to an insistent self-criticism.’^3 These sentiments could easily be readdressed to the
context of architecture. As such they would reflect the premise of this volume. The
ageing of modern architecture, one might argue, should not drive architects back to the
escapism of ‘obsolete forms’, but should lead them instead to an ‘insistent self-criticism’.
In other words, a critical reappraisal might show architecture a way forward. Yet such a
suggestion immediately raises two fundamental questions. How might architecture enact
this ‘insistent self-criticism’? How might architecture acquire the tools to perform this
self-criticism?
Clearly this self-criticism must come from the domain of theory, since theory, as
Gilles Deleuze has observed, ‘is exactly like a box of tools’.^4 Yet, arguably, architectural
theory has been deficient in the very tools of self-criticism. As the contents of this
volume reveal, once caught in the full glare of external critique, architectural theory is
exposed for all its shortcomings. These external critiques employ precisely the tools that
architecture itself needs. By testing itself against a broader cultural debate, architecture
might hope to acquire these tools of self-criticism. By engaging with the theoretical
debates traditionally perceived as being ‘outside’ its domain, architecture might therefore
become more rigorous in its own self-criticism.
For architecture to open up to impulses from other disciplines need not be thought of
as an indulgence. On the contrary, the indulgence may lie in architecture’s failure in the
past to engage substantively with other disciplines. Architecture is not the autonomous art
it is often held out to be. Buildings are designed and constructed within a complex web of
social and political concerns. To ignore the conditions under which architecture is
practised is to fail to understand the full social import of architecture. Furthermore, only
an extreme positivist would claim that our reception of the built environment is not
mediated by consciousness. The refusal to address the ways in which this mediation takes
place is a refusal to address the full question of architecture.
Traditionally, architectural discourse has been largely a discourse of form. In general
it has been dominated by debates that revolve around questions of style. These debates
have tended to be grounded on little more than moralistic arguments that seek their
authority in terms such as ‘sincerity’ and ‘appropriateness’. Such debates have been
trapped within the realm of symptoms. Invariably they have failed to probe any further,
and to investigate the underlying causes. Architectural discourse, in other words, has
operated largely at a superficial level. The extracts selected here, however, seek to
transcend the limitations of such an approach. They offer a variety of depth models that
explore the way in which architecture might be perceived, and that attempt to expose the
forces by which the built environment is generated. Architectural form can be seen to be
the result of deeper concerns, as Siegfried Kracauer acknowledges:
Spatial images are the dreams of society. Wherever the hieroglyphics of
any spatial image are deciphered, there the basis of social reality presents
itself.^5Architecture is the product of a way of thinking. If the problems of architecture are to be
traced to their roots, then attention needs to be focused on the thinking and considerations
that inform its production. Material included in this volume has been selected to address
these questions. The contents have been divided into five sections—Modernism;