working theorist (Eisenman). From my perspective, I'd say that Pollio got the field off to a good start, but Eisenman may represent a bit of a disconnect from reality. Here are two snippets from the articles I found: "Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (born 80BC): is most famous for asserting in his book De architectura that a structure must exhibit the three qualities of firmitas, utilitas, venustas - that is, it must be strong or durable, useful, and beautiful." "Peter Eisenman (born 1932): His theories on architecture pursue the emancipation and autonomy of the discipline and his work represents a continued attempt to liberate form from all meaning, a struggle that most find difficult to understand." IMHO...all progressions are not "Progress". Difficult to understand, indeed.
