An Autopsy on the Body
Throughout much of Tafuri's musing on the state of architecture and theory his contemporary, it seemed he was often pessimistic about the direction of the profession. He stated, "Engaged architecture, which I tried to make politically and socially involved, is over." Reactive post-modernity was an unfavorable reaction to the failures of the modern masters. Tafuri was not the first such architect/theorist to posit the death of a particular movement or position within architecture. Charles Jencks, an architectural cultural historian, boldly proclaimed, "Modern Architecture died in St. Louis, Missouri on July 15, 1972 at 3.32 p.m. (or thereabouts) when the infamous Pruitt-Igoe scheme, or rather several of its slab blocks, were given the final coup de grâce by dynamite." For all this talk about architecture dying, however, it seems as if these deaths are isolated to the theories within academia. On the side of practice, it seems these deaths have little meaning; dutiful architects, wholly unconcerned with linguistic interpretation and bickering, continue their work unbothered by the passing of another theory or proclamation. This isn't to say that practice neglects theory; rather, I believe other priorities drive the projects, and theory need not be the serious restriction the dialectics impose.
When I think about the relationship of theory and practice, I think that theory is a suggestion to the praxis world in which every interpretation of a writing can and will be different. There is a constant web of different topics one thought can provoke and that is why theory is discussed less in the world of practice. Someone practicing architecture may read theory and interpret it in a way that is not relevant to the current project on hand but at least the thought introduced by theory will provide suggestions for the future.
ReplyDelete