A theory on theory

Theories are subjective. Human beings create theories in order to explain things that they do not understand. Everything is inherently a theory because there are no certainties. In the realm of architecture there are many theories and most of them are in relation to the environment and the way that human beings interact with their environments. Architecture that is defined in psychology, and sociology. In understanding theory we are not obliged or required to follow any degree of correctness but we should follow guidelines. Theories only obligation is to understand the thought process of our predecessors and either disapprove or build on others' knowledge. This process is what we call a discourse. The equivalent would be the scientific method as it pertains to medicine and other focuses of science.

The goal of architecture and the theory that is associated with the practicing architect is that of creating environments for the use of others. Experience is reliant on perception which is a learned attribute that is interpreted during childhood and is developed as we get older. All statements having to do with the discourse of architecture must be deconstructed and defined in their syntax. The theories that define architecture validates the architect as a profession. Validation becomes necessary in a social context where all professions become subjected to rigor. Rigor is important because in a world where resources are limited it is It is important to know that there are redundancies. Assuring that tasks that could be easily done by anyone aren’t being allotted to any one person who is essentially doing nothing . Because the existentialism of architecture at times contradicts the philosophy of architecture we will focus on aesthetics, function and repercussions that define architecture. By limiting the conversation we will more easily able to argue what architecture is, and the function of the architect.

Aesthetics is where we find the most glamorous and often the most sought-after element of architecture. We often find ourselves trying to find what is the aesthetic of a specific architecture and understand what defines what is beautiful and what is dynamic in a specific work. To some the only thing that is beautiful are ideas that are democratic. Ideas that have function to the mechanism. The aesthetics of a building are promotional, they serve the function of attention.

(The driving force of modern architecture was a scientific one. Ideology was “sentimental”, “symbolic” and “of fantasy”. The ideology of the architect was a call to duty as the profit and savior of the common man. Cheaply constructing a utopia became a glimmer of light to progress.) Colon Row

In contradiction aesthetics, because it is separated from function inherently serves no function. This does not mean that aesthetics should not be taken into account in design, there is a degree of divinity and dress in design. The act of thinking of what is beautiful is beautiful. Why do we paint a church gold, why do we believe that things that present themselves in nature should be reflected in the built environment? Of course, because beauty is an objective topic we must refer to psychology. Human beings develop their understanding schemas based on their personal experiences and based on their limitations and advantages. People develop these schemas because the individual develops their own theories and test these theories and develop based on the outcome of testing their own theories. (Schematizations are stereotypes that fit our perception and eventually become fossilized.) Norberg Schultz describes the concept of “an open-minded elderly person as a beautiful concept,” but emphasizes the rarity. The schema does not only pertain to the perception of culture but also the motor sensory apparatus. Children draw a line based on the preconceived notion of what a line is. A line on a paper will be a reference, that is copied, and correct based on that original reference. In art Euclidean systems where rarely seen until the renaissance periods but there was the knowledge to create straight lines. The social understanding of perception becomes evident when referencing other societies such as the Chinese and Zuni cultures as it has to do with color. The schema is attached to feeling and the feeling is dictated by the culture. Persons definition of beauty generally does not have to do with function but the closeness an object has to an ideal. There are physical reactions which do not have to do with the schema. The reaction a human being would have to looking directly at the sun causing discomfort. Certain colors create the same reaction due to their physical properties. We make associations to those properties and define objects based off of the degree of discomfort they give us. For some discomfort is not a property of what is not beautiful or aesthetically pleasing thus the discourse continues, to what is a beautiful thing.

Similarly, function has to do with what makes human beings more adaptable. In architecture we use spaces to further ability to live in more unforgiving environments. We have become the extremophiles of the animal kingdom. We can live in any environment just by creating a skin of systems. We only have to press the question: does it make it easier for us to live in that specific environment.

The theory that goes behind functionality generally has data proofs of how well we live in those environments. We use algorithms and other data in order to prove and disprove what comfort and other parameters of everyday life. What would be the most suitable environment for human beings to live in? There is not a perfect environment for human beings as we have not discovered any form of design immortality.

Ideas continue to be expressed in the form of new technologies. Technologies are possible because of the theories we test. As humans we evolve around these technologies depending on the sophistication of skin we surround ourselves with to make our lives bearable. Theory as it has to do with functionality brings up the question of how to do it better. We do this to increase the quality of life. The theoretical solutions to our problems can be holistic and understanding of the human body as a whole. We must include the mind, suggesting that architects have the obligation to understand the mind and the body in order to better serve those who they are constructing for. Our ultimate goal is to better serve those around us.

The repercussions of negligence and ignoring an ultimate goal (philosophy) could ultimately be a disservice to humanity. We refer to historical context (precedent) as to not make the same mistakes as our predecessors. We are bound by social convention to what it is that we believe as a society was a negative effect. Catastrophes dictates code and building regulations that we follow day-to-day in our architectural practices. People begin to follow religions or codes of law for similar reasons to supplement their understanding of the difference between correctness and incorrectness. These repercussions are the theory that these new rules will solve and prevent all future catastrophes from occurring.

There are no absolute truths and because of this we have theories. People follow ideologies and philosophies through government, theology, science, psychology, education, economics and art. We dedicate our lives around an idea and follow those who have similar ideologies to our own. Those whose ideas most closely explain a subjective path in life become experts. At times prophetic human beings develop ideologies that can be followed and emulated. In architecture those people who put pen to paper and share their ideas, and their theories with those who are willing to listen become those profits.

Corbusier, Venturi and Peter Eisenman designed and built pieces of architecture that were iconic and share their ideologies of how to best design for human comfort and humans need. None of these great architects ever stopped in the technical realm. There writings were never a punch list of materials or placement of objects, but a vast philosophy and sharing of knowledge based on a theory. This further illustrates the complexity of the contradiction of human beings.

The understanding of the construction, function, aesthetics became focuses of the greatest minds of architecture. We have not stopped at is creating boxes for human beings to inhabit. Efficiency, as a whole society, mental awareness of our environments and how we are best suited to live in them all develop through theory. Rules that simplify what it is that human beings need in order to create better and more fulfilling lives. We revert to the primal desire of the ability to see your horizons through band windows and our ability to be more enclosed by our environments with roof gardens and biophilic sceneries . The technical use of piloti, open floor plan and facade to tame the wild environment. We do not know if these elements ensure us to have an ideal life, we can only predict that they will and hold ourselves to a standard.