ABSTRACT
Exploring theory by studying its composition is a basic step in starting to comprehend it, and examining its elements, characteristics and foundational paradigms begins to accomplish this. Yet it is also possible to learn a great deal about theory by investigating its place as one among many subjects that constitute architecture. Looking at the associations that theory has with different subjects in the field enables us to see the role it assumes as well as beginning to grasp the nature of its relationships to these other subjects, providing insight about the realms that each addresses and how they interact. While there are many beneficial understandings that are able to be realized from this approach, one of the most basic is that the subject of theory can be broadly described in two ways: either it is understood to be contained within other subjects because it is able to be identified in the explanation of the subject, or it is perceived as a subject in its own right. Recognizing the ability to realize it in both these conditions not only differentiates theory but also allows us to address its unique place in design. If we identify theory within other subjects, we recognize that it is possible for it
to be a part of everything from structures to aesthetics as the content of each subject is typically communicated through an organized explanation. In other words, the material is often shared or presented in an ordered fashion, which relays a particular view of it. It is possible to see such an approach as theoretical in nature because of the ability of this explanation to not provide just an array of material but also clarify the subject. References such as “color theory” or texts such as “Theory of Structures” go beyond vague indications and make a clear connection between theory and the specific material as they communicate the information in a deliberate way.1 These discussions about topics usually unfold in a fashion that has some logic or control and can be seen to take on particular perspectives. Subjects are not simply a loose
grouping of miscellaneous data but are typically described with a coherent and thoughtful approach. The organizations aim to introduce or employ a framework for understanding the material, which we will see is able to be associated with Livingston’s “line of inquiry.” In this light, the subject of theory can be perceived to play a critical role in other subjects in the discipline. In addition, the subject of theory can be identified yet again in specific instances
within subjects as these may be understood to include-even largely consist oftheorems that capture small but critical explanations about content and methods. That is, rules and formulas used commonly throughout the discipline are theorems that are continually referenced, tested and revised as needed. This is seen in investigations of structures that are communicated through fundamental principles about the strength of materials and systems or rules about environmental controls that relay the most recent developments in regulating building comfort. These theorems can be grouped and categorized to stand as explanations that are able to be relied on and are representative of the best clarifications available currently, but there is always the understanding that these theorems are studied with an eye toward improvement. While these smaller activities of theorizing can be distinguished from the theorizing that provides an overview of a subject, they operate as a family of clarifications as they employ a similar line of inquiry. Understanding that theorizing is able to be detected within subjects recognizes the distinct role that the subject of theory is able to play. The presence of theory in other subjects often remains overlooked but our ability to see it demonstrates a pervasiveness and influence that is important to grasping it. While theorizing and theorems are able to be identified within other topics, our
most common understanding of the subject of theory in architecture is as an accepted body of work in its own right. As its own subject, our ordinary conception of theory references explanatory perspectives that attempt to clarify design in a comprehensive manner rather than only attending to limited scopes of concern. Theory may even be accurately characterized as an attempt to provide the best overall clarification of architecture, or at least a clarification that offers something of note or significance. By understanding theory in architecture as clarifications that speak to general, overarching views of the discipline, a broad and inclusive approach to this subject is established. This perspective introduces relationships to a number of topics that can be seen to have this similar breadth. History, design and criticism have comparable approaches and roles in the discipline, taking on activities such as explaining, reasoning and contemplating design undertakings with a wider perspective in mind. While the specific tasks of these subjects may be arguably distinct, there are close relationships between them. Exploring these sheds light on not only the subjects themselves but also the entire network of subjects within the field. Specifically, distinctions and similarities identified between theory and topics
such as history, design and criticism allow us to comprehend vital connections and interactions, grasping the roles of each along with why and how they operate with one another. To this point, discussions such as this one seem to support a perception that architecture is composed of a collection of independent subjects that are clearly
distinguishable from one another. Yet these areas should not be thought of as isolated and able to be individually contained because the contents of these areas overlap in a wide variety of combinations. While it is typically assumed that theories are clarifications, histories are documentations of past events, design is an activity that proposes changes and criticism reviews this work, it can also be understood that histories can be viewed as critiques, theories can be tested in designs and the process of design involves criticism. With this understanding along with the understanding that theory can be identified throughout a wide range of subjects, the complexity of these relationships becomes apparent. There is always a tendency to cast each of these subjects as bodies that have some autonomy, but the idea that they are separate entities with strict boundaries existing between them is a misleading one. Examining these areas in light of one another not only allows their purposes and roles to be understood in relation to one another but also discloses their connections and intersections. Their parameters may be blurred, but the recognition of differences provides a way to better comprehend the subjects. An assessment of this type establishes new insight about how the subject of theory is able to be recognized and operate in the discipline.
