The document discusses key concepts in architectural theory through a series of debates. It introduces the book "Introducing Architectural Theory" which presents architectural subjects like tectonics, use, and site as conversations between historical theorists. Each chapter introduces questions to help readers develop their own theories. The book structure includes original texts by architects, reflective texts by critic-architects, and philosophical texts. It aims to get readers thinking critically about architecture. Debates discussed in the book include simplicity vs complexity, ornament vs austerity, and materiality vs immateriality. These debates illustrate how architecture involves ongoing discussion around aesthetics, structure, function and other topics.

1. INTRODUCING ARCHITECTURAL
THEORY:
DEBATING A DISCIPLINE
EDITED BY KORYDON SMITH
LEC 4
NOV 6,2015

2. INTRODUCTION
• This is the most accessible architectural theory book that
exists. Korydon Smith presents each common architectural
subject—such as tectonics, use, and site—as though it were a
conversation across history between theorists by providing you with
the original text, a reflective text, and a philosophical text.
• He also introduces each chapter by high lighting key ideas
and asking you a set of reflective questions so that one can have his
own theory, which is essential to both the success in the studio and
adaptability in the profession. These primary source texts, which
are central to your understanding of the discipline, were written
by such architects as Le Corbusier, Robert Venturi, and Adrian Forty
More than any other architectural theory book about the great
thinkers, “Introducing Architectural Theory” teaches you to think
as well.
• Korydon Smith is an architecture professor in the U.S. who teaches
courses in architectural theory, methods, and design at all year
levels.

3. • The book begins with a discussion of the role of debate in
architecture: “Debating a Discipline: Architecture, Argument, and
the Concept of the Dialectic.”
• This section illustrates how architecture is an ongoing debate
about a number of topics: aesthetics, structure, functionality,
tectonics, context, politics, economics, culture, etc.
• Architectural and non-architectural examples illuminate
how debate is related to the concept of the “dialectic.”
• Unlike most debates, which contain two opposing sides, dialectical
debates involve three parts: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis
(described in the book as original, reflective, and philosophical).
• The thesis is the originating theory or idea, the antithesis is an
opposition to the thesis, and the synthesis is an attempt to
reconcile or transform the previous two.
STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK

4. FUTURE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
THEORY
• It is an exciting time to study architecture. While the
primary subjects of architecture two millennia ago—
tectonics, use, and site—remain central to the
discipline, new materials and technologies are
emerging every day and environmental, social, and
economic challenges are growing. This makes it a vital
time to study architectural theory.
• Undoubtedly, as architects of the future, peers
will question your roles relative to these emerging
challenges and opportunities. The debate will likely
center on the ways that structure, space, form,
material, program, and context are transformed to
address these issues. Debates in architectural theory
will be transformed.

5. • ORIGINAL TEXT
“Original” texts are made up mostly of architectural treatises written
by significant historical architects, such as, Alberti, Palladio, and
Loos, who established foundational theoretical propositions made
evident in their built works.
• REFLECTIVE TEXT
“Reflective” texts are represented by author–architects, such as,
Banham, Eisenman, Venturi, and Pallasmaa, who placed the ideas
and buildings found in the previous category under particular
scrutiny, paving the way for more self-conscious, more critical
transformations of architectural theory.
• PHILOSOPHICAL TEXT
“Philosophical” texts are more challenging to classify and, in many
cases, are the origins of a new “thesis.” They represent a synthetic,
critical eye toward both the history and the future of architecture..
• The goal is to open up questions that have relevance to one, as an
architectural student, and that will remain significant as we
continue debating a discipline

6. DIALECTICAL READINGS IN
ARCHITECTURE:TECTONICS

7. SIMPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY

8. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSIONS
1. Of the two images above, which better represents the concept of “simplicity” in architecture? Which
better represents “complexity” in architecture? Why?
2.What are the various definitions and connotations of the terms “simplicity” and “complexity” in
architecture? What are the characteristics of an architecture of simplicity? What are the
characteristics of an architecture of complexity?
3.Which is more appropriate in architecture today, simplicity or complexity?

9. INTRODUCTION
• In 1958, Peter Blake—American architect, critic, educator,
editor of Architectural Forum ,and once-director of New York’s
Museum of Modern Art—wrote that “the only trouble with a
simple little word like ‘simple’ is that so many people think it
is synonymous with ‘easy.’ In real life, of course, ‘simple’
often means ‘difficult.’”
• Blake wrote about Le Corbusier, Phillip Johnson, Frank Lloyd
Wright, Marcel Breuer, Ulrich Franzen, and other proponents
of Modernist architecture and minimalism. Most notably,
however, it is in “The Difficult Art of Simplicity” that Blake
made the aforementioned statement and extensively
discussed the work of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Regarding
Mies’s use of the structural steel frame, Blake wrote, “Mies’s
system of simplicity...is one of the most important resources
architecture can claim.”

10. IS ARCHITECTURE SIMPLE OR
COMPLEX?
• Architecture is influenced by a wide array
of issues: tectonics, use, and site; aesthetic
and economic trends; architect–client–public
relationships; conventions and innovations;
and a variety of other factors. With this
diversity of issues, and the conflicts among
them, one might say that architecture is
inherently “complex.”

11. “A building is simple not because its shapes
conformto elementary geometry, not because
all of it is immediately visible, or because the
logic is evident in its connections, but
because all its parts voice their
necessity...reciprocally.”

12. • As stated by Adrian Forty, “‘Simple’ must be
one of the most over worked words in
the architectural vocabulary.”
• While hundreds of architects, critics, and
architectural educators have argued
vehemently for “an architecture of simplicity”
or “an architecture of complexity,” the debate
is no more resolved today than it was a
century ago

13. ORNAMENT AND AUSTERITY

14. INTRODUCTION
• With The Emergence Of Technology, Economic
And Scientific Mindset Of The Late 1800s,
Ornament Itself Was Called Into Question
• Ornament And Crime By Adolf Loos
• Ornament Equals Crime
• In What Ways Is The Debate Of “Ornament Vs
Austerity” Relevant To Architecture Today?

15. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION
•Of the two images above, which better represents the concept of “ornament”
• in architecture today? Why?
•What are the various definitions and connotations of the term “ornament” in
architecture? For example, how is “ornament” similar or different from terms like
decoration, application, integration, function etc
•How is or is not “ornament” an appropriate concept or term in architecture today?

16. ORIGINAL TEXT:ADOLF LOSS,
“ORNAMENT AND CRIME”
• The evolution of culture is synonymous with
the removal of ornamentation from objects of
everyday use
• Crime that leads to waste of human labour,
money and materials
• Ornament means wasted labor and therefore
wasted health

17. REFLECTIVE TEXT: REYNER BANHAM,
“ORNAMENT AND CRIME: THE
DECISIVE CONTRIBUTION OF ADOLF
LOSS”
• Modern ornament has neither forebears nor
descendents, no past and no future
• Ornament equals crime

18. PHILOSOPHICAL TEXT: JOSEPH
RYKWERT, “ORNAMENT IS NO CRIME”
• Modesty, French academy dictionary defines,
“is a great ornament of merit”
• That which is beautiful does not need
decoration, since it decorates
• Not as a problem of ornament or not
ornament, but as a problem of meaning

19. HONESTY AND DECEPTION

20. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSIONS

21. 1.Of the two images above, which better represents the
concept of “honesty” in architecture? Which better
represents “deception” in architecture? Why?
2.What are the various definitions and connotations of
the terms “honesty” and “deception” in architecture?
What are the characteristics of an architecture of
honesty? What are the characteristics of
an architecture of deception?
3.Which is more appropriate in architecture today,
honesty or deception?

22. INTRODUCTION
• Honesty is the best policy
• Ruskin articulated three types of deceits:
Structural deceit
The suggestion of a mode of structure or support,
other than the true one
Surface deceits
The painting of surfaces to represent some other
material than that of which they actually consist..
Operative deceits
The use of cast or machine made ornament of any kind

23. MATERIAL AND IMMATERIAL

24. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSIONS

25. 1.Of the two images above, which better represents
“material” expression in architecture? Which better
represents the concept of “immaterial” architecture?
Why?
2.What are the various definitions and connotations of
the terms “material,”“materiality,” “immaterial,” and
“immateriality” in architecture? What are the
characteristics of an architecture of materiality? What
are the characteristics of an architecture
of immateriality?
3.Which is more appropriate in architecture today,
materiality or immateriality?

26. JONATHON HILL, “EXCERPTS FROM
IMMATERIAL ARCHITECTURE”
• Architecture is expected to b solid, stable
reassuring-physically, socially and
psychologically
• The architectural and the material are
considered inseparable
• The current over-emphasis on the intellectual
and conceptual dimensions of architecture
contributes to the disappearance of its
physical, sensual and embodied essence

27. • Contemporary architecture needed to
intensify material qualities of weight, texture
and time
• This heightened interest in “materiality”- the
experienced “reality” of materials- led to a
search for complementary properties of
“immateriality”