Book:
Nesbitt, Kate. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. (New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.)
Review:
Davies, Colin. “Academic Constructs: holding up in theory.” Architectural Journal 204, no. 10 (September 1996): 50.
Kate Nesbitt’s “Theorizing A New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory” is an overall reexamination of postmodern issues, compiled as a vast array of theoretical essays, in regards to disciplines such as phenomenology, deconstructivism, typology, and critical regionalism. The book includes a thorough introduction on the historical background behind the various topics and their importance on architectural theory today. One of the many reviews of this book was written shortly after the publishing of the anthology in 1996, titled “Academic Constructs: holding up in theory” by Colin Davies, a former editor of The Architects’ Journal. Many reviews, such as this one, have been made in regards to the book’s overall significance as a relevant source as well as its composition as a whole in terms of organization and thoroughness. This essay will serve as a comparison between the review of Colin Davies and my own personal review of the book as a significant and relevant source of postmodern criticism and why this anthology is pertinent to current and future architectural approaches.
The theory of architecture, and the critics who have written on these theories are a topic in which is hard to define or start to create a focus on. The field of theory defined in Nesbitt’s anthology is based on the challenging field of postmodern criticism on a variety of issues such as urban theory, historicism, and tectonic expression. While only utilizing a few authors for each subject, Nesbitt has created an anthology that does not condense the material, but emphasizes each piece as having an equal significance in the understanding of the theories discussed. The author’s role is much less of a theorist, but of a collector and organizer of important postmodern documentation. She does not form a type of opinion or views based on the readings, but provides a thorough overview of the important trends and theorists of the era. Davies approves of the idea of the book, which compiles critical research from the past, but speaks about how he felt that the introductions and the previews were dull. Davies essay expresses how he feels that the author’s role was too distanced from the writings, and that she should have took some opportunity to take a stance on the issues she is displaying. The overthought introductions, for Davies, lacked the essence of what each essay was doing; making a claim. Personally, I feel that the lack of attitude and opinion was a relief and an important break from the critical, analytic work that she presents.
One of the most defining differences in my personal review of Nesbitt’s anthology, and that of Davies, is the way in which she structures the organization of the book as a whole. I found the book to be quite organized and well thought out. In terms of researching on a specific topic, the chapters helped to delineate specific articles under a general conceptual idea, whether or not they agreed or not. Each chapter held a variety of works by vital architects and critics, whose focus was similar, but opinion on the matter was sometimes different. Before each essay is a brief description by Nesbitt that helps to summarize the sometimes lofty and pretentious writings that follow. This is extremely useful to the student or any reader to better clarify and reiterate the main points of the writing. The introduction of the entire book helps to give a basic analysis on postmodern thought, without trying to overcomplicate the process. This is where Davies and I disagree entirely. Davies biggest criticism of Nesbitt’s anthology was how overly complicated she organized it. Davies argues that the book has too many headings and subsequent sub-heading and so on and so forth. The introductions of each piece are overly repetitive and exhausting for the reader, while the overall book introduction is confusing rather than illuminating.
For my own personal research, Kate Nesbitt’s book was a thorough overview of postmodern thoughts by some of the most vital and poignant critics. The book includes essays by Robert Venturi, Peter Eisenman, Bernard Schumi, and many others. The discipline and study of typology, which I am particularly interested in, was thoroughly investigated from various points of view, making it an extremely useful resource. The review written by Davies agrees that this book is valuable to the study of postmodernist views, but criticizes the variety of authors that Nesbitt covers in the compilation. Davies argues that authors are sometimes repeated in different chapters creating confusion, and that some of the most pivotal critics and essays of postmodern theory were not given the emphasis they deserve. Davies essay also sees this collected work as important because postmodernism and its critics are now looked upon a past era, which this book helps to preserve the history of that given time. Because my current research is being directly correlated to the ideas of postmodernist thought, I would disagree that this is plainly historical, but still a prevalent thought into contemporary research and knowledge.
Nesbitt’s “Theorizing A New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory” does its best to organize and create a thorough anthology of architectural theory. At its least, it can prove as a basic jumping-off point for further research into the topics of postmodern thought. Its importance as a historical, and in my opinion, a relevant contemporary source are one which will provide students and professors with the necessary insight into the thoughts and criticisms of the past which may very well influence the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment