Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Architecture as a Strong Discipline

Architecture as a Strong Discipline In the context of disciplinary blurrings and redefinitions, this essay interrogates the project of autonomy in architecture. It asks whether the need for a strong definition of the discipline of architecture necessarily means that it is defined in the traditional Kantian transcendental sense. Four alternatives to this strong definition are essayed: an appeal to moral autonomy; a rejection of autonomy in the name of cultural and historical continuity; a dialectical or quasi-autonomy; and finally the supposed overturning of critical autonomy in Somol and Whiting’s Doppler-effect paper. All these positions proceed on the basis of the concept of unity, and in conclusion, the work of Deleuze and Foucault is utilized to undermine this prejudice and to suggest another way to define architecture as a strong discipline: as a resilient formation, an open and forever problematic set of relations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Architecture and Culture Taylor & Francis

Architecture as a Strong Discipline

Architecture and Culture , Volume 1 (1): 22 – Nov 1, 2013

Architecture as a Strong Discipline

Architecture and Culture , Volume 1 (1): 22 – Nov 1, 2013

Abstract

In the context of disciplinary blurrings and redefinitions, this essay interrogates the project of autonomy in architecture. It asks whether the need for a strong definition of the discipline of architecture necessarily means that it is defined in the traditional Kantian transcendental sense. Four alternatives to this strong definition are essayed: an appeal to moral autonomy; a rejection of autonomy in the name of cultural and historical continuity; a dialectical or quasi-autonomy; and finally the supposed overturning of critical autonomy in Somol and Whiting’s Doppler-effect paper. All these positions proceed on the basis of the concept of unity, and in conclusion, the work of Deleuze and Foucault is utilized to undermine this prejudice and to suggest another way to define architecture as a strong discipline: as a resilient formation, an open and forever problematic set of relations.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/architecture-as-a-strong-discipline-dPc840L01D

References (78)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2013 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2050-7836
eISSN
2050-7828
DOI
10.2752/175145213X13760412749953
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In the context of disciplinary blurrings and redefinitions, this essay interrogates the project of autonomy in architecture. It asks whether the need for a strong definition of the discipline of architecture necessarily means that it is defined in the traditional Kantian transcendental sense. Four alternatives to this strong definition are essayed: an appeal to moral autonomy; a rejection of autonomy in the name of cultural and historical continuity; a dialectical or quasi-autonomy; and finally the supposed overturning of critical autonomy in Somol and Whiting’s Doppler-effect paper. All these positions proceed on the basis of the concept of unity, and in conclusion, the work of Deleuze and Foucault is utilized to undermine this prejudice and to suggest another way to define architecture as a strong discipline: as a resilient formation, an open and forever problematic set of relations.

Journal

Architecture and CultureTaylor & Francis

Published: Nov 1, 2013

Keywords: Deleuze; Somol; Kant; relation; autonomy; avant-garde; Eisenman

There are no references for this article.