Frances to Chris... It seems to me that in making a theory of architecture some underlying continuant paradigms must be subliminally at work in mind, for both the theoretical thinker and the practical designer. Some of those paradigm belief systems would be given to mind by nature intrinsically as innate dispositional tendencies, such as inclined beliefs in community and morality; while others would be nurtured by culture interpretively as determined or deliberated tendencies, such as inclined beliefs in polity and deity. These natural and cultural paradigms in being allowed to continue must however be constantly assessed or cleansed and even purged or replaced, perhaps by such processes as interpretation and deconstruction.
My main cultural paradigm of choice in attempting to theorize architecture is philosophy, and tentatively the angloamerican philosophy of realist pragmatism, along with its objective relativism and evolutionary fallibilism. The main philosophy preferred is that brand of realism called idealist realism, which further supports its branch of naturalist pragmatism. This kind of idealism posits a world of infinite continuity. Its realism then posits a continuing world of action. Its naturalism posits a cause to action. Its pragmatism posits a purpose to action. Its objectivism posits a world independent of life and matter as effete mind. Its relativism posits a contextual ground in which objects are related to subjects. Its subjectivism allows some psychologism to account for desire in seeking truth. The main cultural paradigm of choice for most members on this list however seems to be absolutely that of subjective relativism and cognitive psychologism. It could therefore be asked of course whether any good philosophy might be currently available to frame a global theory of architecture, or even if any philosophy should be used at all, or if perhaps some kind of philosophic pluralism might be best. The problems to be addressed before any theory of architecture might be attempted turn mainly on the differences found to occur between art and science, and then on aesthetic and artistic issues. Perfect ideals seem to exist and continue in the world objectively, independent of life and sense and mind, such as infinity and continuity for example. Whether there are perfect aesthetic ideals like beauty and unity that continue in the world objectively and independent of mind is debatable, even if this originating status is of concern at all. If there are perfect aesthetic ideals, made in matter or made in mind, then they exist as objects and are sensed as real ideals, thus at least the reality of an ideal is a mental construct. The metaphysical forms in objects like complexity and intensity and simplicity are likely objective ideals, but their assignment as real aesthetic ideals in works of art may indeed be a subjective determination. The further issue is whether formal aesthetic ideals include only aesthetic forms of beauty or can there also be aesthetic forms of say ugliness and shock and evil and so on. Another pressing issue is whether any identified aesthetic ideals like artistic forms can be shared among artists or designers in the planning and making of their works. The fields of archeology and archology along with the studies of archetypes and architectonics have been suggested to me as a possible scientific and philosophic basis for exploring any architectural theory. The definitions of science and philosophy as well as aesthetics and art of course have yet to be fully probed. Chris wrote... Who is qualified to determine normal architecture as Frances defines it, i.e. "the ideal norm and this normative norm is simply what ought to be"? Regarding issues of safety, cost, longevity, I'm sure that many professional consultants would qualify on the basis of testable knowledge of structure, materials, competitive economic conditions, etc. But what about aesthetics? Is it even possible for an ideal norm to be shared? Has anyone here known anyone else who shared his or her ideal aesthetic norms of architecture? I never have. I just wrote a review of the new Modern Wing of the Art Institute. I hated it, everybody else loves it, but for a variety of different reasons.
