Frances to William belatedly with respect... (1) Architecture has agreeably been more costly and collaborative than most other kinds of ventures, but perhaps no more now than the making of motion pictures or nuclear submarines. (2) To classify architecture intrinsically as some kind of art may not be accepted as a global status by many learned experts in the field, although there does seem to be a consensus of opinion that architectures must be aesthetic to a high degree, if not artistic. (3) The fact of evolving "continuity" in the history of architecture does indeed seem to be important, therefore the role of this tectonic continuum as an iconic sign of formal similarity might be pivotal to its study. (4) If a philosophic generality is not possible for theorizing about all of architecture, then some kind of philosophic relativism might be more appropriate, so that several theories would prevail simultaneously or as required. (5) The role of theory does seem to have a place in architecture, if not aesthetically for artistic purposes, then technically for practical purposes, because buildings must be not only nice but also safe for humans. This raises the further issue of whether theory comes before or during or after the experience of sensing and making architecture, and potentially deeming it art; or if tendency comes before practice and then practice comes before theory, with theory feeding back to tendency in the spirit of evolution. (6) To theorize is basically to use words in talking about the field, therefore the theory is in the signs, and so semiotics may be the best approach to making a theory of architecture. (7) A good theory of architecture is culled from the determined truth of real architecture that is sensed, and so its theory must be derived from the habits of human conduct, which acts or deeds when repeated regularly and routinely will become sound laws that in turn are applied to sensible facts. A good theory therefore is not a speculative guess or a conjectural hypothesis, but rather is based on the true laws of real facts. The current theory of say gravity is a successful case in point, although in its present form it may be applicable to bodies only in limited spheres like solar systems or universal galaxies. It may be of course that some kind of philosophic relativism might be more appropriate in making many theories of architecture under some global umbrella, rather than a philosophic generality. This may be better than simply discarding theory altogether as having no role to play in architecture whatsoever. (8) The polemic material and mental states of human beings is blended and well defined by pragmatist semiotics, in that the mind is deemed to a brain full of signs, and that the brain is held to be a body full of senses, and that the body is found to be a being full of spirits, where the spirits are simply the evolutionary mechanisms of life that makes living organisms into live souls. In this way it can be justly claimed that nonliving "dead" matter is effete mind that engages in quasi thought for purposes of continuance.
You wrote... Because architecture, like other art, cannot be made on demand, like shoes or hats, it is pointless and utterly doomed to attempt any global definition of it by any means whatsoever unless one is willing to degrade the term to fit any building effort. The one aspect of architecture that is good to trace is the evolution of architectural style because it develops slowly over a long period of time and with luck one can find evidence of its various stages. Again, let it sink in, architecture cannot be made on demand. You partly wrote... I really like this discussion of architecture, but I do think any aim for a universal theory of its necessary and sufficient conditions or practices is doomed. A style or a practice can be defined and perfected, but the elusive condition of art, architecture as art, cannot be done by recipe, it cannot be done on demand. Not even Leonardo or Michelangelo could presume to make art on demand. First the work must be made and then, somehow, or never, it is said to be art. No exceptions. You also partly wrote... Frances wants to explore a theory of architecture, but the parameters she sets are too rigid, and open to dispute. For example, the mind-body split is obsolete in the most current philosophical and scientific investigations. Also, to say something is like a bridge between the objective and the subjective is to say nothing beyond a tautology, since we can't fully examine either state by itself. Every thought and experience is both objective and subjective. All being, consciousness, is the bridge. Finally, we can't say we want to define the necessary and sufficient properties of architecture by using terms that are themselves beyond definition, like art, or by assuming those properties to be global, and therefore static, while admitting that they are not static, but variable in both subjective and objective ways. It makes far better sense to try to define the properties of a specific type, function, or style, device, or materials, of architecture. For example, why is the use of the pendentive considered an innovative trait of byzantine architecture when it was used by the ancient Romans, too? Or, is there an American style of architecture?
