Does a designerneed to adhere to one specific theory?Can one theory create an all-encompassing understanding of design?Is the Pluralist approach more appropriate for contemporary design , or does this method of inclusion dilute the architecture?
Every designer has an individual lens. Writing a manifesto assists in understanding the full range of this lens. One's personal manifesto may include pieces of multiple theoretical principles. Typically individual principles overlap with a specific theory and that is how a collective belief is formed.
I wouldn't say that a pluralist approach to design dilutes it, but rather adds richness. As long as the designer is utilizing several concepts and theories in a harmonious manner, then they have the oppurtunity to complement each other, giving each one a deeper reasoning and possibly context.
I tend to agree with both of the previous comments. But to add on about the pluralist approach, I do think that people can have multiple viewpoints and it will not dilute the architecture in design. I also do agree with their concepts and theories needing to work in a harmonious manner, but I think that designers may omit some of their viewpoints on design if it does not work with a certain project. I know I have a wide range of theories and concepts that I follow when I design, but when it comes down to any given project, I follow what I feel best fits that project, rather than having that singular viewpoint that I try to cram all of my design into and end up with a slight variation of the same product independent from its use.
I definitely feel the pluralist approach helps enhance architecture whereas sticking to only one theory or viewpoint on design will dilute it.
In the world of science a theory is something accepted as substantial, carrying some weight of collective agreement, but at the same time always considered provisional. There is always the possibility that it will be altered through new discoveries, and in fact the potential for those discoveries is likely what motivates practitioners to pursue their work. In that case a plurality can be the goal of an investigation into a theory. A product will always somehow exceed the theory, if only because theory always reduces and distills, representing the general over the particulars. Given a multiplicity of particulars, the things we actually experience, interpretation will inevitably produce a wider body of theories.
On top of that, architecture seems like it deals with systems; the subject matter is so complex that a grand overarching theory would have to break down into more specific theories. Could everything flow from a single theory? Would that amount to more than a theoretical exercise? Do people want to dwell in theories (e.g. theories of "dwelling")? Or are compromises more comfortable? Or then is pragmatism THE theory...
I believe that following a specific theory allows one to pull out a specific 'system' or understanding of architecture and begin to dig deeper into that margin of understanding. In that, a pluralistic approach may distract from the focused discovery that one path might take.
I don't believe that our understanding of architecture can have a one right manifestation of a dwelling. With that, the discovery of our theories and the context we are in, continues to evolve the idea of architecture as an artifact.
I don't necessarily think that the pluralist form is the best, focusing on one theory can help us expand our knowledge on that subject like a person inside a balloon. Focusing on one area and expanding it takes less force then expanding the balloon in all directions at once. Knowledge generally follows the same way. Which is why were talking about architectural theory instead of string theory or business ethics.
I agree with Austin that it is important to focus on a theory, rather than try to appease them all, but it seems nearsighted to not acknowledge the other theories' presence. At the end of the day we exist as pixels on a page each pixel is a percentage of different colors. the pixel respects that other colors exist, but may choose to subscribe to one color. The theories that we have explored and the manifestos that are continuing to be created as we type are constitutions of time and more importantly expressions of belief.
Toni's statement expresses the opportunity theory presents: "I wouldn't say that a pluralist approach to design dilutes it, but rather adds richness. As long as the designer is utilizing several concepts and theories in a harmonious manner, then they have the oppurtunity to complement each other, giving each one a deeper reasoning and possibly context." The collaborative nature of varying beliefs provides us the opportunity to expand our understanding. The pluralist approach opens the airways of communication and understanding to develop a richness.
I don't feel that adhering to one specific theory necessarily enriches the experience for the user or creates a greater or lesser artifact. It is simply an iteration which has the same objective merit as a piece designed through a pluralist approach.
In the end judgement for any architecture should be based on context and the experience.
I strongly agree with alettiere and Jim that a pluralist approach does not necessarily dilute architecture but rather adds richness that allows us to further explore the complimentary factors within different theories. To my understanding, as designers we have to be able to adapt and transform elements within the wide range of theories to create a harmonious manner that will serve the purposes of what we design.
To simply stick with one theory or one viewpoint on design might allow us to dig deeper into a given theory but by doing so, we are ignoring other possibilities. Architecture has long transform itself through the course of history. The Renaissance architecture was able to flourish through the adaptation of Ancient Greek and Roman architecture left behind by Vitruvius. They were able to transform a theory of the past civilization to create their own theory. architecture is the ability to adapt and transform thoughts and ideas to accommodate our understanding of space. Being able to understand different theories can lead to endless discoveries
I am in complete agreement with Ryan and would like to add to expound his comment further by stating that the incorporation of multiple lenses and theories as a pluralistic approach of designing and constructing a singular structure is virtually the definition of contemporary design. The dilution of architecture, in my opinion, would be the imitation of other designs without the involvement of forward thinking, therefore recreating and regurgitating theories and ideas by eliminating originality. Forward thinking and expansion of ideas would be contemporary design at its finest.
I think that one theory is no way to every understand architecture, it is crucial to read multiple manifestos in educating ourselves the forms of architecture and philosophies as well. I think that reading a compilation of manifestos and theories would be the best way to be a well rounded architect or theorist even. I am interested in environmental design and functionality right now, so I have been trying to read view points from many different architectural movements to try and pull something from each movement stylistically or theoretically to understand how these new styles and designs come to be.
Every designer has an individual lens. Writing a manifesto assists in understanding the full range of this lens. One's personal manifesto may include pieces of multiple theoretical principles. Typically individual principles overlap with a specific theory and that is how a collective belief is formed.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that a pluralist approach to design dilutes it, but rather adds richness. As long as the designer is utilizing several concepts and theories in a harmonious manner, then they have the oppurtunity to complement each other, giving each one a deeper reasoning and possibly context.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with both of the previous comments. But to add on about the pluralist approach, I do think that people can have multiple viewpoints and it will not dilute the architecture in design. I also do agree with their concepts and theories needing to work in a harmonious manner, but I think that designers may omit some of their viewpoints on design if it does not work with a certain project. I know I have a wide range of theories and concepts that I follow when I design, but when it comes down to any given project, I follow what I feel best fits that project, rather than having that singular viewpoint that I try to cram all of my design into and end up with a slight variation of the same product independent from its use.
ReplyDeleteI definitely feel the pluralist approach helps enhance architecture whereas sticking to only one theory or viewpoint on design will dilute it.
In the world of science a theory is something accepted as substantial, carrying some weight of collective agreement, but at the same time always considered provisional. There is always the possibility that it will be altered through new discoveries, and in fact the potential for those discoveries is likely what motivates practitioners to pursue their work. In that case a plurality can be the goal of an investigation into a theory. A product will always somehow exceed the theory, if only because theory always reduces and distills, representing the general over the particulars. Given a multiplicity of particulars, the things we actually experience, interpretation will inevitably produce a wider body of theories.
ReplyDeleteOn top of that, architecture seems like it deals with systems; the subject matter is so complex that a grand overarching theory would have to break down into more specific theories. Could everything flow from a single theory? Would that amount to more than a theoretical exercise? Do people want to dwell in theories (e.g. theories of "dwelling")? Or are compromises more comfortable? Or then is pragmatism THE theory...
I believe that following a specific theory allows one to pull out a specific 'system' or understanding of architecture and begin to dig deeper into that margin of understanding. In that, a pluralistic approach may distract from the focused discovery that one path might take.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that our understanding of architecture can have a one right manifestation of a dwelling. With that, the discovery of our theories and the context we are in, continues to evolve the idea of architecture as an artifact.
I don't necessarily think that the pluralist form is the best, focusing on one theory can help us expand our knowledge on that subject like a person inside a balloon. Focusing on one area and expanding it takes less force then expanding the balloon in all directions at once. Knowledge generally follows the same way. Which is why were talking about architectural theory instead of string theory or business ethics.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Austin that it is important to focus on a theory, rather than try to appease them all, but it seems nearsighted to not acknowledge the other theories' presence. At the end of the day we exist as pixels on a page each pixel is a percentage of different colors. the pixel respects that other colors exist, but may choose to subscribe to one color. The theories that we have explored and the manifestos that are continuing to be created as we type are constitutions of time and more importantly expressions of belief.
ReplyDeleteToni's statement expresses the opportunity theory presents: "I wouldn't say that a pluralist approach to design dilutes it, but rather adds richness. As long as the designer is utilizing several concepts and theories in a harmonious manner, then they have the oppurtunity to complement each other, giving each one a deeper reasoning and possibly context." The collaborative nature of varying beliefs provides us the opportunity to expand our understanding. The pluralist approach opens the airways of communication and understanding to develop a richness.
I don't feel that adhering to one specific theory necessarily enriches the experience for the user or creates a greater or lesser artifact. It is simply an iteration which has the same objective merit as a piece designed through a pluralist approach.
ReplyDeleteIn the end judgement for any architecture should be based on context and the experience.
I strongly agree with alettiere and Jim that a pluralist approach does not necessarily dilute architecture but rather adds richness that allows us to further explore the complimentary factors within different theories. To my understanding, as designers we have to be able to adapt and transform elements within the wide range of theories to create a harmonious manner that will serve the purposes of what we design.
ReplyDeleteTo simply stick with one theory or one viewpoint on design might allow us to dig deeper into a given theory but by doing so, we are ignoring other possibilities. Architecture has long transform itself through the course of history. The Renaissance architecture was able to flourish through the adaptation of Ancient Greek and Roman architecture left behind by Vitruvius. They were able to transform a theory of the past civilization to create their own theory. architecture is the ability to adapt and transform thoughts and ideas to accommodate our understanding of space. Being able to understand different theories can lead to endless discoveries
I am in complete agreement with Ryan and would like to add to expound his comment further by stating that the incorporation of multiple lenses and theories as a pluralistic approach of designing and constructing a singular structure is virtually the definition of contemporary design. The dilution of architecture, in my opinion, would be the imitation of other designs without the involvement of forward thinking, therefore recreating and regurgitating theories and ideas by eliminating originality. Forward thinking and expansion of ideas would be contemporary design at its finest.
ReplyDeleteScott Burns---
ReplyDeleteI think that one theory is no way to every understand architecture, it is crucial to read multiple manifestos in educating ourselves the forms of architecture and philosophies as well. I think that reading a compilation of manifestos and theories would be the best way to be a well rounded architect or theorist even. I am interested in environmental design and functionality right now, so I have been trying to read view points from many different architectural movements to try and pull something from each movement stylistically or theoretically to understand how these new styles and designs come to be.