(Student’s Full Name)
According to Mark Linder defining the discipline of architectural theory can only be perceived as a “general” and “wholly trivial matter” (167). The scholar posits that the practice of architecture should be emphasized more than the theoretical discourse. However, it should be noted that he does not support the complete separation of “criticism from practice” (Linder 168). On the other hand, Mark Wigley argues that both the practice and theoretical discourse of architecture are inextricably linked; and, therefore, both should be given equal priority. Wigley posits that the theoretical discourse of architecture provides an argument that is constructed with the help of a “sound thesis” (Wigley 9). Therefore, it is clear that both scholars provide differing opinions as it pertains to the discussion of disciplinarity in architecture. Linder presents the argument that architecture should focus more on the practice rather than the theory since to do otherwise would prove to be futile. Nevertheless, Wigley contends that there will be no practice of architecture without the theoretical discourse providing a foundation or positioning for this practice.
Linder contends that when an individual attempts to have a theoretical approach to architecture then it will cause that individual to “explain architecture” by “invoking methods, terms, and concepts” that only appear to be slightly “architectural” (167). Furthermore, the academic argues that rather than completely “separate criticism from practice” the focus of the discipline of architecture should be more on the practice rather the theoretical discourse (Linder 168). Linder explains that an architect should be allowed to be “architectural” in their “formulation of theory” instead of being “theoretical in their formulation of architecture” (168). When this approach is taken, the scholar argues, then “architectural theory” will be perceived as an “activity with strong resemblances to the practice of architectural design” (Linder 168). Therefore, the architect should be able to answer to the question of what he does as instead of who he is as one.
Conversely, Wigley posits that, as it pertains to the disciplinarity of architecture, equal emphasis needs to be placed on theory and practice. The scholar argues that philosophy and/or theoretical discourse goes hand in hand with the practice of architecture. This is because, as the academic argues, an architectural discourse provides a thesis, which positions a particular perspective or creates “a standing in a place” supporting a particular viewpoint (Wigley 9). Wigley’s argument is supported by the Greek definition of thesis, which is “‘placing’” or “‘position’” (qtd. in Wigley 9). In other words, the theoretical discourse in architecture provides a solid footing or “‘placing’” that helps to define “place” (qtd. in Wigley 9).
In conclusion, Linder and Wigley offer differing opinions as it pertains to the disciplinarity of architecture. Linder posits that the discipline of architecture should focus more on the practice of architecture rather than the theoretical discourse. On the other hand, Wigley contends that the disciplinarity of architecture should focus equally on theory and practice. This is because architectural theory allows an architect to create a firm “‘position’” for her viewpoint (qtd. in Wigley 9).
Works Cited
Linder, Mark. “Architectural Theory is no Discipline.” Strategies in Architectural Thinking. Ed. John E. M. Whiteman, Jeffrey Kipnis, and Richard Burdett. Chicago, IL: Chicago Institute for Architecture and Urbanism, 1992. Print.
Wigley, Mark. “Prosthetic Theory: The Discipline of Architecture.” Assemblage 15 (1991): 7-29. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
