Rebranding Critical vs Projective Theory (Reactionary vs Progression-ary Theory)

Instinctually, it is difficult for me to talk about Tafuri and Koolhaas in the same sentence. Although Koolhaas' re-introduction of function as a driver in architecture depended on Tafuri and his successor theoreticians' critical breakdown of architecture to pure, useless form, I see his theorization as completely different in nature than Tafuri's. 

Tafuri proposed a radical "STOP" sign to the muddied and commodified field of architectural theory, going so far as to remove it completely from the world of utilitarianism to re-encounter and re-define what architecture is at its purest corm. His theory was not intended as a seed to a new way of building architecture - to the contrary, its entire purpose was to be a ".", a period, to the commodification of utopia that he found to be antagonizing to the true essence of architecture. His theory was a reaction, not more than an exclamation that lives on, unchanged by time and opinion - that pure architecture exists in a vacuum.

On the other hand, just two decades later, Koolhaas was proposing a new way of designing buildings that acknowledged Tafuri's exclamation while also admitting existence in a world of practical needs. Koolhaas was picking up the pen - metaphorically turning Tafuri's period into a comma. Koolhaas' theory is a self-conscious attempt to progress architecture.