S A T U R D A Y, O C T O B E R 2 7 , 2 0 0 7

Taking A Position

An expert from "Taking A Position", from the blog of Lebbeus

Woods.
-Architects are not born theorists, that is true. Most of the worlds
best architects never wrote a line about their work, let alone
proposed a theorythey didnt have to. There were busy critics and
professors who followed their works with great attention.
Innovative architects were lucky to have their Mumfords, Gideons,
and Tafuris, and, more rarely, their Foucaults, Deleuzes and
Derridas. The theories that the theoreticians spun around their
works enabled a wide discourse to develop, elevating architecture
to a form of knowledge, lifting it out of the venal chatter of the
marketplace. Sadly, those critics and professors have died, leaving
a conceptualand criticalvoid.
-Many of us pored over theory books in school and attempted to
extract every sliver of meaning that we could and integrate it into
our studio projects, whether successfully or not. Having graduated
from school and growing into a 'professional' environment, the
struggle I find is finding the space for theory in practice. Managing
a project means accommodating the needs of the clients, the
funders, the contractors, the engineers, the users, the dept. of
buildings, the dept. of education, etc. The list goes on and on.
Theory is most certainly at the end of that list. But how can we
find the space for theory? Who will pay for it? Many probably
would criticize Woods' position as one of privilege and ignorance
(his work is mainly theoretical and unbuilt) to the realities of the
pursuit of building architecture. Who is right? Architecture does not
exist within a vacuum, there are rules to abide by and parties to
appease. Does this remove the purity and the joy from the work?
As with any creative process that exists within the world of

commerce, there is the perception of the commercial destroying

the purity of the work. However, as Woods notes, the great
architects are the ones who recognize their position, navigate the
commercial and ultimately build what they desire to build.
Ultimately, we as architects have the power to mandate theory as
an integral component of practice.
For those who say that theory is lost, it is not due to the lack of
the vocal critics applauding the intricacies and influence of the
work. Theory is lost by the architects who believe they are merely
building buildings and not constructing ideas. I applaud all those
who struggle to pursue the latter.

TAKING A POSITION
We do indeed live in a dry time for theories of architecture. Its as though weve reached
the end of history, proclaimed, in 1992, by Francis Fukuyama: What we may be
witnessing, he wrote, is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular
period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of
mankinds ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy
as the final form of human government.
An astonishing prospect!
Architects, often the hand-maidens of politics, today seem more eager than ever to play
the main game of liberal democracy, which is the pursuit of clients and their
commissions. And who are the clients? Developers, exponents of liberal democracys
main activitycapitalist enterprise. In the age of McLuhan (and Debord) they understand
the value of the PR spectacular architecture delivers. Occasionally, governmentswho
need the same kind of upbeat PRare clients. The liberal democracies of Dubai (UAE)
and Kazakhstan, for example. Or of Bejing, Shanghai, Singapore. Thats where the
money is. Thats where the developers and their architects (including many of the best
we have) are. Working feverishly at the end of history.
Theory? Actually, its excess baggage, even when the architects are flying first class.
Architects are not born theorists, that is true. Most of the worlds best architects never
wrote a line about their work, let alone proposed a theorythey didnt have to. There
were busy critics and professors who followed their works with great attention.
Innovative architects were lucky to have their Mumfords, Gideons, and Tafuris, and,
more rarely, their Foucaults, Deleuzes and Derridas. The theories that the theoreticians
spun around their works enabled a wide discourse to develop, elevating architecture to a
form of knowledge, lifting it out of the venal chatter of the marketplace. Sadly, those
critics and professors have died, leaving a conceptualand criticalvoid.

Many of the critics and professors of the present day may be silent about the most recent
works for a reason.
The Bilbao Effect has dampened critical architectural writing. With its advent, interest
shifted from the heady quarrels about Deconstructism and Post-Modernism to a concern
with the much less intellectually taxing search for novel forms. Novel forms work so
well, from the viewpoint of promoting tourism and other spun-off enterprises. As for the
Bilbao Guggenheim, theres not much that can be said about it beyond its great success.
It encloses the same old museum programs. If we look behind the curving titanium skin,
we find swarms of metal studs holding it upno innovative construction technology
there. It hasnt inspired a new architecture, or a new discourse, other than that of media
success. Herbert Muschamp was rightthe building is the resurrection of Marilyn
Monroe. Certainly the architect, like Marilyn, hasnt said anything of consequence.
Sexiness just speaks for itself, no? Exeunt critics and professors.
I think architects themselves need to take up the task of theory writing, and not wait for
rescue from the quarters of academe. That may seem at first an absurd expectation, but I
can think of two architects very engaged in building, who have done just that: Rem
Koolhaas and Steven Holl. They dont write theory, exactly, but they place their work in
the context of ideas, not just opportunities. They take the risk of putting off potential
clients. Think what you will of them, their buildings and their books, but they have
taken positions vis--vis other fields of knowledge, and the contemporary world. Thats
not only admirable, but imitable. All I can say is, lets have more from others, the
architects who, by building, or intending to build, are shaping the world.
LW

1. I like the idea of a building as a manifesto. If new ideas are not embodied in
built (or drawn, or modeled) form, then no amount of written theory is going to
put them there. A notorious example of such an attempt was the use of the
theories of Barthes and other post-structuralists to justify 70s kitsch like Charles
Moores Piazza dItalia. No one is advocating this kind of abuse.
What is important is the relationship between an architects thoughtsexpressed
in writing or speechand their presence in a building. Im glad aes mentions
Kahn, because he was very much a thinking and writing and speaking architect.
In fact, Kahns writingsvery much a conscious creation of theory, as in his
statements on the relationship of design to formare very evident in his
buildings. It is not merely speculative to say that without his theorizing he would
never have created the architecture he did. Certainly he knew that, and so should
we.
Bilbao is a manifesto without a theory, or even a comprehensive argument.
Sorry, but an architect cannot be only an artist. An architects work begins in
philosophy, and an architect needs to be self-conscious and self-reflective in
ways artists do not. This is because architecture embraces the widest possible
understanding of the human condition. Even Mies, the taciturn genius, was

given to seminal pronouncements that conveyed ideas it took others volumes to

express.
LW